Theories in physics that seemed to work but were wrong?

In summary, there have been numerous physical theories that were once considered accurate descriptions of reality, but were later disproven. Examples include Ptolemy's geocentric epicycle theory, Bohr's atomic model, the Caloric theory, the Miasma theory, and the luminiferous ether theory. Other theories, such as Newtonian mechanics and the Germ theory of disease, still hold some validity in certain contexts but have been replaced by more comprehensive theories. Other examples of superseded scientific theories include the phlogiston theory and Hoyle's "continuous creation" model of the universe.
  • #1
Aidyan
180
13
I'm trying to (re-)collect the physical theories that once were considered as a correct description of reality and worked to a certain degree, but were subsequently dismissed. I would say that the geocentric epicycle theory of Ptolemy could be considered an example. It correctly describes the path planets trace on the sky, but is obviously wrong since heliocentrism is true. Another example could be Bohr's atomic model. It furnishes the energy levels of the hydrogen atom. Later Sommerfeld extended it to electron elliptic orbits and was able to obtain further fine spectral lines of the H atom. And yet this model is no more than a historical curiosity. I suspect that there are many other examples of theories that seemed to 'save the appearances' but didn't work out. Can you tell of others?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The Caloric theory.

Zz.
 
  • #4
Caloric.
Luminiferous ether.
Newtonian mechanics.
 
  • #5
Ptolemy's planetary system.
Atomic models of Rutherford, Bohr.
 
  • #6
Vanadium 50 said:
Caloric.
Luminiferous ether.
Newtonian mechanics.
Why choose Newtonian Mechanics for the list? It's not even out of date for most practical purposes. In no way is it in the same category as Caloric.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
  • #7
sophiecentaur said:
Why choose Newtonian Mechanics for the list?
Aidyan said:
once were considered as a correct description of reality and worked to a certain degree

I think that's a fair description of what he asked for. Newtonian Mechanics works well in its domain, but fails spectacularly outside it - e.g. an electron in an atom.
 
  • #8
Vanadium 50 said:
I think that's a fair description of what he asked for. Newtonian Mechanics works well in its domain, but fails spectacularly outside it - e.g. an electron in an atom.
Oh yes - but caloric was complete rubbish even when it was current. Caloric even makes fifteen year old GCSE students giggle.
 
  • #9
I don't know about "complete rubbish". Sadi Carnot developed the Carnot cycle using it.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur and nasu
  • #10
Vanadium 50 said:
I don't know about "complete rubbish". Sadi Carnot developed the Carnot cycle using it.
Perhaps I have interpreted the terms of the OP in the wrong way. Hindsight can be 100% accurate so perhaps that's where I'm wrong in applying it.
The Maths of a phenomenon can be arrived at by good or not so good models. Carnot spotted some variables that were future proof but his analogue / model of a 'substance' , although forgivable, was seriously adrift.
 
  • #11
The phlogiston theory.
 

1. What causes some theories in physics to be wrong?

Theories in physics can be wrong due to a variety of reasons, including insufficient evidence, faulty assumptions, or new discoveries that contradict the theory.

2. How are incorrect theories in physics corrected?

Incorrect theories in physics are corrected through the scientific method, which involves testing and experimentation to gather more evidence and refine the theory.

3. Can incorrect theories in physics still be useful?

Yes, incorrect theories in physics can still be useful in certain contexts. They may still provide a framework for understanding certain phenomena, but may need to be revised or replaced by a more accurate theory.

4. What is an example of a theory in physics that was once thought to be correct but was later proven wrong?

The geocentric model of the universe, which stated that the Earth was the center of the universe, was widely accepted for thousands of years before being replaced by the heliocentric model, which placed the sun at the center.

5. How do incorrect theories in physics impact the field as a whole?

Incorrect theories in physics can lead to wasted time and resources, but they also demonstrate the importance of critical thinking and the constant need for further exploration and refinement in the field of physics.

Similar threads

I Example of a theory that was right after 20 years of failures?
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
19
Views
15K
Is the Standard Model in Error? Exploring Alternative Theories in Physics
    • New Member Introductions
Replies
3
Views
98
PhD in condensed matter theory or theoretical cosmology
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
1K
B Balancing theories and empirical data, especially concerning string theory
    • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
Is Sabine Hossenfelder the Key to Unlocking New Theories in Physics?
    • New Member Introductions
Replies
3
Views
93
Admissions Exploring the Universe: Pursuing a PhD in High Energy Physics
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
930
Studying Does math have tons of false theories like physics?
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
792
A The abc conjecture and Virasoro algebra
    • General Math
Replies
1
Views
1K
Classical Physics from a Rigorous, Experimental Perspective
    • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
12
Views
1K
Studying Wrong views on math and physics
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top