Re:Has elegance betrayed physics?
by Animats on Monday September 03, 2018 @04:15AM
(#17901209)
“In the temple of knowledge, we are the ones digging in the basement, probing the foundations…. And when we find ourselves on to something, we call for experimentalists to unearth deeper layers. In the last century, this division of labor between theorists and experimentalists worked very well. But my generation has been stunningly unsuccessful.”
That's a modern viewpoint. Historically, experimental results preceded theory in physics. That was certainly true for classical physics. The early years of subatomic physics were trying to put some structure around experimental results. Somewhere around 40 years ago, though, things got stuck. Experimental results became much harder to get, as the reachable areas had been explored.
Theory not verified by experiment is useless. Science is prediction, not explanation. (Fred Hoyle, the physicist, wrote that, but he was writing an SF novel at the time.)
That's a modern viewpoint. Historically, experimental results preceded theory in physics. That was certainly true for classical physics. The early years of subatomic physics were trying to put some structure around experimental results. Somewhere around 40 years ago, though, things got stuck. Experimental results became much harder to get, as the reachable areas had been explored.
Theory not verified by experiment is useless. Science is prediction, not explanation. (Fred Hoyle, the physicist, wrote that, but he was writing an SF novel at the time.)