Are physics experiments a temporary phase in the history of science?

Eventually there may be a single, unified theory of physics that contains no internal conflicts and that has no serious competitors. Once it is considered to be well-established, won't people consider questioning it to be comparable to questioning whether or not the dead have risen from the grave?

Physics may then proceed as it did for Aristotle: with reasoning, but no experiments. Eventually, physics experiments could be nothing more than part of the history of physics. The words "physics experiments" might acquire a connotation of backwardness because of their association with an ignorant and brutal era.

Continuing to check the theory against the facts would probably be considered an absurd and wasteful endeavor. People might think that any distinction between the theory and the facts is subtle and pointless, if not actually meaningless.

unify the four major forces into one equation. don't they have it down to two seperate equations now?

generation would have to come up w/the unifying theorems. I've kept the equations in my head all these years and they finally make sense. Incomplete, but consistent if you can imagine probability as a solution space. Linear equations become trigonometric functions ... but we all know time is big circle intuitively, don't we?

in either direction.

it's undefined. So is time, until you look at it clockwise.

infinity is infinity is infinity

electrostatic/magnetic fields w/gravity. When I first heard it explained something clicked ... everything I'd been taught was suddenly consistent. I've enjoyed serenity since - some bright math major will prove it in time.

I use the understanding w/the data I crunch. Turns out, it's very useful to think of time in terms of cycles.

> Don't they have it down to two separate equations now?

As I understand it, today the Electroweak theory unites
electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force. We're coming
up on unifying the strong nuclear force as well, but gravity
is still pretty resistant to unification.

o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_theory

o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction

Tesha

has no place for gravity but it does combine weak and strong nuclear and electromagnetic. while gravity is still singled out. Or at least that's how stephen hawking explained it to me in "physics for dummies" :P

in America anyway. Corporations get the best minds and use them to make money. If there can be no practical application the question may go unresolved.

So researching cures/treatments for diseases has no scientific value? You would be surprised how much is learned "accidently" in labs researching other topics..More has been learned about DNA this way...And I think antibiotics were discovered by accident researching something else.
I've been in both for profit and non-profit environment...and actually...the better science was practiced in the "for profit" environment.

Experimental high energy physics is expensive and difficult to justify as a practical science other than to make more powerful weapons. If it were not for the atomic weapons programs none of it would have been done. It would not be any further along than what can be done in a garage by a hobbyist.

.and all sciences are interrelated. Just because theories and hypothesis come and go, certain fundamental laws don't change (although our understanding of it does change). YOu aren't seriously thinking things like gravity (which we are still refining our knowledge of) is going to disappear tomorrow?
Here's an example of a better idea: Until the 1950's nobody knew what DNA was..and then it was described and genetics and biology were revolutionized. Was there biology and experiments before this? Yes. But did the discovery change the way the science is done. Absolutely. I don't think "experiments" themelves will ever be obsolete..How they are conducted and what they study..Thats another story

I work in a really small lab (just me, one honours student, and the prof) and we spend shitloads (not in comparison to other labs, but more than many non-scientists can imagine).

Either we get funding from private industry or we get money from the goverment. Either way, people complain. Most taxpayers "hate waste" and would probably look at my research and think, "WTF are we giving this guy money for" even though are research could have applications way down the road. But if we ask private industry or the pharmaceuticals to give us money (or buy our labs) we're evil and obsessed with money.

You can't win.

Newton's theory was pretty damn good, and I think it wasn't until the 20th century that data came in that contradicted it, leading to relativity. I don't know if those scientists were doing a "physics experiment" when they were recording the speed of light, they may just have been looking to see what was out there. And that will always continue...Even with a perfect theory, we will still be using it to describe what we see going on when we look through telescopes, which means we'll still be looking, giving us plenty of time to see things that don't fit.

for gaining knowledge, at least at the level I studied (physics for engineering students). I remember doing a bunch back in the day, and while we were far from breaking any new ground, we learned about the measurement and acquisition of real data, and using those bits of information to come up with some conclusions that were testable and repeatable.

Today, I know enough only to ask a physicist (or a physics major) what kind of physics they study.

...from "demonstrations." Most everything that undergrads do in physics lab (as well as most other sciences) is really the latter. One designs experiments to test hypotheses. If no alternative hypotheses are being tested, or if the outcome is known with a high degree of certainty, then the activity is not really an experiment, is it?

This doesn't really have any bearing on the OP. It's just a pet peeve of mine. Students are often taught to think of everything they do in the lab as "experiments," when most are actually "demonstrations."

Even if we become theoretically able to calculate the behaviour of all particles in a system, it may still (for a long time?) remain computationally impractical to do so, leaving room for less complete but more practical theories - which would still need to be tested. Look at Newton's laws of motion, for example: in a sense they were disproved by Einstein, but in fact they're still used, because in most cases they're "good enough", and simple.

... is that once you take a false step, there is nothing to let you know that you're wrong, and then you continue to build theory on false assumptions. Since you say physics is proceeding, I assume there are still unanswered questions in physics. I think the proposed answers to those questions will always need to be checked.

:evilgrin:

And not the Science Board? Are you implying that physics and science are the same as religion in terms of "faith" in the truths they espouse? The "end of science' has been talked about for over a century. It's a useless concept. There are always, always new areas of inquiry. I don't think you have a basic understanding of the scientific process.

or do you think that you are entitled to some kind of written justification for its placement in R/T?


Let's talk about what the Original Post implies or doesn't imply, rather than about what I am or am not doing.


What's the significance of the magic number one hundred when counting years?


In that case, maybe I'm not yet ready to post threads on "the Science Board" and should for that reason continue to post my threads that touch upon the philosophy of science and prophecies of a future history of science on "the Religion Board."

on the religion board that doesn't seem to have any bearing on religion. I am not a moderator, so I am not entitled to any justification. But I am entitled to ask.
So why did you post this here?

One hundred years is a century, our culture often uses this as a convenient benchmark. Do I have to justify my use of 100 years?

I have no idea what your last sentence means.

I have done some thinking and research.


If you were insinuating that an anticipated event that takes more than a hundred years to arrive will never arrive, then it might be a good idea to explain why and also explain how the number one hundred arises in that context.

the scientist whose research refutes (supplants? updates? simplifies?) that theory will surely become a star in the history of science.

Science is not simply about finding answers. It is about continually trying to find problems with the answers that we think we've already uncovered.

Sid

1) We move forward by disproving things. By experiment. And not just whole theories either, but any part thereof. Any claim someone might make.

2) When there were no more experiments that could be done in particle physics, they ran into a problem a little like the one you outlined. The response? They poured the combined physics budgets of many countries into the CERN LHC, pushing back the boundaries.

3) We don't just experiment to test for inaccuracy in the theories, but also to test for inaccuracies all the mental processes after that. Basic process: A) Make a series of logical steps. B) Test. If something is wrong, go find what step they went wrong.

Finding that results are consistent with your ideas means little, if anything. So we seek to turn our ideas on their heads.