Theoretical vs. Experimental Physics

[Englishman]

Which one is more favorable: theoretical physics, or experimental physics?

In my opinion, theoretical physics is much better, because it leaves one to ponder the how the world works without having to do the all of the things that an conducting an experiment reuquires.

 

[ZapperZ]

Which one is more favorable: theoretical physics, or experimental physics?

In my opinion, theoretical physics is much better, because it leaves one to ponder the how the world works without having to do the all of the things that an conducting an experiment reuquires.

Before you get too comfortable with that opinion, maybe you should read Harry Lipkin's "http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PHTOAD000053000007000015000001&idtype=cvips&prog=normal" ". You seem to be forgetting also that a theory without experimental verification is philosophy, not physics.

Zz.

 

[lisab]

I guess the answer to your question depends on your definition of "favorable."

 

[Cyrus]

Before you get too comfortable with that opinion, maybe you should read Harry Lipkin's "http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PHTOAD000053000007000015000001&idtype=cvips&prog=normal" ". You seem to be forgetting also that a theory without experimental verification is philosophy, not physics.

Zz.

Haha, that's a very PC way of putting it!

 

[Dale]

maybe you should read Harry Lipkin's "http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PHTOAD000053000007000015000001&idtype=cvips&prog=normal" ". You seem to be forgetting also that a theory without experimental verification is philosophy, not physics.

Nice link. Nature is wierder and more interesting than anything a philosopher can come up with.

 

[isabelle]

You seem to be forgetting also that a theory without experimental verification is philosophy, not physics.

and experiment without theory is fact collecting, not physics.

The most famous physicists are all theorists who stayed well grounded in experiment, e.g. Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Boltzmann, and the founders of QM. The great experimentalists in physical science before quantum physics are today remembered as chemists and engineers; Rutherford is an example of someone who considered himself an experimental physicist and is today mostly remembered as a chemist.

Saying "Who ordered the theorist?" is like saying "Who ordered Matter waves?"(De Broglie), "Who ordered anti-matter?" (Dirac), "Who ordered QED?"(Feynman et al), "Who ordered Bose condensates?", "Who ordered W and Z?", etc or more fundamentally "Who ordered calculus?", "Who order probability and statistics?" (gee i dunno, is Gauss more of an experimentalist, or a theorist?).

I don't see a need to fight, and I am not saying "who ordered the experimentalist?" but if choosing between extremes I prefer mathematics to the short-sighted empirical method as a way of gaining knowledge, but we should all agree that combining these two into the scientific method has been a great success.

Edit: The "Who needs.." article is dishonest because it is written in 2000 and is talking about the J/Psi and prior events, but it is a well known fact that the standard model (a theory) has predicted every observation since the J/Psi in the 1970s. Hopefully the discovery of super symmetry of even relatively large extra dimensions at the LHC would boost the status of theoretical physics.

 

[robphy]

I guess the answer to your question depends on your definition of "favorable."

I concur.
Does "favorable" include "being able to find a position that supports your research"?

 

[humanino]

it is a well known fact that the standard model (a theory) has predicted every observation since the J/Psi in the 1970s.

I don't think it's quite a fair statement. I'll pick one calculation, in one of the "easiest" and most established theory : the strong sector of the standard model. For instance, can you tell me how the spin of the proton is shared amongst partons ? Or where the missing resonances are ? Would you conveniently classify non-perturbative problems as "engineering" ?

I would also appreciate thoughts on neutrino mass "predictions". How credible were those before experimental evidences ? I'm not very versed into the history of science, but I believe that the first evidences were rather interpreted as faults in our understanding of the Sun, rather than neutrino oscillations.

The division between experiment and theory is mostly due to the need for expertise on every sides. Apart from that, I think everybody agrees that the closet exchanges between theoreticians and experimentalists is mostly desired for optimal productivity. In an ideal world, we would all do (say for instance) theory in the morning and experiments in the afternoon.

 

[arunma]

Seems to me that it's a very bad idea to favor either theory or experiment. I'm doing my PhD work on experimental physics, so I obviously enjoy the latter. But we need both theory and experiment. Experiments are needed to confirm theory. Theory is needed to tell us what the heck our data means physically. I really don't see how you can get away from either side of physics without degrading the science. Certainly different people have different preferences as to what type of physics they want to do for a living. But both are integral parts of the scientific process.

 

[Cincinnatus]

I'm glad that my own area, neuroscience, is a young enough field that a single person can often make meaningful contributions to both theory and experiment.

 

[ZapperZ]

and experiment without theory is fact collecting, not physics.

The most famous physicists are all theorists who stayed well grounded in experiment, e.g. Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Boltzmann, and the founders of QM. The great experimentalists in physical science before quantum physics are today remembered as chemists and engineers; Rutherford is an example of someone who considered himself an experimental physicist and is today mostly remembered as a chemist.

Saying "Who ordered the theorist?" is like saying "Who ordered Matter waves?"(De Broglie), "Who ordered anti-matter?" (Dirac), "Who ordered QED?"(Feynman et al), "Who ordered Bose condensates?", "Who ordered W and Z?", etc or more fundamentally "Who ordered calculus?", "Who order probability and statistics?" (gee i dunno, is Gauss more of an experimentalist, or a theorist?).

I don't see a need to fight, and I am not saying "who ordered the experimentalist?" but if choosing between extremes I prefer mathematics to the short-sighted empirical method as a way of gaining knowledge, but we should all agree that combining these two into the scientific method has been a great success.

Edit: The "Who needs.." article is dishonest because it is written in 2000 and is talking about the J/Psi and prior events, but it is a well known fact that the standard model (a theory) has predicted every observation since the J/Psi in the 1970s. Hopefully the discovery of super symmetry of even relatively large extra dimensions at the LHC would boost the status of theoretical physics.

You will note that I am not the one who is trying to tout the "favorability" of one over the other.. It is the OP who started the thread, and it is ANOTHER THEORIST who wrote that article. The whole point in showing it is that as many as there are people who are skewerd into thinking that one trumps over the other, there's another equally radical point of view that shows the opposite.

Physics is composed of BOTH theory and experiment. They both are one of the same. This is why the OP's question is rather meaningless.

Zz.

 

[Focus]

Which one is more favorable: theoretical physics, or experimental physics?

Neither. Mathematics is more favorable than both, it tells us exactly how the world works, given that the axioms are true in reality.

 

[ZapperZ]

Neither. Mathematics is more favorable than both, it tells us exactly how the world works, given that the axioms are true in reality.

Oh no...

OK, starting with JUST mathematics and all its axioms, derive Coulomb's Law.

Zz.

 

[Focus]

Oh no...

OK, starting with JUST mathematics and all its axioms, derive Coulomb's Law.

Zz.

I didn't say it would be practical nor complete.

 

[ZapperZ]

I didn't say it would be practical nor complete.

Then how is it more "favorable" than physics? That's like saying the alphabets are more "favorable" than the words and ideas that they form.

Zz.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Which one is more favorable: theoretical physics, or experimental physics?

In my opinion, theoretical physics is much better, because it leaves one to ponder the how the world works without having to do the all of the things that an conducting an experiment reuquires.

You mean physics is like creationism? But by this reasoning, isn't experimental physics much better because it leaves one to conduct experiments without having to do all the things that pondering how the world works requires?

 

[Englishman]

Before you get too comfortable with that opinion, maybe you should read Harry Lipkin's "http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PHTOAD000053000007000015000001&idtype=cvips&prog=normal" ". You seem to be forgetting also that a theory without experimental verification is philosophy, not physics.Zz.

Of course there needs to be experimental verification; theories would have no ground without experimental verification. I'm just talking about the quest of solving a scientific problem experimentally versus theoretically.

 

[Englishman]

Nice link. Nature is wierder and more interesting than anything a philosopher can come up with.

That's the whole point; philosophy is not what I'm talking about. I am talking about theory.

 

[Englishman]

and experiment without theory is fact collecting, not physics.

The most famous physicists are all theorists who stayed well grounded in experiment, e.g. Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Boltzmann, and the founders of QM. The great experimentalists in physical science before quantum physics are today remembered as chemists and engineers; Rutherford is an example of someone who considered himself an experimental physicist and is today mostly remembered as a chemist.

Saying "Who ordered the theorist?" is like saying "Who ordered Matter waves?"(De Broglie), "Who ordered anti-matter?" (Dirac), "Who ordered QED?"(Feynman et al), "Who ordered Bose condensates?", "Who ordered W and Z?", etc or more fundamentally "Who ordered calculus?", "Who order probability and statistics?" (gee i dunno, is Gauss more of an experimentalist, or a theorist?).

I don't see a need to fight, and I am not saying "who ordered the experimentalist?" but if choosing between extremes I prefer mathematics to the short-sighted empirical method as a way of gaining knowledge, but we should all agree that combining these two into the scientific method has been a great success.

Edit: The "Who needs.." article is dishonest because it is written in 2000 and is talking about the J/Psi and prior events, but it is a well known fact that the standard model (a theory) has predicted every observation since the J/Psi in the 1970s. Hopefully the discovery of super symmetry of even relatively large extra dimensions at the LHC would boost the status of theoretical physics.

Exactly. I agree, completely and totally. Yeah, it would be nice if they could find the Higgs boson.

 

[Englishman]

Seems to me that it's a very bad idea to favor either theory or experiment. I'm doing my PhD work on experimental physics, so I obviously enjoy the latter. But we need both theory and experiment. Experiments are needed to confirm theory. Theory is needed to tell us what the heck our data means physically. I really don't see how you can get away from either side of physics without degrading the science. Certainly different people have different preferences as to what type of physics they want to do for a living. But both are integral parts of the scientific process.

Of course, theoretical physics and experimental physics are needed in partnership. I'm just saying, as you are saying, that I have a preference. But, besides the fact that I have a preference, theoretical physics is also more cost-effective (does not cost a cent to sit down and think) and there is much more freedom, because one does not have to go to a laboratory or gather materials; one can think anywhere.

 

[Englishman]

I'm glad that my own area, neuroscience, is a young enough field that a single person can often make meaningful contributions to both theory and experiment.

Yeah, I know that for sure. Neuroscience is quite interesting. I want to be a neurosurgeon, so I'll have to learn some of neuroscience.

 

[Englishman]

You will note that I am not the one who is trying to tout the "favorability" of one over the other.. It is the OP who started the thread, and it is ANOTHER THEORIST who wrote that article. The whole point in showing it is that as many as there are people who are skewerd into thinking that one trumps over the other, there's another equally radical point of view that shows the opposite.

Physics is composed of BOTH theory and experiment. They both are one of the same. This is why the OP's question is rather meaningless.

Zz.

The "OP," which is I, did not post a meaningless question. I was rather simply just wondering what is favored, and why one is particularly favored.

 

[Englishman]

You mean physics is like creationism? But by this reasoning, isn't experimental physics much better because it leaves one to conduct experiments without having to do all the things that pondering how the world works requires?

Could you please clarify your question?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Could you please clarify your question?

No need. I retract it. When I read your OP, I thought you meant that experiments were a waste of time. Instead of posting as I did, I should have asked for clarification myself.

 

[humanino]

It's funny how one can answer "I agree completely" to

the discovery of super symmetry of even relatively large extra dimensions at the LHC would boost the status of theoretical physics

and then add

it would be nice if they could find the Higgs boson.

because large extra dimensions are instances of what could remove the need for a Higgs boson, and supersymmetry, although it requires ingredients similar to several Higgs, is mostly understood as solving the difficulties brought about by the single Higgs model itself. So the actual hope of "what would be nice" is that we do not find the Higgs ! Finding a single Higgs would let us with a not-so-pretty theory and quite boring perspectives.

 

[rolerbe]

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, theory and practice are practically unrelated"

 

[Englishman]

It's funny how one can answer "I agree completely" to and then addbecause large extra dimensions are instances of what could remove the need for a Higgs boson, and supersymmetry, although it requires ingredients similar to several Higgs, is mostly understood as solving the difficulties brought about by the single Higgs model itself. So the actual hope of "what would be nice" is that we do not find the Higgs ! Finding a single Higgs would let us with a not-so-pretty theory and quite boring perspectives.

It seems quite obvious that you are well-versed in these topics (I am not). I read a while ago that they were looking for the Higgs boson, and I thought that it would be positive for them to find it; I didn't know that finding large extra dimensions would take away the "need" or mission to find the Higgs boson. Even though I do like quantum mechanics and completing the standard model with string (also M-theory), I am more into relativity and Einsteinian concepts.

 

[WiFO215]

Which one is more favorable: theoretical physics, or experimental physics?

In my opinion, theoretical physics is much better, because it leaves one to ponder the how the world works without having to do the all of the things that an conducting an experiment reuquires.

By favorable, you mean personally, then the answer is very simple. Just watch me make the mess I make when I pour myself a glass of coke. Very good reasons to stay away from experiments.

 

[Englishman]

By favorable, you mean personally, then the answer is very simple. Just watch me make the mess I make when I pour myself a glass of coke. Very good reasons to stay away from experiments.

Yeah, I just think experiments in general are boring (including in chemistry, biology, and physics). They are very tedious and time consuming when I have to do them in school. And you know, the reason for doing experiments in school is to solidify what you've been taught on a specific subject (so I've heard), but actually, experiments never solidify it; they just waste my time. I'm doing an experiment when I could be looking at the textbook some more and thinking about the concept.

 

[humanino]

They are very tedious and time consuming when I have to do them in school.

Since when does school work reflect real life research work ? I'm sorry but you have not felt how it's like to build a new device enabling you to be the first to climb on a mountain high enough to contemplate a full circle rainbow. Let me tell you, it does not feel boring at all. If in addition, the full rainbow turns out not to be a circle, with possibly unexpected color, it becomes really ecstatic.

they just waste my time.

It's sad to read that you have undergone poor eduction.

 

[WiFO215]

Yeah, I just think experiments in general are boring (including in chemistry, biology, and physics). They are very tedious and time consuming when I have to do them in school. And you know, the reason for doing experiments in school is to solidify what you've been taught on a specific subject (so I've heard), but actually, experiments never solidify it; they just waste my time. I'm doing an experiment when I could be looking at the textbook some more and thinking about the concept.

Hi Englishman,
To me it looks like as if you're agreeing with something I said. I never stated that experiments were boring. All I meant (jokingly) was I'm more useful when I stand in the background and watch SOMEONE ELSE do the experiment rather than be a part of it. Experiments are damn fun ESPECIALLY chemistry, physics and biology. Did you see the pictures and stuff Cyrus (A college student who visits PF) posted? That stuff looked superb! Look at that and then comment about experimenting. I remember my brother doing some stuff on Shape memory alloys. And that blew my mind away too. Can't wait till I get older and hone my experimentation skills!

 

[Englishman]

It's sad to read that you have undergone poor eduction.

I have undergone poor eduction? What does that mean?

 

[Englishman]

Hi Englishman,
To me it looks like as if you're agreeing with something I said. I never stated that experiments were boring. All I meant (jokingly) was I'm more useful when I stand in the background and watch SOMEONE ELSE do the experiment rather than be a part of it. Experiments are damn fun ESPECIALLY chemistry, physics and biology. Did you see the pictures and stuff Cyrus (A college student who visits PF) posted? That stuff looked superb! Look at that and then comment about experimenting. I remember my brother doing some stuff on Shape memory alloys. And that blew my mind away too. Can't wait till I get older and hone my experimentation skills!

Well, maybe experiments will be more enjoyable once I get into college, but for now, experiments just take up time in the day.

 

[isabelle]

Yeah, I just think experiments in general are boring (including in chemistry, biology, and physics). They are very tedious and time consuming when I have to do them in school. And you know, the reason for doing experiments in school is to solidify what you've been taught on a specific subject (so I've heard), but actually, experiments never solidify it; they just waste my time. I'm doing an experiment when I could be looking at the textbook some more and thinking about the concept.

As for experiments in school, I agree with you 100%. As a TA I have to waste my time babysitting college kids in lab classes that they hate and derive no benefit from. When they ask me a question, they don't have any curiosity, they just want to know how to follow the procedure so they can finish and get on with their lives. College physics labs (at my major state university) are nothing more than busy work to make students feel like they are getting something for their (outrageously large) tuition fees.

Then, at the graduate level, my classmates who are pursuing their PhDs in experimental physics spend years in a basement laboratory assembling electronic circuits and calibrating optical benches (lens, mirrors, lasers, etc). One day they hope to become Principal Investigators with their own laboratories, but that day is far in the future and cannot happen for everyone. On the otherhand, at least they get paid to assemble circuits while I have to teach to support my theoretical studies.

By the way, I really like teaching, but only when the students care about learning, which doesn't happen in physics labs...three hours of pointless torture several times a week, and then I spend hours grading the lab reports that the students could care less about, it's a pathetic system.

 

[whybother]

Well, maybe experiments will be more enjoyable once I get into college, but for now, experiments just take up time in the day.

I still ended up hating the required physics lab I had to take in college, but that's because it was not that much more interesting that what we did in high school physics. The friends I had who were pure physics majors though said that senior lab courses actually got interesting. And at the graduate level, experimentalists hopefully like what they do, so it does get better with time.

 

[Proton Soup]

Yeah, I just think experiments in general are boring (including in chemistry, biology, and physics). They are very tedious and time consuming when I have to do them in school. And you know, the reason for doing experiments in school is to solidify what you've been taught on a specific subject (so I've heard), but actually, experiments never solidify it; they just waste my time. I'm doing an experiment when I could be looking at the textbook some more and thinking about the concept.

that's a bit like thinking you can become a better driver simply by reading more and thinking about it. there is skill involved. and like driving, lots of little nuances that simply don't show up in the textbook. you may not think you are learning anything, but you are, even if the point is not apparent to you now.

 

[isabelle]

Although, as some others have said, being a lead experimentalist is easily as exciting as being a lead theorist. In fact, the reason that I choose physics instead of math, and in particular to specialize in condensed matter theory, is that as exciting as it is to prove a new theorem it is even more exciting (for me) when the new theorem implies the existence of something in the real world which you then go and find.

The most beautiful moments in the interaction between theory and experiment in physics have no parallel for me in mathematics, here are two examples:

(1) The prediction from Maxwell's equations of E&M waves that travel at the speed of light.

(2) The QED first-order correction to the magnetic moment of the electron.

In (1) we can measure the strength of electrical and magnetic forces between known charges and currents and relate these to the speed of light, measured independently!

In (2) we use what at first appears to be an absurdly elaborate scheme, involving dozens of integrals that appear to diverge to infinity until you fix them with a bizarre prescription, and at the end of the day you end up with the most precise agreement between any measurement and any prediction in all of history.

There are many others, found in the early days of the statistical theory of gases, or the development of quantum mechanics (which is obviously the best tested theory of all time), critical exponents for phase transitions, etc. As a joke, the allure of modern theoretical physics is to make predictions that are so crazy that no reasonable person would believe them, and that people only take seriously after they are shown by experiments to be true!

 

[humanino]

development of quantum mechanics (which is obviously the best tested theory of all time)

Can you back that up with the best measurement you know for quantum mechanics, and the best measurement you know for general relativity ?

 

[humanino]

Well, maybe experiments will be more enjoyable once I get into college, but for now, experiments just take up time in the day.

Make sure you get into a decent college first.

 

[Englishman]

As for experiments in school, I agree with you 100%. As a TA I have to waste my time babysitting college kids in lab classes that they hate and derive no benefit from. When they ask me a question, they don't have any curiosity, they just want to know how to follow the procedure so they can finish and get on with their lives. College physics labs (at my major state university) are nothing more than busy work to make students feel like they are getting something for their (outrageously large) tuition fees.

Then, at the graduate level, my classmates who are pursuing their PhDs in experimental physics spend years in a basement laboratory assembling electronic circuits and calibrating optical benches (lens, mirrors, lasers, etc). One day they hope to become Principal Investigators with their own laboratories, but that day is far in the future and cannot happen for everyone. On the otherhand, at least they get paid to assemble circuits while I have to teach to support my theoretical studies.

By the way, I really like teaching, but only when the students care about learning, which doesn't happen in physics labs...three hours of pointless torture several times a week, and then I spend hours grading the lab reports that the students could care less about, it's a pathetic system.

Wow, even in college. That's exactly how I feel; it's just an absolute waste of time.

What is a TA ?

 

[Englishman]

Make sure you get into a decent college first.

Well, I'm planning to go to Stanford, and that's definitely an above average college.

 

[humanino]

One thing I don't understand, is a lab should be given by a theorist.

Englishman, did you ever pay a visit to a real research lab ? Those guys build things that have never been built before, and discover stuff that has never been seen before. Down in the experimental lab, you can meet real artists, engineer who it so happens also display in national museum on week end, or have patents they sell to their fellow world-known professional athletes. I know personally an engineer who designed windsurfing boards. We receive visits several times a week. I don't remember any visitor not having their eyes wide open.

 

[Englishman]

that's a bit like thinking you can become a better driver simply by reading more and thinking about it. there is skill involved. and like driving, lots of little nuances that simply don't show up in the textbook. you may not think you are learning anything, but you are, even if the point is not apparent to you now.

It is not like thinking I can become a better drive by simply reading more and thinking about it. This is completely different. I believe that you understand that there are two ways of doing physics: theoretically and experimentally. As a physicist, one can solely be doing theory (being what is called a theoretical physicist), and accomplish great things in physics (Einstein didn't do one physical experiment). And besides, I did not say that I am not learning anything; I said that doing experiments does not solidify what I have learned.

 

[Englishman]

One thing I don't understand, is a lab should be given by a theorist.

Englishman, did you ever pay a visit to a real research lab ? Those guys build things that have never been built before, and discover stuff that has never been seen before. Down in the experimental lab, you can meet real artists, engineer who it so happens also display in national museum on week end, or have patents they sell to their fellow world-known professional athletes. I know personally an engineer who designed windsurfing boards. We receive visits several times a week. I don't remember any visitor not having their eyes wide open.

I have never been to a real research lab.

 

[Proton Soup]

It is not like thinking I can become a better drive by simply reading more and thinking about it. This is completely different. I believe that you understand that there are two ways of doing physics: theoretically and experimentally. As a physicist, one can solely be doing theory (being what is called a theoretical physicist), and accomplish great things in physics (Einstein didn't do one physical experiment). And besides, I did not say that I am not learning anything; I said that doing experiments does not solidify what I have learned.

maybe the point is not simply to solidify what you have learned.

anyway, i think we have come to the point: that you simply don't like experiments. which is fine, you may also hate taking your humanities courses. but there also, you will be learning something whether you see the value in it or not.

 

[whybother]

maybe the point is not simply to solidify what you have learned.

anyway, i think we have come to the point: that you simply don't like experiments. which is fine, you may also hate taking your humanities courses. but there also, you will be learning something whether you see the value in it or not.

Even as someone who doesn't really enjoy experimentation, in high school, and even as a underclassmen in college frankly, you just haven't seen enough of anything yet to know if you really like or dislike experimental physics. English shouldn't judge yet, because honestly, there is so much out there.

 

[humanino]

I have never been to a real research lab.

Well you see, you might change your mind about

I just think experiments in general are boring (including in chemistry, biology, and physics). They are very tedious and time consuming when I have to do them in school.

If you had been lucky enough to have a passionate professor whose eyes shine when he explains to you in late hours an experiment he especially designed to trick you into thinking it would be trivial, you might have had a different conception of what experiments feel like.

 

[isabelle]

Can you back that up with the best measurement you know for quantum mechanics, and the best measurement you know for general relativity ?

For me QM is the best tested theory because it has been applied in a huge variety of experiments that go far beyond the experiments that were envisioned by the creators e.g. fractional quantum hall effect, GHZ experiments, etc.

I think GR is theoretically strong, since SR is very well tested and GR is basically the unique diffeomorphism invariant extension thereof. As for tests of anything lik the full theory (and not just the first post-Newtonian term in the potential which goes as 1/r^2 whose coefficient was correctly guessed empirically before Einstein to solve the problem with the precesion of mercury), we still have not detected classical gravitational waves :(

To answer the question directly, I would say that the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron is the most precise measurement of QM (sure it involves QED, but QM is an essential part of relating this to what is measured so if QM was wrong to 1 part in a billion then this would ruin the measurement of the magnetic moment). As for GR, afaik the best strong-field precision tests depend on observations of binary pulsars and are not more accurate then 2 or 3 sig figs.

One thing I don't understand, is a lab should be given by a theorist.

As I explained, the experimental students get paid to do research i.e. assemble circuits and tune lenses (their words, not mine!), and I get paid to teach undergraduates; getting grant money for doing theory as a grad student is difficult (certainly not impossible but there is more money for experimental 'research' i.e. grunt work in the beginning).

What is a TA ?

A teaching assistant, which means I roughly have the same role for college students as your high school teacher in your classroom (professors at big universities do not do most of the teaching, it is done by graduate students like me).

Proton Soup, I disagree with your 'you always learn something, whether you realize it now or not.' After all, there is such a thing as a total waste of time. For me, a total waste of time occurs when people are doing something they don't want to do and no one in the world is benefiting. I have had many hours to sit in lab and reflect on the extent to which school labs match this description. So far I have not found any students who like being in lab, or who will do anything beyond what is necessary to 'get the grade.'

 

[Englishman]

maybe the point is not simply to solidify what you have learned.

anyway, i think we have come to the point: that you simply don't like experiments. which is fine, you may also hate taking your humanities courses. but there also, you will be learning something whether you see the value in it or not.

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.

 

[George Jones]

For me QM is the best tested theory because it has been applied in a huge variety of experiments that go far beyond the experiments that were envisioned by the creators e.g. fractional quantum hall effect, GHZ experiments, etc.

I agree, but, according to Roger Penrose (who might not be unbiased), when it comes to best measurements, GR wins.

As for GR, afaik the best strong-field precision tests depend on observations of binary pulsars and are not more accurate then 2 or 3 sig figs.

In his Road to Reality, Penrose writes about the original system discovered by Taylor and Hulse:

"a confirmation of Einstein's general relativity to about one part in 10^14, an accuracy unprecedented in the scientific comparison between observation of a particular system and theory."