No,  physics is not getting away from science, it's just getting too big for one person to possibly keep-up with the pace and breadth of the areas being explored. Narrowing the focus would run the risk of looking only in the wrong places for answers (tunnel vision).

You are philosophical, it is good. 1) Yes, it is drifting towards the end. The end is occultism. The God is against the latter. 2) Yes, the science should be supported by experimental evidence in larger scale. But there is evil, regressive invisible forces in the brains of physicists.

Physics was my first education in the university. My personal opinion today is that physics was a clear science before the 20th century. I mean Newton mechanics, thermodynamics, optics. They gave rise to many inventions and were responsible for technological progress.

Later some problems appears and the escape of early 20th century were quantum and relativity theory, still not very compatible with each other. While experiments allows to create many inventions in nuclear physics, quantum optics (laser) and some other sub-fields, the general theory of field looks today much  more similar to theology, where postulates cannot be proved.

I think that interplay between mathematics and physics plays here both positive and negative role. It is well known that mathematics can create richer class of objects that can be observed in reality. Non-Euclidean spaces having little in common with intuitive geometry are used by relativity theory - and often proofs of validity are unclear.

On the other hand, non-linear science describing complex behaviour of interacting objects via partial differential equations (KdV, nonlinear Schrodinger, etc) has allowed to explain many complex phenomena and even to predict new (like solitons).

Theoretical physics is science like experimental physics. But of course it´s possible to give place to phantasies, call it theoretical models, as attempt to find answers. I´m convinced, that all the theories will only be accepted if the scientists also find correlations to reality by experiments. I´m not so anxious because of the modern trends. My larger concern would be to reduce physics to the state in 19.th century because we today understand the old attainments.

Dear Barry

Physics, which in many ways represents Modern Science, seems to be sort of getting very religious in its belief. Take the case of the Big Bang theory.

As I understand it, the Fundamental Laws of Physics were created or rather came into existence just before Matter was created; otherwise there is no law for the matter to behave and the world would not be there. This essentially is the same as saying "First there came the Word...." which is no different from that of religion! How can law be there if there is no matter, and who wrote that law?

Narayanan

Unfortunately, in some topics mathematical definitions affects the results more than the experimental data - especially quantum physics is 'infected' this way. Some 'discoveries' like the 'Higgs Boson' makes me laugh (and simultanously cry)...

Dear Barry,

Physics is getting away from Science for several reasons:

• big projects have introduced new ethics, including:
• self injected signals as really observed ones (see LIGO case and relevant works of me and other RGers)
• fuzzy proofs or once shown 'observations' that could be false

But the reason behind such giant projects is just to massive bombard public without any deep background with results that have been ordered...

No,  physics is not getting away from science, it's just getting too big for one person to possibly keep-up with the pace and breadth of the areas being explored. Narrowing the focus would run the risk of looking only in the wrong places for answers (tunnel vision).

The history of physics shows an increasing process of complexification. In fact, the ongoing questioning and revision of the Standard Model is but one example of this. The traditional boundaries as well as the normal take of what truly physics is all about are being changed dramatically.

As a consequence, physicists are sort of at odds when dealing and coping with the pace of science - at large. In my own view, tis is truly passionating, and yes, positive.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Barry & readers, 

Thanks for the invitation to comment. 

There is always a tension in physics (and in other sciences) between theoretical development and experimental results. When theory runs well ahead of plausible observational testing, then it begins to look more speculative--as is the case in theoretical physics today. This has everything to do with the remoteness of the Planck scale of quantum gravity. Theoretical physics seems to be incomplete without some account of quantum gravity (and there are many approaches to the problems) and yet the energies involved and the scale of interactions to be probed are very substantially beyond what is accessible in experimental systems such as particle accelerators.

When the ruling mind set was logical positivism, then theoretical speculation was treated much more critically--the prevalence of positivism had much to do with early 20th century criticism and rejection of the metaphysical systems of the absolute idealists. But positivism will not come back. The general methodological perspective, importantly formed by the success of general relativity and quantum mechanics in the first half of the 20th century is versions of the hypothetical-deductive (and statistical) method. Evidence does not in general logically imply theory or hypothesis. At best it is the other way around. A new hypothesis must take in what has been observationally confirmed (as e.g., GR took in what had been confirmed as predictions and explanations of Newtonian theory)  and offer new, distinctive predictions for testing.

In terms of this method, theory and hypothesis may be developed which it is not clear how to test. The experimental conscience of science will get impatient, perhaps. That is good. The theoreticians are obligated to eventually provide observationally testable predictions. No one knows how long this should take. Theory left without testable predictions should eventually die on the vine. 

H.G. Callaway  

How do you define 'evidence' when one person cannot keep-up with the pace and breadth of the areas being explored? It implies that the whole picture can never be judged scientifically by one person, and if it would have been possible, how to know which person will be able to make this judgement adequately?

Moreover, there was time when physics was the model par excellence of science. That is not the case any more, nowadays. The standard conception of classical science is not tenable any longer. Fantastic! I am optimistic about the whole situation...

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Lambrechts, 

You bring up a question concerning individual comprehension of evidence and the breath of science. That is certainly an important kind of concern. 

You wrote:

How do you define 'evidence' when one person cannot keep-up with the pace and breadth of the areas being explored? It implies that the whole picture can never be judged scientifically by one person, and if it would have been possible, how to know which person will be able to make this judgement adequately?

---End quotation

I don't think it is necessary that any one person be in a position to judge what to count as evidence or in a position to comprehend the whole of science. I am also skeptical in general that "evidence" is open to any a prior definition. New technologies of experimentation, which often advance with progress in theory, make new forms of evidence available. 

Comparative methods help. We should ask about the similarities and difference of the variety of existing approaches to particular open problems and questions. Single-mindedly working to develop a single approach can and does inhibit needed and useful comparisons. 

It is important that those working in a given field keep up with their colleagues in degree and compare notes and results. We can be pretty sure, though, that if apparently important results and advances are claimed, then this usually attracts sufficient attention that others will attempt to replicate the results. 

H.G. Callaway

If there is not a single human person that will be able to mentally capture and integrate everything, science becomes a believe system, also given that no one can verify the reliability of the so-called modern techniques applied?

A simple example

There is not a single person that truly masters all the technical details of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? One technician has to trust the capacities of another technician, one scientist has to trust the competence of a technician/engineer and vice versa, etc....

 Theory left without testable predictions will eventually die when all the scientists supporting them will be dead as well as funding.  It take one or two generations.  Science is a very human affair and it is not ruled by a what we think it should be.  It is what it is and is constantly changing.  Physics had some glory days at the beginning of the 20th century and then the wars came, then the cold war which set some funding priorities at making nuclear bombs.  The second half of the 20th century was not an era of foundation in physics.  A lot of physical speculation took place in mathematical space during that period and which that has not been supported by any empirical evidences.  We were told by all kind of would be Copernicus that our visible universe is part of all sort of multiverses existing in all sort of mathematical spaces.  We were told that our impression to live into a changing 3D space is just an illusion but that there exist many more curled dimension in some string mathematical spaces.  But two generation later, no evidences, and the pionneers are lost in mathematical space with almost an infinity of theories that could matched known empirical evidences.  And billion of dollars have been invested into a super colliders and no new discoveries but only the celebration that certain prediction of the old standard model are correct, an assumption that all physicist were using in their daily theorizing for half a century.  I do not think that such deceiving discoveries will be enough to build new billion doallars equipment and the funding of large crews of physicists for many more years.

Big physics is failing under its own funding weight is its inability to have generated any new major discoveries.  The latest wild mathematical speculations are now seen as any other fiction book release on the market.  

But although big physics is not interesting anymore, some lonely theoretical physicists are  going back to the philosophical roots of their science and are exploring new approaches. They work more at the level of the fundamental philosophical concepts.  The era of pure mathematical hacking is over.

That indeed, dear Marcel is one of the reasons precisely why we have come to the network society. The very complexity of knowledge demands a whole network of cooperation and mutual trust. The idea of a genius as we came to know it might be changing right now, in front of our eyes.

That said, nevertheless, I think that the very fundamentals of science can still be managed by one single mind. The point is: thinking in terms of synthesis, not analysis, any longer.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Maldonado, 

What's the proverb? "Trust but check."

In particular, the experimentalists check each others'results. 

Trust alone is a formula for inviting exploitation of trust. All the network in the world won't help, if we don't question, inquire and keep checking. 

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Barry & readers, 

Thanks for the invitation to comment. 

There is always a tension in physics (and in other sciences) between theoretical development and experimental results. When theory runs well ahead of plausible observational testing, then it begins to look more speculative--as is the case in theoretical physics today. This has everything to do with the remoteness of the Planck scale of quantum gravity. Theoretical physics seems to be incomplete without some account of quantum gravity (and there are many approaches to the problems) and yet the energies involved and the scale of interactions to be probed are very substantially beyond what is accessible in experimental systems such as particle accelerators.

When the ruling mind set was logical positivism, then theoretical speculation was treated much more critically--the prevalence of positivism had much to do with early 20th century criticism and rejection of the metaphysical systems of the absolute idealists. But positivism will not come back. The general methodological perspective, importantly formed by the success of general relativity and quantum mechanics in the first half of the 20th century is versions of the hypothetical-deductive (and statistical) method. Evidence does not in general logically imply theory or hypothesis. At best it is the other way around. A new hypothesis must take in what has been observationally confirmed (as e.g., GR took in what had been confirmed as predictions and explanations of Newtonian theory)  and offer new, distinctive predictions for testing.

In terms of this method, theory and hypothesis may be developed which it is not clear how to test. The experimental conscience of science will get impatient, perhaps. That is good. The theoreticians are obligated to eventually provide observationally testable predictions. No one knows how long this should take. Theory left without testable predictions should eventually die on the vine. 

H.G. Callaway 

Dear H. G., the image of competition and struggle has been so much stressed when reading the scientific endeavor that we have come to forget the importance of collaboration, cooperation and trust. Science is bot: a field of fighting and a field of agreement. Why just focusing only on one of the rims?

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Maldonado, 

"Trust but check" seems to me to equally emphasize both. 

Elaborating the point, I merely responded to what was emphasized before in the thread. On the other hand, the proper emphasis depends on the specifics of the context. People who have shown themselves trustworthy are of course easier to trust again; and generally, those who have proved themselves untrustworthy will naturally evoke justified doubts. 

Often enough, people with greater power or position will presume our trust; but trust is something that must be earned. 

H.G. Callaway

The times when physics was the paradigm of the scientific spirit is over, it appears. Even the presumption that biology has taken over the role of physics as "the" paradigm is not entirely tenable.In other words, the very idea of "a" science that serves as example and guide for all other sciences belongs to the past. Nowadays we are been confronted, whether we like or not, with cross-disciplinary approaches, namely, the dialogue among sciences and disciplines - horizontally.

Who suffers the most in this picture if it is true at all? Math!

FAQ: General Information. ... How many people work at CERN? There are over 2,250 staff members employed by CERN but there can be up to 13,000 people on site at any ... And everybody knows everybody, of course?

Out of Information Sciences I can't say Physics is drifting away from science. In my recognition I realize a more and more immaterial objectivity. In classical Physics we had physical real bodies out of mass and matter, now we have particles or waves which have nearly no or certainly no mass or matter. We enter an area with objects which can't even be measured (the measuring is influencing the result too much) - only enumbered in very special and complex mathematical threads.

So our human senses get unimportant and our mind (ratio) is getting the only human weappon or instrument to find new relations in Physics.

Connected with Mathematics is the uncertaincy of possible results - even Probability-Mathematics is bringing a more and more "assumed" basis for future results.

So possible real new results seem to get very seldom (HIGGS-Boson).

Nobel Prices in Physics are exiting for very narrow and specialized knowledge. 

But of course Physics stays interesting - by hearing latest results from inside to outside of Physics.

Dear Marcel,

why should everybody know everbody in order to produce science?

Dear Hanno,

as indicated above/below

If there is not a single human person that will be able to mentally capture and integrate everything, science becomes a believe system, also given that no one can verify the reliability of the so-called modern techniques applied?

A simple example

There is not a single person that truly masters all the technical details of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? One technician has to trust the capacities of another technician, one scientist has to trust the competence of a technician/engineer and vice versa, etc....

And of course, in these conditions science is produced

Dear Marcel,

off course you have to trust your collegues, but with critical minds, proposals and better ideas. Thats science.

You can not prove any hypothesis.

The following paper is not focussing on the specific of this question but is focusing on the 

transformation of a meritocracy dynamic into a mediocracy dynamic.  The paper discussed the case of this transformation in academia and so that dynamic is relevant to the mediocratization of physics as of anything else in the academia and society in general.

The Culture of Mediocrity

Joseph C. Hermanowicz

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257623179_The_Culture_of_Mediocrity

Article The Culture of Mediocrity

If we reach the stage where everybody should know everbody to produce science we will need something we could call science 5.0 - based on the internet of brains. Well ... Unfortunately I maybe need such a technology to succeed in my project 'New World'...

https://www.researchgate.net/project/New-World

Drift is not the cause of separation. Theory charges ahead leaving behind experimental work and observations because of the higher cost. Budget constraints drives separation. 

What is the definition of 'theory' versus 'imagination'? Mathematical expressions can simply result from 'imagination'? The fact that 'imagination' exists implies it is true because it is one of those many examples of nature's expression?

Marcel,

Scientific theory results from a set of well arranged logical thoughts, imagination might be free of (up to date acceptable) logic.

The new theories need supporting data that can only be collected at high speed in deep space. Eventually such data will be collected and the gap between theory and fact will be narrowed. Much of my original research now is theoretical but directed to supporting scientific expeditions at high speed in deep space with calculations of possible limitations that may be found there. Several other researchers on FG are also exploring alternative propulsion systems that are essential for economic reasons in deep space research. In particular Todd Desiato has continued the work of Harold Puthoff in field effect propulsion and gravity research.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308948407_EM_DRIVE_THEORY_-_GRAVITY_IN_A_CAN

Although we are not in complete agreement on details, these topics are expected to move out of the theoretical realm into the experimental zone and yield useful results.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302352606_FRAME_DRAGGING_REMEDY_FOR_POLARIZABLE_VACUUM_THEORY_AT_HIGH_SPEED_IN_DEEP_SPACE_TRANSPORT

Until now experimental work has been hindered by disagreements about the amount of energy in vacuum space and unfavorable predictions of FLRW which I have challenged as being inconsistent with other fully integrated metrics. These disputes should be resolved if progress in experimental research is to catch up with theories.

Article EM DRIVE THEORY - GRAVITY IN A CAN

Article FRAME DRAGGING REMEDY FOR POLARIZABLE VACUUM THEORY AT HIGH ...

If there exists a 'theory of/about imagination', imagination can become theory?

Is biological physics drifting away from science? The role of imagination based on traces

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/tongtianlong-limosus-feathered-dinosaur-china-04355.html

An Outline of a Theory of Imagination

"Abstract

Imagination can be seen 1) as a mental faculty common to all people to some degree and 2) as an important principle in literary theory. We must think of imagination not as a simple power but a complex series of processes, involving the impression-idea-relationship and memory. The data derived thus are still bound to their epistemological context, and only imagination provides the possibility to transcend the space-time-determination and the cause-effect-relationship, so that it allows a freer display of the sense-data. This structural and functional analysis of imagination tries to show its immense importance in everyday-life as well as in literary production and reception." (link)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25170636

In my view, theoretical physics and experimental physics have always been divided more explicetely than, for example, theoretical and experimental chemistry. And at least in the past, there have always been powerful predictions generated from theory: the existence of the neutron, of the neutrino and of the Higgs boson, for example, have all been predicted long (decades!) before they have been discovered.

I don't see why this shouldn't be true in the future.  I would say that one goal of theoretical work in physics should be to derive testable hypotheses at some point (of course, I am an experimentalist). But also many experimentalists use huge devices today, so I guess in principle it is nothing wrong if also the theorists' apparatus is growing.

The images in imagination, when properly worded, becomes a theory; improperly worded remains a Novel.

Isn't it so?

That is right if the resulting theory is scientific and stand alone, irrespective of imagination inspired it.