Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Experimentalist vs. Theoretician

  1. Feb 3, 2004 #1
    One Raven, Antonio Lao, and ??


    From my dictionary:

    Experimentalist = One who tests a known truth, examines the validity of a hypothesis, or tests to determine the efficacy of something previously untried.

    Theoretician = One who formulates or analyzes theories; speculates on a systematically organized body of knowledge.

    This does not do it for me. I would have used the words interchangably, and would have said that I am both. I respect the views of Antonio, so now I have doubt. Based on 1 Raven's post, I would have said I am a "#2". He described it as a difference in approach, with understanding of fundamental truths over-riding inventing a number system to match the results of testing. That I totally agree with. I do not believe probabilities have a place in real science. In theory, yes, because there is not yet complete understanding. But there is a future point where the last piece of data comes in and completes the picture, allowing accurate predictions to come forth. Cave men would have had a probability ratio for whether the Sun would come up the next day. We have one that says it will come up for x number of billion years. There should be a quantum similarity to these two ratios. Only from a stubborn (ego) viewpoint would one seem "wrong".

    While I would not say that we look like God, I do think the reference to "in his image" can mean our brain. Our brain can have a thought wave, which can be instantly (or faster) translated into a sound wave. Another human brain then receives it through the ears, and instantly re-converts to thought wave. The thought (idea) is malleable, it can be reflected, absorbed, of refracted (changed), just like all waves. We also have the ability to convert this to patterns of light and dark (alphabet), and commute the thought wave that way. Some brain researchers say we only use 10% of our mind. I think this is absurd (there are no spare parts in the Universe). It is more realistic to say we have understanding of 10% of its' functions and purpose. It is human Ego that makes declerations like that. There are many other forms of communication happening simultaneously to face to face talking. A multitude of body language, facial expressions, intonation, context, timing, contrasting background experiences, perceived values and social classification, prior non-related conversations with the other person, and prior related converstions with other people can all be transmitted and understood in the same instant. Certainly some people are better at these "other forms" of listening, and obviously, more organs than just the ears are being used in this process of "hearing".

    My point for going into thoughts-ideas is that we are simply looking for a language that can communicate our many different perceptions on the Universe. It can, and will be done. Not from closed rooms, but from open forums like this, and with minds that allow for different languages to loosely gel into shared understanding.

    LPF
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 3, 2004 #2
    8LPF16,

    You quoted "I do not believe probabilities have a place in real science."

    I am going to respond to this by starting with the evolution of the branch of physics: Thermodynamics.

    Thermodynamics started probably at the same time when the steam engine was invented. One of the impacts of the steam engine was on the railroad industries. All I can say is that societies progress tremendously after this discovery. Now I going to skip and jump to one of the key figures who developed a mathematical theory on steam. His name is Ludwig Boltzmann.

    Boltzmann's 'Lectures on Gas Theory' is considered as one of the great masterpieces of theoretical physics. This work contains a comprehensive exposition of the kinetic theory of gases. This is the beginning of modern statistical mechanics. All these are based on the calculus of probabilities.

    Probability is a mathematical reality. It is the determination of averages. For example, average height of a human being. This average can only be measured by the use of a sample population. To find the height of every human on earth is next to impossible.

    By this sample, an average is found. But this average could be wrong if applied to a different sample. A sample of all basketball players.

    So to comment on your quotation, what you mean is that probability is not applicable to a deterministic process of real science. But a majority of all processes in the real world are stochastic. I can even make the assertion that all processes are stochastic. If someone performs an experiment, one value is found. But repeated performance of the same experiment come up with different values. This is the mathematics of measurement. The value of Planck's constant was found the same way thru the existence of a probability distribution. There are many different kinds of probability distributions: error distribution, normal distribution, Gaussian distribution, exponential distribution, binomial distribution, gamma distribution, student-t distribution, discrete distributions, continuous distributions, Poisson distribution, bivariate distribution, and many more. All these distribution have an average value called the mean. This mean is the 'quantum' in quantum physics.

    Antonio
     
  4. Feb 3, 2004 #3
    Antonio,

    Aha! Now I think we have found a place of potential resolution.

    You are correct regarding my view on probability. Of course I am not saying that it does not exist, or that it is not critical to statistical analysis. Just accurate descriptions of "how things work" (physics), when 100% of data is known. Sort of like high kinetic probability = low potential knowledge.

    At the end of your post you said "All these distribution have an average value called the mean. This mean is the 'quantum' in quantum physics."

    I thought that GR dealt in average values and QM dealt in more exactness?

    If this is true, I would say that one of them has to go in order to unify these two philosophies. Otherwise ...

    The average male is 5'10".
    I am not a basketball player.
    How tall am I?

    With some logical thinking, you might say (theorize) that I am shorter than average, but still don't know my exact height. Nothing can replace accurate measurements, as long as you can trust the tool doing the measuring. I appear much taller on bad hair days! or, even the temperature of my body would cause slight change to my heighth.

    In a very complex system that "appears" chaotic to us, working with probabilities can save time, but does not further our understanding of the system. Only by "backing your camera up" (perspective change/GR), can you take in more data to complete the picture. Planck scales operate on the idea of having the camera as far back as possible, reducing lack of understanding by eliminating further possibilities.

    I thought I was using stoichiometry in finding the mathematical relationship between vibratory rates of sound and light, and developing a formula to better understand the photon? (since there is much more "experiments" done with sound resonance than with light interaction)


    LPF
     
  5. Feb 3, 2004 #4
    8LPF16,

    Dr. Mendel Sachs from his website at www.compukol.com says GR and QM cannot be unified for the following reasons:

    QM is probabilitic and linear.
    GR is field theoretic and nonlinear.

    These are two different math realities. I suggested to him that QM can be changed into nonlinear or GR can be linear. But he think this cannot be done. His words are that putting a feather on the hair of a lady does not change her into a chicken.

    There are no solution to a chaotic system. The weather is a chaotic system, and the weather bureau uses a supercomputer to come up with a very low percentage of prediction. It does take a long time for the computer to process all data. Planck scales can only be studied by the most powerful accelerators on earth at Fermilab and CERN. And they've been doing these kinds of work for many years. That's how they study the interior of the nucleons and the quarks. The dimension of nuclei varies from [tex]10^{-15}[/tex]m for the lightest and [tex]10^{-14}[/tex]m for the heaviest.

    What I am trying to do in unifying GR and QM is using the concept of two timelines.

    Antonio
     
  6. Feb 3, 2004 #5
    Antonio,

    The weather bureau is a great example of probabalistic worthlessness. Statistically, past 48 hrs, CHANCE has higher percentage of predicting the weather than their supercomputer!
    They are working on the "chaos", by increasing the number of data inputs, ie - 3D topography maps, airborne wind current detectors, etc. I think, based on the plans they have, they will DOUBLE the 48 hr prediction in the next two years. Chaos - chaos = "a little less than chaos". (a less than infinitely funny remark)


    Does your idea put one (QM & GR) with a particular timeline, or would they just always oppose each other, regardless of direction?

    LPF


    ps. here's a link to another "spacetime quantisization" theory.
    http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/book.pdf
    "LQG"
     
  7. Feb 4, 2004 #6
    8LPF16,

    I am still wondering why weather forecasters are still highly paid professions? The psychology of the human mind when faced with the unknown would rather have a number than nothing.

    The approach I used to unified QM and GR were outlined in the thread 'A Theory of Mass?' at theory development site. The quantized space formulation contains no explicit time variable. The continuous space formulation contains time in the time rate of change of area.

    From my own personal observations and researches, the purpose of both QM and GR is to measure the energy of 'something' either field or particle.

    QM tries to find this energy at the microscopic domain of physics.
    GR tries to find this energy at the macroscopic domain of phyiscs.

    The energy equation of QM is E=hf.
    The energy equation of GR is E=mc^2.

    The variables (f and m) are not used in their right places.

    Frequency (f) is a property of field, so it should be in GR, since GR is a nonlinear field theory.

    Mass (m) is a property of particle (quantum), so it should be in QM.

    To get around this misplacement of key variables, I have to redefined the concept of linear momentum. It is the ratio of quantized space over continuous space.

    The new energy formulation is [tex]\vec{a} \cdot \vec{r} = c^2[/tex]

    Antonio

    Postscript: The existence of acceleration (a) implies the existence of a force, the existence of a force implies the existence of energy, and the existence of energy implies the existence of mass.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2004
  8. Feb 4, 2004 #7
    Antonio,

    "The new energy formulation is a x r = c^2"

    This is what really caught my attention when I first started reading your threads. I learned the hard way, by trying to work with both equations (E=hf & E=mc^2) with values of the photon. Are you going to continue with this on "events and realities" thread, or ??

    I can't resist a little tirade on the start of your last post.

    "I am still wondering why weather forecasters are still highly paid professions?"

    Answer: the same reason as the rest of the "network news" people are paid up to seven digit salaries. When you look at the ratio of time spent (on air) covering topics like predicting weather (can't do it yet), sports (the people who really care saw the game), stocks (3% of our population controls 65% of market, and foreigners own around 25%), you don't have enough time to cover any other topic with the depth necessary for understanding. This is lies by omission. The Corporations that own the networks, politicians, weapon manufactureres, oil & gas, want to keep the heads of the citizens of the country that they control in a vacuum.

    "The psychology of the human mind when faced with the unknown would rather have a number than nothing."

    This is the achilles heel of all leaders of Church and State who make up things to stay in power - since the dawn of civilisation. Questions like why did the crops fail, or so and so die, can't be answered - yet silly stories and myths are promulgated. This is why the people collectively took this job from Religion and gave it to Science around 500 yrs ago. (Holy wars, inquisitions, witch burning, etc.) The collective unrest, however, still resides in the minds of all "developed" countries' citizens. When sciences' great theories are united, this will dissipate. That is why I am here, trying my best to help. I think the cause is much larger than the average Physics person realizes.

    LPF
     
  9. Feb 5, 2004 #8
    8LPF16,

    There are a lot of wisdom in your last post.

    Personally I can try to handle a small part of theoretical physics. I am at an age where most others have retired. But to me it's just the dawning of my possible intellectual contribution to a subject that I am passionate about.

    I am currently working on the continuation of

    [tex]\vec{a} \cdot \vec{r} = c^2[/tex]

    The different formulations of acceleration, I think, can be found. Maybe not all by me because of my limited knowledge on physics and math but by others in the future.

    If we use Newton 2nd law of motion, the acceleration is F/m, where F is the inertial force and m is the inertial mass. Substituting for a gives (F/m)r=c^2. This is just Einstein's E=mc^2, if we assume that Fr is the rest energy or potential energy.

    I am working on getting an expression for acceleration from Newton's law of universal gravitation, electromagnetic field, weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force.

    If I can do these then I have unified all the forces of nature in just one equation with different forms for acceleration.

    I probably will try to get it published in the physical journals and I know this is not an easy task.

    Antonio
     
  10. Feb 5, 2004 #9
    For the electromagnetic field, the acceleration is

    [tex]
    \vec{a} = \kappa \left( \vec{E} + \vec{v} \times \vec{B} \right)
    [/tex]

    where [tex] \kappa [/tex] is the charge to mass ratio.

    [tex]\vec{a} \cdot \vec{r} = c^2[/tex]

    becomes

    [tex]
    \left( \vec{E} + \vec{v} \times \vec{B} \right) \cdot \vec{r} = \frac{c^2}{\kappa}
    [/tex]
     
  11. Feb 5, 2004 #10
    For the gravitational acceleration,

    [tex]
    a = \sum_{j \neq i} \frac {G m_{j} \left( r_{j} – r_{i} \right) } { \vert r_{j} – r_{i} \vert^3 }
    [/tex]
     
  12. Feb 5, 2004 #11
    Antonio,

    Two questions:

    1. What is the G acceleration to EM field acceleration ratio?

    2. In your EM field acceleration equation, could a value of >1, or >0 be used for K ?


    LPF
     
  13. Feb 5, 2004 #12
    8LPF16,

    Answers:

    1. These accelerations are independent with no correlation for now. The ratio does not make any sense.

    2. k can be zero for all neutral particles. So this acceleration only make sense for charged particles where the charge-mass ratio is defined.

    I am still investigating these at this time. For what it's worth, these might all be wrong.

    Antonio

    Postscript:
    The meaning of acceleration is time rate of change of velocity. if acceleration is equal zero, the velocity is constant. Since photon in vacuum has constant velocity, its acceleration is always zero in vacuum.
     
  14. Feb 5, 2004 #13
    Antonio,

    If you solved for the values of an electron (or?) with the gravity acceleration and for the EM acceleration equations, would the answers have a symmetrical relationship, or just 2 very different numbers?

    Does a photon have a charge to mass ratio of 0 ? Could this be used for K in EM field accel. equation?

    Is the r (in a x r = c^2) for radius?


    LPF
     
  15. Feb 5, 2004 #14
    8LPF16,

    The acceleration is always associated with a force. The electron is affected by the gravity force because it has a mass. It is affected by the EM force because it has an electric charge. The charge to mass ratio for the electron is 1.758805exp11 C/kg.

    The photon charge to mass is zero, it cannot have any acceleration.

    r is the effective range of the acceleration.

    Antonio
     
  16. Feb 6, 2004 #15
    Antonio,


    I don't understand how to calculate "the effective range of the acceleration" ?


    LPF
     
  17. Feb 6, 2004 #16
    8LPF16,

    For the case of inertial acceleration given by a=F/m, such that

    [tex] \vec{F} \cdot \vec{r} = m c^2[/tex]

    the effective range of r is between 0 < r < infinity.

    Antonio
     
  18. Feb 7, 2004 #17
    Antonio,

    Thanks for the reply.

    You never really gave input on Experiment vs Theory. I think the difference is in the tools that are used. Ideas start, and then flow through the pipes of our conditioning. The path of least resistance is going with what you know best. So everyone has different and unique talents, and uses different tools to express them.


    LPF
     
  19. Feb 7, 2004 #18
    8LPF16,

    If I consider myself as a theoretician, I making the statement that the concept of acceleration is a physical reality.

    The reality of acceleration precedes the reality of force and energy.

    Acceleration does take different forms generating different forces.

    There are four accepted fundamental forces of nature.

    1. Gravity
    2. Electromagnetic force
    3. Strong nuclear force
    4. Weak nuclear force.

    In the previous posts, I gave the forms of acceleration for gravity and electromagnetism. I still don't know these make any sense. I am still investigating the ones for the strong and weak force. My hunch is these might be correlated to the concept of spin.

    It is up to the experimentalists to say whether I am right or wrong.

    The theoretical basis of acceleration is the Local Infinitesimal Motion (LIM) of space points. This motion is controlled by a principle of directional invariance.

    Antonio
     
  20. Feb 8, 2004 #19
    Antonio,


    I beiieve that form follows function in Nature. It seems to me that modeling (from imagination part of brain) is a good place to start on something that you can't see. This is like a theory, except with no formula. I can "see" anything that can be described, and the more descriptions we have, the better the image will be.

    In the realm of Physics, I am not an architect. I do not know all of the building codes. Specialists, or sub-contractors, know their world in an experiential way that the architect does not, but know little of each others worlds. I feel like the general contractor in this scene. They are mediators for these two different people, and have a little of both in them. The main point is that it takes all 3 of these groups to complete a worthwhile project.

    In the building analogy, this works out fine. But in Science, who is the general contactor? The public is the one who supports the budget, and will send customers (children) to learn the latest way. The problem is that these "little general contactors" are a generation away from mediating current theory. Said a better way, our system has no fast and reliable way to mediate information between the current practitioners of theory (sub contractors), and the designers of new and improved theories (plans).

    We have become a culture of specialists. Just 100 years ago, most academics could be near the top level in knowledge across the board in any field of study. Now 2 people from sub-branches of the same science have different languages that borrow from each other but often replace the definition with something else, and have trouble communicating.

    There is a strong correlation between the Physics world and the building industry. So many times I see the same argument: The people with "the new plan" saying it must be done this way, and the people "doing the plan" saying that conditions of reality (on site) will not allow it. The "do'ers" don't excell at new plans, and have a hard time formulating a plan B that will be understood by designers. Meanwhile, designers wonder why reality can't work out in precise numbers, and usually question the do'ers before they question the rules they were taught.


    LPF
     
  21. Feb 8, 2004 #20
    8LPF16,

    What we have here is a failure to communicate. But before we can even communicate, we have to speak exactly the same language. We use words to express our logic and emotion and even these words sometimes cannot express exactly how we feel or think.

    But mathematics has been known since ancient history to be one of the most exacting language that man has invented by the use of numbers. But recently I came to realize that the numbers of mathematics can't describe the concept of 'direction.' AT first, I thought the math of vector analysis is capable of describing 'direction' now I am having second thought.

    The closest math entity that is used to describe 'direction' is the concept of angle. In plane geometry, the angle between two lines is defined. In solid geometry, the solid angle is defined as an angle between two planes. These obviously are not the same kind of angles.
    In plane trigonometry, the sine and cosine functions are based on the existence of plane figure called triangles, which are made up of lines. But in spherical trigonometry, the solid angles have to be expressed by the sine and cosine functions, which are really function of lines and not of planes. So even in mathematics, there is no clear distinction between a line and a plane except its respective definitions (one-dim and 2-dim). But mathematics progresses without having to resolve these line-plane distinctions.

    We have complex numbers, hypercomplex numbers, quaternions, vector analysis, tensor analysis, differential geometry, differential forms, spinors, Clifford algebras, exterior algebras, etc. None of these higher math can describe what is 'direction' except by the use of angle between straight lines or between two planes.

    Antonio

    Postsript: The definition of a coordinate system is necessary for the concept of angles. Cartesian, polar, cylindrical, spherical, and curvilinear systems. All these belong to the math of transformations and mapping in functional analysis.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Experimentalist vs. Theoretician
  1. "which" vs "that" (Replies: 11)

Loading...