Understanding physics without lab work

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the necessity of laboratory work in understanding physics, particularly for those who excel in mathematics but struggle with practical applications. Participants explore the relationship between theoretical knowledge and experimental skills, questioning whether one can fully grasp physics concepts without hands-on experience.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if understanding physics is possible without practical lab work, suggesting that their experience was limited to high school.
  • Another participant cites a professor's distinction between two types of physicists: mathematicians and experimentalists, expressing skepticism about the practical skills of renowned physicists like Einstein and Schrödinger.
  • A participant challenges the interpretation of "locksmith" as a derogatory term, clarifying that it refers to hands-on experimentalists who possess valuable skills.
  • It is proposed that modern science increasingly relies on teamwork, where both theoretical and experimental expertise are important, though not necessarily possessed by the same individual.
  • One participant emphasizes that self-assessment of practical skills may be misleading, noting that lack of experience with laboratory equipment can hinder performance rather than a lack of intelligence or capability.
  • The necessity of developing experimental skills through practice is highlighted, suggesting that some level of hands-on experience is essential for success in physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the importance of laboratory work in understanding physics. While some argue that practical experience is essential, others suggest that theoretical understanding can exist independently of hands-on skills. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the balance between theory and practice in physics education.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference personal experiences and anecdotal evidence, which may not represent broader trends or educational standards. The discussion reflects varying definitions of what constitutes understanding in physics, influenced by individual backgrounds and experiences.

alex77
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Can you understand physics if you are good in math and suck at proving something practical?I tried to do that and it only worked in hs.I have never realized that i need materials to do the trick.Do you need a lab to see what happens and than explain the phenomenum or you can apply math without lab materials?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not sure whether this helps, but a professor of mine used to say: "There are basically two types of physicists. One part are mathematicians, and the others are locksmiths." Needles to say he was a mathematician.
Personally I doubt that e.g. Einstein or Schrödinger have been good on practical tasks.
 
fresh_42 said:
"There are basically two types of physicists. One part are mathematicians, and the others are locksmiths.
Locksmith as in a dumb,retarded person?
 
alex77 said:
Locksmith as in a dumb,retarded person?
No, not at all. Simply a person that works with his hands. Experimentalists can and often are very gifted. And some experiments require real smartness. It is just so, that often these two talents don't come together in the same person. Modern science is more and more a matter of team work, as experiments as well as theoretic models get more sophisticated and complex. You don't have to be good on everything, but you probably should have experiences and knowledge about both sides of the coin.
 
First off - how do you know you "suck at proving something practical?"

Often I think people mischaracterise themselves. Some kids walk into a physics lab and have trouble not because they don't have the capacity or intelligence or drive to do well, but because they simply haven't ever used an oscilloscope, or propagated errors or spent any time tinkering with something that didn't work right the first time. Laboratory work requires skills, not just knowledge, to do well. And the only way you get those skills (as with any skills) is through practice.

To be successful in physics you need a certain base level of experimental skills and experience. So yes, at some point you have to do the experiments.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fresh_42

Similar threads

Learning physics beyond classical mechanics without labs?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Other Physics PhD after working for few years
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Studying Understanding Physics -- in which way?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Other Working in a biology lab for a physics/biophysics major
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Programs Questions About Referrals for Physics REUs (for Undergrads)
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Any tips for doing a PhD in theoretical physics?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Programs Should I continue on with a physics major?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Studying How Should I Study Quantum Mechanics and Which Math Should I Know?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Other Should I become the Physics lab coordinator for my university?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Admissions How to improve graduate school applications after college?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K