Theoretical vs. Experimental: Which is More Valuable in Science?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the value of theoretical versus experimental contributions to science, particularly in physics and astrophysics. Participants reference Harry Lipkin's article in Physics Today, which critiques the reliance on theorists in experimental design. The consensus highlights that both theorists and experimentalists play crucial roles; theorists provide frameworks and predictions that guide experiments, while experimentalists validate these theories through practical application. The dialogue emphasizes the interdependence of both fields in advancing scientific knowledge.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of theoretical physics concepts
  • Familiarity with experimental physics methodologies
  • Knowledge of the scientific method and its applications
  • Awareness of major physics experiments and their theoretical underpinnings
NEXT STEPS
  • Read Harry Lipkin's article in Physics Today for insights on theoretical contributions
  • Explore the role of theorists in astrophysics and their impact on experimental design
  • Investigate the relationship between theory and practice in scientific research
  • Learn about significant physics experiments motivated by theoretical predictions, such as WMAP and neutrino detectors
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those interested in the dynamics between theoretical and experimental research, as well as anyone seeking to understand the contributions of both fields to scientific advancement.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,109
Reaction score
20
So what exactly are the big differences between the two? Who 'contributes' more to science? All but 1 of the active professors at my university are theorists and they keep kinda tryen to nudge me into being a theorist without really knowing what either group does. Help me, i need career guidance :D
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Pengwuino said:
So what exactly are the big differences between the two? Who 'contributes' more to science? All but 1 of the active professors at my university are theorists and they keep kinda tryen to nudge me into being a theorist without really knowing what either group does. Help me, i need career guidance :D

At the risk of inflaming a bunch of people (theorists), may I point to you the "infamous" Harry Lipkin article in Physics Today awhile back?

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-53/iss-7/p15.html

Zz.

P.S. Harry Lipkin himself is a theorist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow. Lipkin's article is like a verbal neckpunch. Here's one I really enjoy:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/parodies/next.html

If you aren't familiar with string theory (hehe?) you may miss the humor.

I find those who do theoretical physics to have an extremely interesting job. However, I consider choosing not to try to work in theoretical physics the smartest choice I've made since I decided I'd major in physics.

PS: Siegel works in string theory...
 
ZapperZ said:
At the risk of inflaming a bunch of people (theorists), may I point to you the "infamous" Harry Lipkin article in Physics Today awhile back?

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-53/iss-7/p15.html

Zz..

Good link, I hadn't seen that before. I guess it was considerations like this that prompted your critique of Moonbear's journal entry on the scientific method?

"I have no patience with social scientists, historians, and philosophers who insist that the "scientific method" is doing experiments to check somebody's theory. The best physics I have known was done by experimenters who ignored theorists completely and used their own intuitions to explore new domains where no one had looked before. No theorists had told them where and how to look." -- from the Lipkin article

Here are some more thoughts on the theorist/experimentalist question:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/undernetphysics/message/1593
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I personally think Theorists can save a lot of money, instead of wasting millions on experiments that can never happen due to certain laws or principles (laws only Theorists work hundreds of hours to apply to different ideas).

Theorists spend a lot of time thinking about things that can happen "on paper", whereas people running experiments on trial and error waste a lot of money - I obviously realize that scientists that experiment do their own theory work first before proceeding.

Or have I completely got the professions wrong?
 
Peter.E said:
I personally think Theorists can save a lot of money, instead of wasting millions on experiments that can never happen due to certain laws or principles (laws only Theorists work hundreds of hours to apply to different ideas).

Theorists spend a lot of time thinking about things that can happen "on paper", whereas people running experiments on trial and error waste a lot of money - I obviously realize that scientists that experiment do their own theory work first before proceeding.

Or have I completely got the professions wrong?

From my impression, not *all* physics experiments these days are that expensive.

The 'popular' energy physics experiments, such as accelators, are quite expensive though..
 
Peter.E said:
I personally think Theorists can save a lot of money, instead of wasting millions on experiments that can never happen due to certain laws or principles (laws only Theorists work hundreds of hours to apply to different ideas).

Theorists spend a lot of time thinking about things that can happen "on paper", whereas people running experiments on trial and error waste a lot of money - I obviously realize that scientists that experiment do their own theory work first before proceeding.

Or have I completely got the professions wrong?

You are forgetting that the LARGE, expensive machines being built or have been built also had the support of theorists. They need something to verify their predictions, or else they'll NEVER get their Nobel Prizes.

As has been said, the majority of physics experiments are done on the small scale. Huge expensive building projects are quite rare. You only think this is common because they are the ones getting all the publicity.

Zz.
 
jma2001 said:
Good link, I hadn't seen that before. I guess it was considerations like this that prompted your critique of Moonbear's journal entry on the scientific method?

"I have no patience with social scientists, historians, and philosophers who insist that the "scientific method" is doing experiments to check somebody's theory. The best physics I have known was done by experimenters who ignored theorists completely and used their own intuitions to explore new domains where no one had looked before. No theorists had told them where and how to look." -- from the Lipkin article

Humm... I must say that I didn't remember that when I started the critique on Moonbear's journal entry. I of course reread it when I gave the link. However, I would not be surprised if that passage has somehow influence my view - not that I haven't already hold that view.

Here are some more thoughts on the theorist/experimentalist question:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/undernetphysics/message/1593

That's a terrfic discussion group. I wonder who started it? <evil grin>

Zz.
 
I really don't think working in theoretical physics is as boring as most people believe.Even if it's not rewarding (the breakthroughs are quite rare and the payment is not big),i still think it's worth doing.It's risk free...If Fermi had been a theorist all his life,he wouldn't have died from cancer,right...?:-p

Daniel.
 
  • #10
I can only speak for astronomy here, but I see observationalists/experimentalists and theorists as being equally valuable, but just in different ways. The value of an experimentalist is obvious, as they actually carry out the experiments that further our understanding of science. Theorists, however, have two roles in modern astrophysics. First, they help explain the phenomena we observe in terms of something that we already understand. Second, they help us determine which experiments are worth the time and effort to pursue.

To take some concrete examples, let's say that I go out and observe a star and find its brightness to be oscillating on a period of days and with some measurable amplitude. Although this is somewhat interesting in of itself, the theorist can then go and tell you why it's oscillating (perhaps pressure waves in the star) and then tell you, based on that, what kind of pulsations to expect in other circumstances.

Virtually every major astrophysical experiment that I can think of in recent years has been motivated by theoretical expectations, from WMAP to neutrino detectors. In the former case, the theorists were able to tell us what kind of power spectrum we'd expect from different universes and, thus, allow us to measure various parameters. In the latter, we had very precise models of the interior of the sun that predicted certain levels of neutrino emission from the reactions in the core. This motivated the neutrino detectors and, later, the search for neutrino oscillations.

Now it's true that observationalists will often do some of the theory themselves, so the line can be blurred a bit. I would say that this has become increasingly true with time, so the pure observationalist or pure theorist is slowly becoming a thing of the past. People will usually specialize in one or the other, however, and in the abstract, I don't see any reason that we should be putting more value on one or the other. Theories without observations may as well be philosophy and observations without theories may as well be stamp collecting.

I'm not too familiar with the working of the physics community, but it's hard to imagine that it would be much different.
 
  • #11
ZapperZ said:
That's a terrfic discussion group. I wonder who started it? <evil grin>

Yes, I like the Vexer series too. What are the requirements for joining that group? I'm not a grad student or anything, just an interested amateur.
 
  • #12
jma2001 said:
Yes, I like the Vexer series too. What are the requirements for joining that group? I'm not a grad student or anything, just an interested amateur.

There are no requirements, at least nothing academically. We have very low standards. :)

Zz.
 
  • #13
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
623
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K