Theoretical physics!

[Daedalus685]

Ok, because of the posts about the latest Steven Hawking book I'm a bit concerned about this..

Many replies were on the order of "if it is not observable or testable it is not science" using this such logic to claim Dr Hawking is now well within the realm of religion himself, or at best philosophy.

But I ask... What then is theoretical physics?

Using beautiful maths and wonderful ideas folks come up with models for how the universe works often decades before it is "observable" or "testable".

It is still an attempt to explain the unknown using logical reason... Using ideas that in principle are falsifiable, and testable... Even if not immediately today.

How does everyone else feel about this? Is abstract pure theory not science? How long of a time is acceptable before a legitimate theoretical approach becomes fanciful dreaming?

The ideas of Dr Hawking are certainly not directly observable in regard to watching the universe begin.... but there is absolutely no reason an experiment could not be conducted one day do show the inevitability of 'creation' given little more than gravity and the existence of a many dimensioned universe.

In my opinion those who decry this way of thinking must not understand what it is he is talking about.. or how physics has historically functioned. It is just as common for a theory to come out thought that correctly explains something as that something being observed leads to a theory. We still have not discovered the Higgs, yet it is often not deemed a philosophical vanity.

I need not watch an event to say how it almost certainly unfolded once a firm understanding and proof of a mechanism of this event is understood. If at some point brane theory is proven, demanding that I travel back in time to apply this proof to the origin is akin to disregarding lighting as a movement of charge for all of time up until this "modern lightning" was understood. After all, just because lightning is that way now is no proof that Zeus was not responsible for all lightning up until 400 years ago.

That is the end of this rant.. lol

 

[ModestGamer]

They call it a hypothesis typically. The hypothesis of the big bang is the proper terminology.Typically a hypothesis has testable evidence. At best Hawkings has a Postulation. A Idea requiring testable evidence.miles from a hypothesis light years from a thoery and a huge distance to a law.

 

[Daedalus685]

They call it a hypothesis typically. The hypothesis of the big bang is the proper terminology.Typically a hypothesis has testable evidence. At best Hawkings has a Postulation. A Idea requiring testable evidence.miles from a hypothesis light years from a thoery and a huge distance to a law.

What are you on about?

I don't think you know what a postulate is.. It is a fact that needs no explanation or proof as it is considered self evident and is the basis to a hypothesis and the reasoning behind a theory. That the earth orbits around the sun is a postulate, as it requires no further proof to assert to the cosmology community. To claim that Dr Hawking has a postulate in creation ideas is very incorrect, but perhaps part of his idea is still hypothesis and made up of many postulates.

The big bang is a theory... though the name is a few decades past being a useful description of what is believed to have happened.

A hypothesis is an idea one comes to as something "they think is the way it is". A theory is merely the collection of demonstrated facts... there are hypotheses within big bang theory, but much of what is discussed has been demonstrated as likely based on observation of the CMB. An hypothesis does not require currently testable evidence.. that is my point. Why is such a beautiful thinker being ridiculed for devising the works of a theory that may or may not be correct on the grounds it is not scientific when it is about as scientific as one can get. Either folks do not understand or there are people that believe experimentalists are the only scientists and theoretical discourse is pointless (or at least less worthy). That is what I am wondering...

People don't seem to understand that one can arrive on a postulate by studying maths, observation need not begin the series of events to a theory. All theories start as an idea... all theoretical physicists begin their studies with ideas... To claim that one is "just hypothesizing" is akin to decrying a race car driver for bothering to start his car before the race... That something has not been proven does not make it unscientific.. that an idea is not considered a theory as it has not been fully tested does not mean it won't be some day nor does it have anything to do with it being scientific or not.

 

[ModestGamer]

Here is a scientific dictionary.

A postulation is a idea about how something might work with no testable methodology
A hypothesis is a testable postulation.
A thoery is a hypothesis that has proven to have repeatable experimental evidence.
a law is a proven fact with evidence to back it.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/postulation

Theoretical physics is at best in some cases a hypothesis.

What are you on about?

I don't think you know what a postulate is.. It is a fact that needs no explanation or proof as it is considered self evident and is the basis to a hypothesis and the reasoning behind a theory. That the earth orbits around the sun is a postulate, as it requires no further proof to assert to the cosmology community. To claim that Dr Hawking has a postulate in creation ideas is very incorrect, but perhaps part of his idea is still hypothesis and made up of many postulates.

The big bang is a theory... though the name is a few decades past being a useful description of what is believed to have happened.

A hypothesis is an idea one comes to as something "they think is the way it is". A theory is merely the collection of demonstrated facts... there are hypotheses within big bang theory, but much of what is discussed has been demonstrated as likely based on observation of the CMB. An hypothesis does not require currently testable evidence.. that is my point. Why is such a beautiful thinker being ridiculed for devising the works of a theory that may or may not be correct on the grounds it is not scientific when it is about as scientific as one can get. Either folks do not understand or there are people that believe experimentalists are the only scientists and theoretical discourse is pointless (or at least less worthy). That is what I am wondering...

People don't seem to understand that one can arrive on a postulate by studying maths, observation need not begin the series of events to a theory. All theories start as an idea... all theoretical physicists begin their studies with ideas... To claim that one is "just hypothesizing" is akin to decrying a race car driver for bothering to start his car before the race... That something has not been proven does not make it unscientific.. that an idea is not considered a theory as it has not been fully tested does not mean it won't be some day nor does it have anything to do with it being scientific or not.

 

[silverpig]

Theoretical physics is at best in some cases a hypothesis.

Theoretical physics is by definition a theory. Otherwise it'd be called hypothetical physics.

 

[ModestGamer]

Theoretical physics is by definition a theory. Otherwise it'd be called hypothetical physics.

A thoery has testable evidence and is repeatable. Mathmatical modeling of untestable phenomenon does not meet this criteria.

It is at best the field of hypothetical physics. Which is truly what is is.

Everytime we dilute science in this way by overeaching we give the people who support ideas like

The theory of Creationism

the right to abuse our vocabulary.

its not proper nor proven and absolutely condemable.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

Be careful how you paint all of theoretical physics with one stroke, those of us who are actually theoretical physicists usually take affront to that kind of labeling.

 

[silverpig]

Be careful how you paint all of theoretical physics with one stroke, those of us who are actually theoretical physicists usually take affront to that kind of labeling.

Even us former experimental physicists know the value of theoretical physics and what it is based on.

I think these guys are talking about string theory, which most physicists would agree stretches the definition of theory a bit.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Even us former experimental physicists know the value of theoretical physics and what it is based on.

I think these guys are talking about string theory, which most physicists would agree stretches the definition of theory a bit.

Even a portion of string theory may soon be tested, which would help it move much closer to the classical definition of a theory.

http://www.physorg.com/news202553083.html

 

[ModestGamer]

Be careful how you paint all of theoretical physics with one stroke, those of us who are actually theoretical physicists usually take affront to that kind of labeling.

Produce evidence and meet eh scientfic criteria to go forward. I encourage. but I will not dilute vocabulary to suit anyones ego when I fight this battle with my local school district on creationism etc.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Everytime we dilute science in this way by overeaching we give the people who support ideas like

The theory of Creationism

the right to abuse our vocabulary.

No, different things are different things. Truth is truth. There is no slippery slope between truth and untruth. If x!=y, then y!=x, so why are you crapping your pants over the thought that maybe y has the "right" to claim it is x? It can make no valid claim of being x, for it is not x.

You should spend more time working out how the unknowable works.
Equivalent entities in the darkness are equivalent. Religion says that, given any number of things that are mathematically equal, one is greatest.
Silly religion. They are the same. Pretending one has an additional effect does not form the basis of a logical wager.

Produce evidence and meet eh scientfic criteria to go forward. I encourage. but I will not dilute vocabulary to suit anyones ego when I fight this battle with my local school district on creationism etc.

Your trials are your own. Science is under no obligation to suit your earthly desires. If it wishes to play a game of 'what if' -- what if we are peering across into the forever night -- it may do so. I see no cause for worry, for in order to postulate a change in value you must, too, a change to effect. But if effect, then evidence. If evidence, then light has SHONE!

 

[ModestGamer]

without a common agreed upon word useage we are all dommed to babble. So my advice would be

use the dictionary.

It has definitions for words.

Use the adjectives that most accurately describe what you are attempting to name.

No, different things are different things. Truth is truth. There is no slippery slope between truth and untruth. If x!=y, then y!=x, so why are you crapping your pants over the thought that maybe y has the "right" to claim it is x? It can make no valid claim of being x, for it is not x.

You should spend more time working out how the unknowable works.
Equivalent entities in the darkness are equivalent. Religion says that, given any number of things that are mathematically equal, one is greatest.
Silly religion. They are the same. Pretending one has an additional effect does not form the basis of a logical wager.



Your trials are your own. Science is under no obligation to suit your earthly desires. If it wishes to play a game of 'what if' -- what if we are peering across into the forever night -- it may do so. I see no cause for worry, for in order to postulate a change in value you must, too, a change to effect. But if effect, then evidence. If evidence, then light has SHONE!

 

[Daedalus685]

Here is a scientific dictionary.

A postulation is a idea about how something might work with no testable methodology
A hypothesis is a testable postulation.
A thoery is a hypothesis that has proven to have repeatable experimental evidence.
a law is a proven fact with evidence to back it.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/postulation

Theoretical physics is at best in some cases a hypothesis.

most theoretical physicists spend their time hypothesizing.. most then work with experimenters to attempt to craft a full fledged theory... what on earth is wrong with that? Why is a hypothesis any less scientific? It is a fundamental aspect of the scientific method and no less useful than a 'theory'.

That being said... why are you stuck on the semantics so much? There is no real difference between a theory and a law besides conventional usage. Old theories tend to be considered laws but they are by no means any more of a proven fact as it relates to the complete understanding of a subject. I am jsut as able to disprove a law as I am a theory... in many cases what we call "laws" are only approximations. Newtons 'laws' only apply in our relatively medium moving, medium sized world and entirely ignore relativity and quantum mechanics. It is a pointless exercise to argue the exact meanings of words that have no exact meaning... This was not my intention at all... I was merely concerned that so many seem to relegate thinkers to religious or philosophy when thought is the foundation of science.

An hypothesis is required before an experimenter tests it. A mathematical basis is often required to explain things that an experimenter might see.

What I see often, and why I made this thread, is that many don't seem to realize what is going on with science..

There are two common ways things get done. Someone thinks up an idea that logically based on many postulates and goes about testing this idea. Hypothesis leads to theory. The other way is that an observation that cannot be explained is made, which is given to a theorist who goes about devising mathematics and ideas with current postulates and we can end up with a theory.

Why is the former teated with such disdain... what is the difference?

We are not talking ideas that can never be proven.. we are talkign ideas that have not yet been proven. They are very clearly falsifiable. Certainly there are some aspects of some theorists lives that might not be very scientific (they are not falsifiable) but that has nothing to do with pondering on teh origin of teh universe and spending ones time devising a model that might exp[lain the creation of something from 'nothing' and gravity.


By the by... a postulate is synonymous with an axiom. To postulate is to collect postulates (axioms) to formulate your idea. The link you kindly provided explains this exact thing. A postulate is a fundamental idea that makes up a hypothesis. They are fundamentally accepted facts that need not be explained as part of the hypothesis.

I may hypothesize that the length of a year is changing by x minutes each orbit of the earth.

The hypothesis of the time change needs to be proven but the postulate that the earth orbits the sun needs not be looked at in further detail and, indeed, is perfectly implied without stating it. It is a postulate.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

... my local school district on creationism etc.

This is not a battle I nor anyone can win -- arguing with religious nuts is an uphill battle.

I'm afraid I'm unable to provide evidence for EVERY theory ever devised, perhaps you could narrow the list down a tad?

String theory, despite the name, is still in its infancy. Its a mathematical model right now while theorists work on trying to provide testable experiments. For now try looking at a paper on ADS/CFT, search up Cliff Burgess. It has some interesting implications involving string theory.

 

[Daedalus685]

This is not a battle I nor anyone can win -- arguing with religious nuts is an uphill battle.

I'm afraid I'm unable to provide evidence for EVERY theory ever devised, perhaps you could narrow the list down a tad?

String theory, despite the name, is still in its infancy. Its a mathematical model right now while theorists work on trying to provide testable experiments. For now try looking at a paper on ADS/CFT, search up Cliff Burgess. It has some interesting implications involving string theory.

String theory is certainly unfortunately named... though theorizing is just as appropriate of a label at stage one as it is when the final product is truly a theory.

Why do you think there is such a motivation in popular discussion, particularly as it relates to the reception Dr Hawking got with his latest work, to ridicule theorists for working in the realm of religion and philosophy? I can't for the life of me think this is the case, and can't figure out where it all came from.

Since when have the masses taken "evidence based" to mean that all ideas have to have immediate proof to be valid discourse? Is this merely the result of chaps like Richard Dawkins appealing to the average person? It appears that no one seems to understand what theorists actually do... This must be the case if one can create any parallels between them and a religious speaker.


To sum it up for some... Religious thought is not falsifiable, and it is not based on a foundation of postulates. What theorists do fills both of these roles, and although there may not be an experiment to prove correct many of these hypothesis there will at some point be... and this will occur before such hypothesis are used as "theory" or a basis for another's work... What they do is a very important aspect of science.

 

[Mark R]

Here is a scientific dictionary.
A thoery is a hypothesis that has proven to have repeatable experimental evidence.
a law is a proven fact with evidence to back it.

There isn't really anything hard-and-fast that makes a scientific theory a 'law'.

However, a simple enough rule is that a theory becomes a law when the theory has been tested so extensively, and the evidence to support it so totally overwhelming, that it can be considered inviolable.

Of course, even this rule has problems - e.g. Newtonian gravitation isn't adequate to predict the motions of the planets in the solar system, and this was recognised in the 19th century. Nevertheless, it is still called the 'law of gravity' today - because, at least in certain contexts (such as on earth, and in simple solar orbits), the predictions it makes have been so extensively tested, that they are, for practical purposes, inviolable.

 

[ModestGamer]

This is not a battle I nor anyone can win -- arguing with religious nuts is an uphill battle.

I'm afraid I'm unable to provide evidence for EVERY theory ever devised, perhaps you could narrow the list down a tad?

String theory, despite the name, is still in its infancy. Its a mathematical model right now while theorists work on trying to provide testable experiments. For now try looking at a paper on ADS/CFT, search up Cliff Burgess. It has some interesting implications involving string theory.

It should be string postulation or string hypothesis even though anything beyond a postulation is really a diservice to theorys.

In science its ok to say. I don't know. but I am looking here and here and there and over yonder. But just say

I don't know. When dealing in absolutes science becomes as insipid as the religion that attempts to undermine it.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

I think that you might be getting swept up in sensationalist reporting on science. Main stream media likes to pick up stories and spin them, taking things scientists (and everyone else for that matter) say out of context.

Other times there are outspoken people that make dumb comments (both scientists and religious people alike).

By and large, science and religion are not mutually exclusive as some would have you believe the take away point though is that while you can alter your beliefs based on science, it's hard to alter science to fit your beliefs.

 

[DominionSeraph]

It should be string postulation or string hypothesis even though anything beyond a postulation is really a diservice to theorys.

String Theory != The Theory of Strings.

 

[ModestGamer]

I think that you might be getting swept up in sensationalist reporting on science. Main stream media likes to pick up stories and spin them, taking things scientists (and everyone else for that matter) say out of context.

Other times there are outspoken people that make dumb comments (both scientists and religious people alike).

By and large, science and religion are not mutually exclusive as some would have you believe the take away point though is that while you can alter your beliefs based on science, it's hard to alter science to fit your beliefs.

I don't inherently disagree about media sensationalism,I fanatically agree. All to often we let them run with the ball on stuff to becuase thoery sounds better then postulation or hypothesis.

But its up to us to police them. We must and we should becuase we should not dilute science to fit political nor religous agendas. Only the truth matters and if we lie, we loose our credability.

we become no better then the street corner preacher shouting down about dammination and brimstone.

 

[Daedalus685]

I don't inherently disagree about media sensationalism,I fanatically agree. All to often we let them run with the ball on stuff to becuase thoery sounds better then postulation or hypothesis.

But its up to us to police them. We must and we should becuase we should not dilute science to fit political nor religous agendas. Only the truth matters and if we lie, we loose our credability.

we become no better then the street corner preacher shouting down about dammination and brimstone.

Again... I must point out that postulation is not what you think it is.. You even linked the definition a bit above. Postulate is synonymous with axiom.

I suppose the act of collecting postulates is postulation (though I'd argue merely declaring a postulate is also postulation).. but that is part of hypothesizing, research, and every step along the way to a theory. It is not its own step and it is certainly not something less significant that hypothesizing. Apples to oranges. Postulate is to hypothesis as lego blocks are to a tower. Very few bother to make their own blocks and those that do are general years gone before their blocks cure.

No one is lying when they talk about strings, the big bang, and so forth. They are not certain, but they don't claim to be. Only those ignorant in the media who spew forth the dumbed down articles claim certainty.


Again I must ask.. what on earth is wrong with someone hypothesizing and when did it become not worth while? It is a fundamental aspect of theorizing and science. There is nothing unscientific about one using a model to depict strings, the big bang, and so forth. String theory may only be a developing theory, as with many aspects of the 'big bang', but everything has to develop at some point as that is how it works. Because they are in their infancy does not mean they are unfalsifiable and I assure you in 50 years there will be experiments to demonstrate the ideas and they will be expanded or discarded. It should be exciting not derogatory.

 

[crashtestdummy]

A lot of theoretical physics is rationalist philosophy, but some is still in the realm of testable science. Much of the work is done with the idea of being eventually testable. That of course doesn't stop people from claiming absolute truths.

I'm reminded of a quote from Einstein. He was chatting with a former student shortly after gravitational lensing had first been observed, providing the first demonstration of general relativity's predictions. The student asked what his reaction would have been if he had been proven wrong. "Then I would have felt sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct."

 

[disappoint]

I'm reminded of a quote from Einstein. He was chatting with a former student shortly after gravitational lensing had first been observed, providing the first demonstration of general relativity's predictions. The student asked what his reaction would have been if he had been proven wrong. "Then I would have felt sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct."

LOL. He could only make such an arrogant statement after gravitational lensing was observed proving him right. Even then it's still a pretty arrogant thing to say.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Here is a scientific dictionary.

A postulation is a idea about how something might work with no testable methodology
A hypothesis is a testable postulation.
A thoery is a hypothesis that has proven to have repeatable experimental evidence.
a law is a proven fact with evidence to back it.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/postulation

Theoretical physics is at best in some cases a hypothesis.

I agree.

Many confuse the somantics of the scientific community with those of the general public.

A "Theory" is something that has been proven to the extents of our current knowledge. Gravity for instance. It has proofs, evidence, and logical chains of thought that lead to a conclusion that is not contradicted by other solid hypotheses.

If and when it is, it is re-examined to try to explain what happens.

Unfortunately, a "theory" in the general public means any crackpot idea that someone thinks of that fits one observation or another. Most popular "Theories" are weak postulations (Intelligent Design being one) that cannot be proven, have evidence to the contrary, or rely on a magical "black box" that nobody can explain.


So the only thing we have to be aware of is simple. Scientists are much better (ironically) with their nomenclature than, say, reporters. Any respectable scientists will not call their postulates and hypotheses "Theories" until they can prove them.

If they try, they get gutted by other scientists eager to either find out what really happens, or make sure that they are the first to do so.