Physical experiments vs "thought experiments" or Richard Feynman vs Albert Einstein
From Richard Feynman: if a real experiment is not carried out, one cannot deduce any conclusion about some theoretical hypothesis (neither confirmation nor invalidation) .
In this case, how did a genius like Albert Einstein come to justify his assumptions to others with several "thought experiments" which are in fact only an "imaginary reality"?
This is the ultimate paradox of one who is considered by many to be the greatest scientist of the twentieth century.
What do you think about the "situations" described in the following points (1) and (2):
(1) Richard Feynman quotation from:
https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/
" In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it."
(2) Einstein's thought experiments from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments#Background:_Einstein_and_the_quantum
"A hallmark of Albert Einstein's career was his use of visualized thought experiments as a fundamental tool for understanding physical issues and for elucidating his concepts to others".
"A thought experiment is a logical argument or mental model cast within the context of an imaginary (hypothetical or even counterfactual) scenario. A scientific thought experiment, in particular, may examine the implications of a theory, law, or set of principles with the aid of fictive and/or natural particulars (demons sorting molecules, cats whose lives hinge upon a radioactive disintegration, men in enclosed elevators) in an idealized environment (massless trapdoors, absence of friction). They describe experiments that, except for some specific and necessary idealizations, could conceivably be performed in the real world.
As opposed to physical experiments, thought experiments do not report new empirical data. They can only provide conclusions based on deductive or inductive reasoning from their starting assumptions. Thought experiments invoke particulars that are irrelevant to the generality of their conclusions. It is the invocation of these particulars that give thought experiments their experiment-like appearance. A thought experiment can always be reconstructed as a straightforward argument, without the irrelevant particulars. John D. Norton, a well-known philosopher of science, has noted that "a good thought experiment is a good argument; a bad thought experiment is a bad argument".
I don't think the two concepts are mutually exclusive, they are complimentary. Thought experiments are necessary to critically reflect on a concept without the encumbrance of details necessary for experimentation. It provides a green field to think and reflect on potential and to create hypothesis that can be tested. Hence, Einstein relied on the testing of his hypothesis formed from thought experiments to validate concepts. We all face the need to think about a problem and if the problem exits. Confining oneself to pedanticism removes the ability to create. Conversely, confining oneself to pure thought negates the ability to prove or at least infer proof of the thought experiment. My two pence...
What do you mean by real experience, do you mean matching between the mind and the external reality, if everything revolves around the axis of the mind, even physical experiences, it does not mean that, because reality means conformity and this is not really achieved as long as the research in the physical phenomenon is renewed from time to time.
The physicist Max Planck made a very important contribution to quantum theory; he discovered the value of a constant that bears his name and which expresses the minimum energy threshold that can be measured on a particle.
Let us see now the value of this constant: h = 6.63 . 10 -34 joules.second.
Planck discovered this constant in 1900, by force of circumstance if you will, because at that time it was believed that the exchange of energy between matter and radiation was continuous, whereas experiments proved the opposite.
He introduced the value of this constant into his calculations, with the intention of making its value tend towards 0 in order to return to a continuous description of radiation, but his efforts were in vain: the constant h could not be cancelled without contradicting the experiments...
Here is the formula developed by Max Planck: E = h . f, where :
- E = energy of the frequency;
- h = Planck's constant;
- f = frequency of the wave.
He will later give the name of quantum to these quantities.
A "thought experiment" seems to me to be a contradiction. I am surprised that scientific geniuses use this kind of process to give pure reasoning the appearance of experimental reality. Generally this type of reasoning is full of subtle pitfalls that can only be detected by taking the time necessary for the analysis.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Computer Engineering
- Computer