Theoretical Physics: Most Precise & Powerful Science

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the claim that theoretical physics is the most precise and powerful area of science, as quoted by Prof. Neil Turok. Participants explore the relationship between mathematics and physics, the nature of predictive power in various scientific fields, and the validity of comparing precision across different areas of science.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that theoretical physics is highly precise but question whether this applies universally across all areas of the field.
  • One participant emphasizes that the accuracy of physics depends on the initial assumptions made, suggesting that any area can achieve similar accuracy based on the quality of its assumptions.
  • Another participant argues that mathematics does not hold predictive power in the same way that science does, indicating a distinction between the two disciplines.
  • Concerns are raised about the meaning of "the most precise area of science," with one participant noting that different areas of physics have varying predictive powers, citing string theory as an example of a theory lacking testable predictions.
  • A participant humorously compares the predictive power of library science to that of physics, citing a specific prediction about the number of books in the Library of Congress.
  • There are multiple humorous exchanges regarding the implications of the universe colliding with the sun, reflecting a mix of seriousness and levity in the discussion.
  • One participant mentions the gyromagnetic ratio of an electron as an example of high accuracy in physics, contrasting it with other scientific fields.
  • Several participants express skepticism about the original question's clarity and relevance, suggesting it may not be meaningful to compare precision across different scientific domains.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement on the relationship between mathematics and physics, the definition of precision in science, and the validity of comparing different scientific fields. There is no consensus on the original claim regarding theoretical physics.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the ambiguity in defining "precision" and "predictive power," as well as the limitations of comparing different scientific disciplines without clear criteria.

Which is the most precise area of science?

  • Pure Mathmatics

    Votes: 11 61.1%

  • Theoritcal Physics

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Biology

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Computer Science

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Applied Mathmatics / Physics

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • Total voters
    18
raam86
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
"Theoretical physics is the most precise predictive powerful area of science we know

The title is a quote of Prof. Neil Turok of The Perimeter Institute in Canada1. I always had the impression physicists tend to "lie" or diminish mathematical rigor.

My point - I always thought mathematics is the most precise .. we know.

*I do appreciate the standard model is considered to be extremely precise but I do not think you can deduct this to be a general rule to all of Theoretical physics.

1
07'32"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVwirDNFQnI&feature

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVwirDNFQnI&feature=related#t=07m32s
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this, so I'll just jump in:

The physics is only as good as the initial assumptions you make.

The key is amending the assumptions based on evidence and then refining the theories stemming from them.

Based on this, I'd say any area can be just as accurate as any other. It all comes down to what initial assumptions you have to make. If it's in an area we don't understand so well, then the assumptions can be way off. If it's in an area we know well then they're going to be more accurate.
 


Math isn't physics, but in any case it depends on the theory.
 


raam86 said:
My point - I always thought mathematics is the most precise .. we know.
Is there a special reason you didn't fill this in? Because your answer is right there, maths holds no predictive power in our world.
 


This is a very strange question/poll, and rather meaningless. For example, what does it mean when one says "the most precise area of science"? And then, somehow, things got changed to "the most precise predictive powerful area of science". This makes zero sense because even in physics, different areas have different predictive power (string theory makes no testable prediction, so how can one call it "powerful", whereas condensed matter theory makes tons of testable and tested predictions).

Furthermore, mathematics isn't science.

Zz.
 


I see and understand you conjunctures. I also thought the quote made no sense at all.
 


Mathematics does not make predictions about nature. Science does.
 


[Off-topic]

The title of this thread reminds me of this:

(.png


[/Off-topic]
 


Zapperz, Have you seen the clip by the way? 7 minutes 32 seconds in you will see the quote.
 
  • #10


I think library science makes more precise predictions than physics. For example in 1990, it was predicted that the Library of Congress would have 142 million books by 2010 for 3 digits of precision. However, in that same year, physicists were predicting that the sun would die out in 5 billion years for only 1 digit of precision. I should add that the number of books in the library of congress did come very close to the 142 million figure confirming the accuracy of the prediction. So far the sun has not died out so we will have to wait 4,999,999,980 years to see how that goes. However, the universe is expanding at a prodigious rate of 70 (km/s)/Mpc and will collide with the sun in 4,999,999,979 years, so we may never find out.
 
  • #11


Jimmy Snyder said:
However, the universe is expanding at a prodigious rate of 70 (km/s)/Mpc and will collide with the sun in 4,999,999,979 years, so we may never find out.

The universe will collide with our sun?

That sounds like something I should be really worried about...
 
Last edited:
  • #12


jarednjames said:
The universe will collide without sun?

That sounds like something I should be really worried about...

yeah coz the universe is like, really huge, innit? The sun's going to get smooshed.
 
  • #13


There's no such thing as an experiment in Math (by definition that'd make it physics) so Math is infinitely inaccurate or infinitely accurate if you like. As for physics the number often held up is the gyromagnetic ratio of an electron which can be calculated from base concepts and has been shown to be accurate (relative to experiment) to 10-11 decimal places. And no, not even in Chemistry and Bio's wildest wet dreams could they approach even close to that level of accuracy from base concepts (i.e. saying the quantity must be this without a single guess and check with the real world)
 
  • #14


jarednjames said:
The universe will collide without sun?

That sounds like something I should be really worried about...
Dunno - seems to me if the universe collides without the sun, we don't be affected! :devil:
 
  • #15


"Poll Options:
Which is the most precise area of science?"

Only the science that I agree with. :-p :-p
 
Last edited:
  • #16


Pure mathematics: saying something about nothing in particular, but in a very precise way.
 
Last edited:
  • #17


ZapperZ said:
This is a very strange question/poll, and rather meaningless. For example, what does it mean when one says "the most precise area of science"? And then, somehow, things got changed to "the most precise predictive powerful area of science". This makes zero sense because even in physics, different areas have different predictive power (string theory makes no testable prediction, so how can one call it "powerful", whereas condensed matter theory makes tons of testable and tested predictions).

Furthermore, mathematics isn't science.

Zz.

i was thinking the same

now if you are talking about practical...well even that's too general
 

Similar threads

How Can a Web-App Make Theoretical Physics and Mathematics More Accessible?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Which MSc to do after BSc physics if you love to code?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Can Einstein's Equations Enable Time Travel?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Admissions Exploring the Universe: Pursuing a PhD in High Energy Physics
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Admissions Statement of purpose critique request (high-energy theory PhD application)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Graduate What Are the Most Inspiring TED Talks on Physics and the Universe?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Couple of questions regarding theoretical physics
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Admissions Can someone critique my statement of purpose? (Master's Degree in Quantum Engineering)
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Schools Theoretical Physics and Graduate School
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
19K
Quantum Workforce Elements, Toolbox for QIS Programs at Universities
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K