I don’t think strict definitions that allow putting things into well defined “experiment” and “not experiment” bins really matter. Being understood matters, and in science context is all important, but being understood just doesnt depend on strict definitions of common words like that, and when it does those words are explicitly defined instead of left for assumptions.

It is the kind of questions about scientific literacy you see quite a bit, loading terms with really consequential definitions and then asking at the edge cases... the answer usually lies in a combination of correcting usage that feels a little odd while also trying to break down the assumption of the question itself, in other words rejecting the premise.

It’s like the many arguments about the usage of the word “theory” especially when with the pejorative “just a theory”, the reality is scientists would never be confused by an odd usage of the word and themselves don’t place much importance on it.

“mu”

They can perform experiments to validate the more generic result: the relation between the speed of sound and the mass of the atoms. The specific result about solid hydrogen will still be an extrapolation though.

Experiments are used in the scientific method to invalidate hypothesss. I'd say that yes, a simulation is an experiment, since it can do that.

Pure logic can also invalidate hypotheses sometimes, but pure logic isn't experimental.

Pure thought experiments are useful because they make predictions which can then be validated. It’s part of the basic foundations of science, otherwise you’re just curve fitting across all exponential data.

Absolutely agree. Fun fact;

> Gedankenexperiment, (German: “thought experiment”) term used by German-born physicist Albert Einstein to describe his unique approach of using conceptual rather than actual experiments in creating the theory of relativity.

It would be ridiculous to say that experiments can only be done physically. Thought experiments are responsible for developing one of the most famous theories known to man.

Sure but thought experiments are not actual experiments. In fact thought experiments are... exactly the same as simulations.

To be more clear a pure thought experiment doesn’t invalidate a theory on it’s own. It’s the conflict between the results and either past or future observations/experiments that invalidates the theory. Plenty of theories that gave what seemed like insane results happened to work out.

A simulation is only as good as the model it’s based on. So sure, it’s an experiment, but one that’s only valid within the context of the model. Validating the model itself would take a “real” experiment.

Most experiments are only valid within the context of a model. Calculating X-ray diffraction patterns only matter because of how we model orbitals and light diffraction for example.

What I’m fumbling to get at is that a physical experiment can tell you that your model is flawed in ways that simulation alone can’t.

If you don’t already understand the double slit experiment, you’re unlikely to simulate light in a way that reproduces its results.

Yes, each have their advantages, e.g. here the speed of sound couldnt have been calculated in these circumstances.

The simulation could've also revealed flaws and disproved the theory w/r to itself.