How Physics is Done: The Process of Formulating and Testing Theories

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Method Physics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the process of formulating and testing theories in physics, exploring how theoretical frameworks are developed and validated through experimentation. Participants engage in a conceptual examination of the nature of correctness in physics compared to mathematics, and the iterative relationship between theory and empirical evidence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that physics is a theoretical endeavor aimed at producing correct theories confirmed by experimentation, contrasting it with engineering as a practical endeavor.
  • Another participant challenges the notion of correctness in physics, arguing that it is not solely based on community acceptance but on the outcomes of practical experiments.
  • Some participants emphasize that while definitions in mathematics may be accepted as absolute, the relationships in physics can evolve with new empirical observations, citing the transition from Newtonian to relativistic mechanics as an example.
  • There is a proposal that scientific progress occurs through the disproving of theories rather than proving them, highlighting the importance of designing experiments that could potentially falsify existing theories.
  • One participant notes that many different theoretical relationships can arise from the same definitions, which may lead to varying predictions that can be tested through experimentation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of correctness in physics versus mathematics, with some agreeing that definitions are socially constructed while others maintain that certain mathematical truths are absolute. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these perspectives on the scientific method.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the definitions and relationships in physics may change over time as new empirical data becomes available, indicating a dependence on evolving scientific understanding.

pivoxa15
Messages
2,250
Reaction score
1
This may seem a vague topic but I just like to enquire in general about how standard/conventional physics is done and how to produce correct physics. On the definition of physics, Wikipedia has 'Physics attempts to describe the natural world by the application of the scientific method.' So it is intrinsically a theoretical endeavour (whereas I would call Engineering an intrinsically pratical endeavour). The goal is to produce correct physical theories which must be confirmed by experimentation. Note: Correct here refers to what is accepted in the physics community because one cannot be correct about a physical theory as one can be correct about 1+1=2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering1. One start with very simple observation like apple falling to the ground or passing current through a wire and see a compass needle move.

2. Form definitions which could accurately as possible describe and distinguish these phenomena.

3. Do some controlled experiments involving the items that have been defined. And find relationships between them, in terms of numerical data in terms of clearly defined units.

4. Form precise as possible although never perfect theoretical relationships between these definitions by matching it with experimental data.

5. Use available theoretical methods to make deductions if possible from the established theory. Hence make it more elegant, complete and also find some new relationships if possible like Maxwell finding EM waves travel at speed c so EM is light.

6. The theory is rendered correct. After that physicists may dream up an experiment that involve physical entities that already have precise theoretical relationships. They can use these theories to guide what they want to do in their experiment. i.e. in their experiment they recquire the electrons to bend in a circle in order to find the charge to mass ratio of the electron. They can use the relavant formulae (which was established correct through prior experimentation) and put the paramaters of the current experimental situation into the formulae to find the charge to mass ratio.

So the process is finding fundalmental theories then using it in more complex experiments to find newer and more complex relationships. Or it could be finding fundalmental physical entities/relationships in a different way as a result of a new theory such as determining the speed of light from EM theory. And hopefully, confirming the quantity (if a contradiction or large error (not due to experimental error) is found than there is something wrong somewhere, which could be very bad because prior experiments that used the wrong theory in parts of the experiment would have got a wrong final result). In this way, theory and experiment are very much interlinked. Physics starts off empirically and after that theory and experiment are very much interlinked. Sometimes one can get ahead of the other but both are needed to prodce correct physics. i.e. GR was formulated before any direct experimental data although it had SR as a grounding which was backed by solid experimental data. It was only after people were able to test it did such as Eddington could GR be stated as a correct theory.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
pivoxa15 said:
Note: Correct here refers to what is accepted in the physics community because one cannot be correct about a physical theory as one can be correct about 1+1=2.

I think you've got that backwards. One cannot really be "correct" about "1+1=2", it is only true because people agree to define "2" in such a manner. However, what matters in physics is not what the physics community accepts at a certain time, all that matters is whether or not the real life practical experiment gives the predicted results.
 
I am saying, if we define numbers the way they are than the answer is undebatable. If you do not accept the definition of the numbers than that is another issue.

But in physics if we define physical observables that people accept (just like the definitions in maths that people accept) than it is not always the case that people accept the quantitative relationships between these definitions even after empirical results. Or it could be the case that the relationships people believe change with time as better empirical observations come in. A classic example is Netwonian and Relativistic mechanics.
 
I agree with pivoxa15 about "1+ 1= 2". It is correct because that is the way 2 is defined. Saying 'One cannot really be "correct" about "1+1=2"' is a lot like saying one cannot be correct about what one's own name is! It is only because other people agree to call you by it that it is your name!

pivoxa15, the only thing I would add is that it should be made clear that, in
4. Form precise as possible although never perfect theoretical relationships between these definitions by matching it with experimental data
there will be many different "theoretical relationships". We then extrapolate (part 5) (this is where math comes in) to try to find possible situations where the different theories predict different outcomes. We then do experiments (part 6) to see which different outcomes do not happen. We can then discard the theories that gave those incorrect outcomes. Science progresses by disproving theories. We can never "prove" a theory.
 
HallsofIvy said:
I agree with pivoxa15 about "1+ 1= 2". It is correct because that is the way 2 is defined. Saying 'One cannot really be "correct" about "1+1=2"' is a lot like saying one cannot be correct about what one's own name is! It is only because other people agree to call you by it that it is your name!

pivoxa15, the only thing I would add is that it should be made clear that, in

there will be many different "theoretical relationships". We then extrapolate (part 5) (this is where math comes in) to try to find possible situations where the different theories predict different outcomes. We then do experiments (part 6) to see which different outcomes do not happen. We can then discard the theories that gave those incorrect outcomes. Science progresses by disproving theories. We can never "prove" a theory.


So I whould have added, after rendering the theory correct, an additional step, 7 which is to design experiments that might give result which falsify the theory. The longer 7 happens without success, the better the theory. In this way the correctness of the theory is in degrees and not absolute like in maths.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
14K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K