Theoretical vs. Experimental Physics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the debate between the merits of theoretical versus experimental physics. Proponents of theoretical physics argue that it allows for deeper contemplation of the universe without the constraints of experimental work, while critics emphasize that theories must be experimentally verified to be considered true physics. The conversation highlights that both theoretical and experimental approaches are essential to the scientific method, with each informing and validating the other. Notable physicists historically have balanced both aspects, suggesting that neither can be favored without compromising scientific integrity. Ultimately, the consensus is that both theoretical and experimental physics are integral to advancing knowledge in the field.
  • #51
George Jones said:
I agree, but, according to Roger Penrose (who might not be unbiased), when it comes to best measurements, GR wins.
I read the same, was surprised at that time, and hoped that maybe a gravitational expert might comment o:)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Englishman said:
You don't understand. You keep saying that I believe I'm not learning anything. No, that it not it. I said that it does not solidify what I have learned. And I never said that there was zero value in experiments. Please don't twist my words.

well, there's always mathematics
 
  • #53
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407149
"Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16: Thirty Years of Observations and Analysis"
J.M. Weisberg, J.H. Taylor
and
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm

might be helpful
 
Back
Top