Faraday laws of Electromagnetism were followed by Maxwell Equations, which explained Faraday results and predicted Electromagnetic Waves, beyond FARADAY results.
What should be rated higher: EXPERIMENT OR THEORY ?
I believe both (E) and (T) are equally important. What I think should be rated higher is the hypothesis (H) upon which both (E) and (T) are based. In fact, even a failed (H) plays a central role as already explained in a previous post by @Gyorgy.
Here is a quick (approximate) translation of what Poincaré wrote about a failed hypothesis.
================
"It goes without saying that we must reject it without a second thought. That's what we do in general, but sometimes with some bad mood. Well, this bad mood is not justified, the physicist who has just abandoned one of its assumptions should be, on the contrary, full of joy, because he has found an unexpected opportunity for discovery. His assumption, I suppose, had not been adopted lightly. He had taken into account all known factors that appeared to be involved in the phenomenon. If the verification has failed that would mean there is something unexpected, something extraordinary, and thus we are getting to the unknown and the new.
Was the overturned hypothesis sterile ? On the contrary. In fact, we can say that it was more beneficial than a verified hypothesis. Not only has it offered the opportunity to make a decisive experiment, but also, had we made this same experiment serendipitously, without the initial hypothesis, we would not have benefited from its result, we would not have seen anything extraordinary, we would have merely recorded the result without deducting any interesting consequence."
======================
(H. Poincaré, (1902) "La Science et l'Hypothèse", p. 148).
A virtually identical question has been formulated with respect to theoretical modeling by Lijo Francis. Ludwig Boltzmann said that ¨nothing is more practical than a good theory.¨ Clearly he valued theory more, although theory and experiment must be interactive.
While I provided the example of Experiments and Following Theory, the question is for natural sciences in general.
Dear Alexander
Very nice question, I like this very much.
Actually, I am an experimentalist but I rated to be higher for theory.
Because theory is actual problem, all experimentalist follow the theory, if there no theory, then not possible any experiment.
Most of the Nobel prize winners are also belongs to theory due to this cause.
Hello to all. My answer is that they are equally important. A related question is: Imagine that you are about to find job in any natural science. What is better: to find a job in an experimental or theoretical group?
Dear Dr. Alexander J. Babchin, I don't agree for considering "equally important". The theory is important than experiment. In some instances doing experiment without theoretical knowledge is dangerous.
Even a simple minded person performs experiment to prove the theory he got in mind.
As said one famous physicist, "there is nothing more practical than a good theory".
Without the theoretical formulation of an idea, one cannot perform the experiment. An experiment is a way to prove the theoretical formulation. In case of understand remote objects, one has to perform experiments to build up a theory. So, in my view both are equally important where in some fields one overlays the other.
Dear Alexander,
Not everything can be tested in a laboratory. I would like to say that when you observe a truth, in a laboratory or otherwise, the observed truth can be theorized. Accordingly, theory follows every observed truth.
To me theory is a hypothesis that build on detailed phylosophical investigation in mind and experminet is nothing but the procedure to proof that hypothesis in real world. so as long as thoery doesnt come there is no basis of experiment.
Most of experiments are perform to explain some theoretical predicted phenomena and vice-versa. Some case they match and some case they contradict. The contradictions between theoretical and experimental results become a backbone for future scientific development and provide a platform for new theories and experiment. Thus I would say that both are equally important and they can develop without one-another.
All experiments are done on the basis of theory and to prove theory, which clearly shows what is more important !
It is a difficult decision. There are pure theoretics that are spending their life with completing a new theory and many years after their death a new experiment comes that can be explained only by their forgotten theory. There are pure experimental scientists that they have collected dozens of expermental data although they cannot explain even the 10% of it and many years later somebody creates a new theory based on those forgotten data. So, probably the answer is:
* 51% Epxeriment-49% Theory.*
@Demetris: My example:
Higgs theory first -- Higgs Boson later
discovery of radioactivity first -- atomic physics + quantum theory later
So I would prefer: 50-50
FARADAY Electromagnetic Induction FIRST, theoretical Physics later.
BECKERELE Rays first, Atomic Physics later.
Michelson had in mind that speed of light depends on the speed of the source, but results told otherwise. Before Special Relativity by Einstein no one could explain Michelson Results.
So, that all depends.
As I studied theoretical physics, experimental physics and mathematics (maths only for a little while), my opinion is that you cannot rate theory higher than experiment or vice versa. Both belong to science and are just different approaches to a problem.
Every good experiment should be based on a sound theory and every good theory has to be proveable by experiments - so, theory is the base for experiments and experiments are the benchmark for theories.
Or put it this way: what use has an experiment which is completely not understood and which use has a theory which cannot be proven or disproven? - the answer to both questions is: no use whatsoever...
This question is as if you would ask - which direction is more important: left or right?
@Dhruba: Have a look at WIKI "Hypothesis", You´ll find practible definitions. Regards
"Sometimes a hypothesis never reaches the point of being considered a theory because the answer is not found to derive its assertions analytically or not applied empirically"- a qoute from wikipedia difinition of theory
Experimental observations can disprove a theory, even if the theory is formally correct in a mathematical sense. In that sense, experimental observation is the arbiter of truth in scientific inquiry.
Dear Dr. Alexander J. Babchin,
Theory in science is not the same as the colloquial use of the term. Some time we dismiss certain information because it is "only a theory". It is theoretical not practical. Thus, a theory is a based upon a hypothesis and backed by evidence. Scientific theory is not only based upon guess, supposition, hunch but the idea or concept presented by a theory is testable.
In my opinion there is good experiment and good theory and bad experiment and bad theory. Irrespective of the approach those investigations help in science which are done out of sincere curiosity, based on keen obseravtion and frankness, precision in the details. This can be done if one is not doing the research from selfish motivation and sheer pride.Whether one is experimentalist or theoretician tells more about the person than on the problem.
Dear All
As I hope there is first theory then we need experiment to test it's validity.
If there is no theory, nothing can be find from the experiment. Every Experiment based on a particular theory.
Well, Brother Mohammad, Michelson was under illusion that light propagates in the ETHER, so, the speed of light depends on the speed of source. But his classical experiments told otherwise. So, now we are sure that speed of light is independent on the speed of source on the basis of the same "failed" experiments.
Agreed. There is no observation without a presupposition. Nevertheless non-matching observations prompt us to think more and to invent and try new theories. This is nicely described in Th. Kuhn's book on the structure of scientific revolutions.
Dear Jaya,
First, one may hypothesize something which is tested to see whether it is wrong. Therefore, experiments are done to disprove hypotheses if possible.
Again we are discussing about hypothesis. For me hypothesis is a precursing idea but no theory. A physical or natural science theory is a more or less worked out system with numerical results which is able to predict possible results.
This is an important and justified distinction, nevertheless there is a close relation between the theory and the hypothesis based on it.
What should be rated higher: EXPERIMENT OR THEORY ?
I believe both (E) and (T) are equally important. What I think should be rated higher is the hypothesis (H) upon which both (E) and (T) are based. In fact, even a failed (H) plays a central role as already explained in a previous post by @Gyorgy.
Here is a quick (approximate) translation of what Poincaré wrote about a failed hypothesis.
================
"It goes without saying that we must reject it without a second thought. That's what we do in general, but sometimes with some bad mood. Well, this bad mood is not justified, the physicist who has just abandoned one of its assumptions should be, on the contrary, full of joy, because he has found an unexpected opportunity for discovery. His assumption, I suppose, had not been adopted lightly. He had taken into account all known factors that appeared to be involved in the phenomenon. If the verification has failed that would mean there is something unexpected, something extraordinary, and thus we are getting to the unknown and the new.
Was the overturned hypothesis sterile ? On the contrary. In fact, we can say that it was more beneficial than a verified hypothesis. Not only has it offered the opportunity to make a decisive experiment, but also, had we made this same experiment serendipitously, without the initial hypothesis, we would not have benefited from its result, we would not have seen anything extraordinary, we would have merely recorded the result without deducting any interesting consequence."
======================
(H. Poincaré, (1902) "La Science et l'Hypothèse", p. 148).
@H.E.Letihet: Thanks a lot for this clarification. Your right hypothesis is needed and used in theory as well as in experiment.
Kind regards Hanno
When theoretical physicists work on equations and don't test their hypothesis, experimental physicists test their hypothesis and verify their conclusion. Usually theoretical physicists work on things
I feel both experiment and theory are required.Both sides really need each other.Better to run experiment than developing theory.
I would like to provide an example that an experementally established effect becomes the common knowlege, which does not require exact explanation. The phenomenon is known as REHBINDER EFFECT and was stated by P.A. Rehbinder, a Soviet Physical Chemist, in 1928. He claimed that surfactant monolayers adsorbed on the solid surfaces cause the great repulsion force between 2 identical surfaces in close proximity with one another. He demonstrated that a solid body, having tiny fructures at the surface, is easy to break in the case the surface is pre-wetted by surfactant solution. This effect is being used in technology for many decades, people forgot that no theory exist in the sence of exact Physics or Physical Chemistry. Instead, the REHBINDER EFFECT became the first principle of Physico - Chemical Mechanics.
The last person who was bothered with exact explanation was probably yours truly, as I failed to honor P.A. Rehbinder request and come forward with exact mechanism some 45 years ago.
Then, about 2 years ago, the understanding came to me by itself, without any hard work or even thinking. I contacted my friend, Dr. Schramm of Canada, the leading expert in surfactants. He confirmed, that my claim of OSMOTIC REPULSION FORCE DUE TO ADSORBED SURFACTANTS as the basis of Rehbinder Effect is real and has merits.
So, in no time two of us prepared and published paper on the subject.
But no one really cares about our paper, as readership know more about Rehbinder Effect, than they know about Osmosis.
If I may add my two cents' worth, I'd say that both are equally indispensable and are complementary.
There are three issues with theory alone:
1- The first is the ever-present possibility of unrecognized cognitive bias - i.e., implicit assumptions we're not even aware that we are making and which skew the whole process.
Here is an example: in the search for the GUT of physics (the Grand Unified Theory, aka the TOE - theory of everything) we have actually not investigated if there is, or has to be, such a theory in the first place. Some, such as Marcelo Gleiser, have argued that there is no reason why there should be a GUT to begin with and that our search for it stems from a cognitive bias arising out of our monotheistic culture. Whether that is the case or not is a valid question.
2- The second issue is that any theory whatever can be made to be consistent provided we have the same number of variables and equations - and such a theory, while flawless on paper, could be totally fanciful and reflect no reality at all.
In other words, any curve of degree N or higher can be thought to accurately describe N points or observations without however describing reality at all. Experiments with further observations are hence always needed to validate the theory (sometimes, the theoretical framework of the theory is further complexified to accommodate new points - that's what the critics of String Theory argue it does, for instance.) Predictive experimental power is a key step towards validating an on-paper theory.
3- Finally, there are the limits of our imagination - as Dieter Zeh once remarked, no one would ever have been able to think up Quantum Theory from the blank canvas of their thoughts alone - because it's so very odd - only experimental results could point the way there.
As for experimentation - on its own it is, of course, utterly barren.
Vitaly, our theoretical calculations provide large repulsion force in the range 5 - 25 MPa.
This force is called Disjoining Pressure, and was experimentally asessed by Rehbinder in 1930th, within the same range. So, we added nothing to the knowlege about effect.
As the practitioners, using effect technologically, come from material science, not from Physical Chemistry, they only heard about Osmotic Phenomena. They will not study it for reading the paper, Rhebinder Effect is more basic for them.
But, sure, OSMOTIC Phenomena is the Classics of Chemistry. Van Hoff was granted first ever Nobel Prize in Chemistry, in 1901, for his works on OSMOSIS.
From positivists' view, experiment is to verify as reality is intrinsic but interpretative prospect gives the importance to theory as knowledge is generated. Now it is your association to which school of thought you are attached.
Dear Dr. Alexander J. Babchin,
An experiment is the test that we run to confirm or reject a hypothesis. Therefore, 'theory' is rated higher because it lead to develop the hypothesis.
An experiment (repeated sufficiently to establish reliability) allows one to reject as false a theory or hypothesis that has made the false prediction. However, confirmation of the expected result does not establish its validity, merely that it has survived this test. For 200 years we thought that we knew howthe universe worked in exact detail (Newton's classical mechanics). It was Einstein's single experiment - the ultraViolet catastrophe - that forced us to abandon this as reality and realize that they provide only an approximation of reality. Quantum mechanics had to be developed to explain results at this level, etc. Hence, as per Karl Popper, there is an asymmetry to what we can know.
Dear Brother Afaq. People inwented the WEEL, some 7,000 years ago, but an underlying hypotesis did not survive, if any. The first Steam Engine preceeded theoretical Thermodynamis, and the First Internal Combustion Engene preceeded Carno Cycle. So, experimentalists and Engineers are smart and talanted on their own, while thinking differently than theoreticians.
However, Maxwell prediction of electromagnetic waves would have been catastrophic for his hypothesis if not for Hertz experiment.
Please try a balance of all your really interesting contributions.
My balance is still 50:50
Need to understand the theory before the experiments, otherwise need to do the experiment many times to understand the theory
If you're doing (experimental) science 'out on the edge', which is where you need to be in order to make discoveries, you'll likely make observations that are not well described by theory. Theory is just a model, after all. How well a theory describes 'reality' is verified by experiments.
In my personal experience, theory, physical laws, hypotheses, and experimental observations all tend to fuse in a complex interplay. There doesn't seem to be any particular order or hierarchical structure during the research. However, when the dust settles, you might be able to say that your observations are well described within or not within a theoretical framework. If not, you or some other researchers might have grounds to generate new theoretical frameworks that describe the observations more accurately.
So, hmmm ... "What should be rated higher: experiment or theory?" I think that is like asking: "What should be rated higher: the foundation of a building, or its roof?" So, I think both are just as important, but for different reasons.
As far as I can see, experiments and theory are two sides of one and the same coin.
To make experiments we need idealizations and theories to tell us what are these ideliaizations and how they are related to each other. The other way around, to construct theories, which are abstract logical constructions, we need experimental observations.
------------------------
An elementary example: if one wants to measure the resistance of some object between two connectors, one needs first to specify what is meant by voltage and current. The notion of voltage follows rather directly from work, but current is more challenging as currents are not measured by counting charges one by one across some surface. (Besides, such a thought already involved the question, what is meant precisely by a charge.) Accordingly, one needs an implicit way to measure the current, and this already calls for some theory.
Thereafter, once there is a satisfying method to specify experimentally the voltage and the current, fine measurements would suggest the U/I ratio is not constant. For, as we know well, the bigger the current, the bigger the heat losses. We obviously know this, because this is what the theory tells us. But if we did not know, we needed a hypothesis suggesting such a conclusion. And now, the verification of a reasonable hypothesis is the first step in building a good theory. Accordingly, experiments and theory approach the same things in a complementary way.
It sounded much more statements in favor of the primacy of the theory. I want now to protect the experiment.
High-temperature superconductivity is experimental fact that is clear for everyone and experimentalists were awarded the Nobel Prize for it. But there is no reliable theory yet.
If experimenters will be open tomorrow room temperature superconductors we all applaud them, and no matter whether there is a theory or not.
.
Far away from position myself for or against the reformism of Deng Xiaoping, but he has forged a lapidary fraze that might give an indication of what is most important, the theory or practice, the sentence was said in 1961 at a conference in Guangzohou:
.
"It doesn't matter whether it's a white cat or a black, I think; a cat that catches mice is a good cat."
.
I think this sentence is more important to science than to politics. Scientists and researchers must find solutions, which come first and resolve within limits is the most important, if after this theory or experimentation to confirm, there are ideal.
.
Dear all readers,
Please have a look on the following web link.
http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5275/advice-on-postgraduate-study-in-experimental-theoretical-physics-for-a-3rd-year
.
There was a great philosopher from the induction formulated a number of theories. 1800 years after a great experimentalist amused a little (if not the inquisition, wanting to burn him as a heretic, would have been even funnier!) invalidating much of the early theories. Names? Aristotle and Galileo Galilei.
.
The vision of a decoupled theory of a practice is a vision in which manual labor was for slaves, something that persisted in part until the nineteenth century, when the industrial revolution demanded more answers than ramblings, there's experience began to be valued.
.
It seems that at the moment, with the introduction of mathematical models return a little (2300 years), but the moment that existing physical models are exhausted return to value the experience.
.
Seems to me that experience without theory is extremely limited, but theory without experience is more religious than scientific mentality.
.
I like Rogerio citing Den. Sure, Communist leaders new how to make their point.
Marx and Engels are hard to read and understand, but they were theoreticians, not the leaders. Stalin and Mao revised their works, making them popular for simple people.
And all of them excelled in Phylosopy, working out THEORY of LIVE.
.
Just imagine a chemical reaction expected by the theory in which the ambient temperature is not correct, the ingredients are not sufficiently pure, external pressure is much higher than projected and still the inner turmoil was also higher than desired. .
Will the final product will be expected?
.
.
Imagine another scenario, 18 Brumaire, a French Republican looks at the facts and concludes. .
.
- Really the republic is something unfeasible!
.
Dear Dr. Alexander Babchin,
I was thinking that there are instances where niether theory nor experiment. "What Happened"? was assumed as experiment and later theory came into existence.
Observation is important. After detailed observation of a phenomenon a theory can be laid down with some assumptions. Experiments can be done based on the theory. Proving a theory wrong through experiment is also part of science. Science through out the ages have grown this way. Both are necessary.
If an experiment proves a theory wrong then both the theory and experiment has to be double checked for errors. Failure of a theory leads to another theory being proposed. Newton's theory of Gravitation was considered the ultimate theory some centuries back until Einstein proposed his theory. But the Newtonian mechanics still hold true for slow moving bodies. Layers and layers of abstraction, that is what science is.
Continuing in tune with Brother Afaq and Comrade Vitaly (no offence), I would like to bring attention to the historic fact, that KINEMATICS of SPECIAL RELATIVITY was developed by Einstein on the basisof thought EXPERIMENTS. As these experiments were later confirmed, EINSTAIN acted as the SCIENCE PROPHET, who he really was.
The best text on Special Relativity is his original paper: ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 1905. This paper is posted on Internet, assessable by just typing the title into GOOGLE search.
Dear Alexander
Yes, I am fully agreed with your nice opinion that honourable Albert Einstein did experiment, but before that he made a lot of efforts on his theory and later proved it by experiment. Over all I want to in about great Physicists Albert Einstein that first he was theoretician and later he proved his theory by his own experiments.
Dear Mohammad,
Please GOOGLE in "ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES". Einstein synchronised clocks in different Inertial Systems by performing thought experiments.
I am sure you will enjoy his original text, as he was not just a great scientist, but the great Science Writer as well.
Dear Alexander
A lot of thanks for your kind attention for me.
Yes I admire that Albert Einstein was a great writer too in Science.
In his book " Experiment. Theory. Practice." great Russian physicist Pyotr Kapitsa prioritizes experiment. He gives the following example: in the play "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" Marilyn Monroe's character says: "Love is a good thing, but a diamond bracelet lasts forever!" Kapitsa writes, the same in the relation between theory and experiment: "Theory is a good thing, but well done experiment lasts forever".
Of course, the experiment determines a property of something with certain accuracy. But with this accuracy this property (in right experiment) will last forever. The theory will change, sometimes drastically, only a few amount of theoretical laws will last (in certain approximation) forever.
Theories are based on experiments made in lab or on observations of natural phenomenons.Any theory not experimented and assessed is not useful. However lab experiments should follow basic science concepts.
You can have theory without experimentation but you how valid the theory is can only be assessed by experimentation. If you want your theory to stand the test of time and validity and reliability then you must delve into the realm of hypothesis and true science by design and testing the theory. Otherwise you have conjecture and no real data or premise.
Experimentation drives theory. Imagination and good thinking can help the theory process but it is experimentation that solidifies the thought process and justifies the eventual reality of true theory.
ERR. Should read...Sorry for the mistyping!
You can have theory without experimentation but how valid the theory is can only be assessed by experimentation. If you want your theory to stand the test of time and validity and reliability then you must delve into the realm of hypothesis and true science by design and testing the theory. Otherwise you have conjecture and no real data or premise.
Dear Dr. Alexander J. Babchin,
Experiments consolidate theory where theory guides experiment. Its race condition some time experiment wins and some time theory succeeds to guide. Also, situation may exists where experiment fails to consolidate and theory guidance fails to provide experimental setup.
I agree with you Carla that we can build theory based on knowledge and reasoning process without experimentation as in mathematics 'intuitive cognition'. However this theory is still unproductive out of any true assessment, and may be couldn't help knowledge develop. The best theories were based on inverse process from observations/experiments correlated to scientific knowledge and reasoning process.
This is a tough question. It ultimately depends on the field. In more lab/field oriented subjects, the experiment is really important. In more theoretical disciplines, theory comes first.
Examples, IMO.
Biological sciences, equal.
Engineering, experiment first.
physics/math, theory.
Dear Dr. Alexander J. Babchin,
It is difficult to put them on different poles. Both has win-win situations. But one think is clear that theory cannot be designed by simply doing an experiment.
Merry Christmas to everyone!
Agree with you dear Afaq.
Season's greeting and happy new year for all. Wish you the best, happiness and success
Wouldn't the experiment prove or disprove the theory or hypothesis? Isn't this the basis for all scientific inquiry? They are equally important in my opinion.
@Edward, I agree with your assertion. In the scientific method, a hypothesis is only valid if proven by experiment. In biological sciences, this is most certainly true.
However, some disciplines are highly theoretical, very hard to obtain data, such that great emphasis is place on the hypothesis. In these areas hypothesis kinda of bounce around until data for verification occurs; explanations tend to be mathematical or logical. I believe that Einstein's theory of general theory was not proven rigorous until after his death.
Same argument may be applied to evolution/Darwin as well.
Dear Dr. Alexander J. Babchin,
Both are equally important and more or less complement to each other. Experiments no doubt prove or disprove a thought but an unfortunate situation may occur where theory can be dictated by an experiment and also an experiment canot be designed for a theory.
I repeat my opinion and agree totally with Afag. You will find thousands of examples where experiment preceeds or where theory is in front!
Theory is defined as something that is experimental proven and accepted by the research community.
it goes:
Hypothesis > Experiment > Repeat > Theory.
Experiment would be thought of as how a theory is verified. Theory is the ultimate result of repeated experimental efforts.
In the experimental method. Hypothesis/experiment are equally important.
I'll just put a little more complication.
.
Experiments are usually reduced or not models of physical reality. When we simulate an event any are observing a model of a whole, ie, the observation of a phenomenon always precedes a theory because it does not theorize about something that does not exist.
Experiments provide a strong basis to formulate a theoretical model which exist in forms of theorems, axioms and laws.
Dear Dr. Alexander J. Babchin,
A theory cannot be substantiated without experimentation but an observed experimental results can develop a theory.
A simple minded theory could initiate an appreciably important experiment, and any simple experimental result could be a basis for mindful theory.
An experiment is like a lake, cool and calm. A mindful theory canals the experiment with its entirety through sea oceans, cool and hot and wavy and … . This coming spring creatures of the shallow lake would be more visible to “me”.
What should be rated higher 'a plate of rice or a plate of pasta ?'
Beside the fact that the verb 'rate' associated to a general idea and with no clear indication of what is the criterion of race has no meaning at all: I can rate soccer players for the number of goals they hit, I can rate the hotels for the quality of service, but I cannot rate anything with no rule, moreover I cannot say if 'hotels' (in general not a specific hotel) must be rated more than 'restaurants'.
This rating mania is one of the destructive consequences economy based 'unique thought' imposed to science (and to many other human activities).
I can say 'I like very much THIS plate of pasta' or 'I like very much THIS plate of rice' and this has a sense even if only subjective because of my personal taste.
In the case of Art and Science work I think that a good criterion for rating is 'the amount of new questions a given piece of work generates' i.e. the 'generativity' in the sense of the length of the shadows that the small light (any good piece of work is a small light of knowledge independently of its theoretical or purely experimental nature) projects, i.e. how much the work make us aware of the infinite depth of the Universe suggesting us new questions we never thought before... But this is my 'rule of play' and by no means I pretend is accepted by all the people...
@Alexander, it can be seen through the question of whether the theory is possible without experiment and vice-versa!? What do You think about? Here ,some good remarks on issue follow, http://boscoh.com/science/theory-vs-experiment.html
Dear Professor Ljubomir
Realy, it is good remark and I am agreed with it.
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/physics/cosmology-relativity-and-gravitation/theory-and-experiment-gravitational-physics
Theory equips us with knowledge and mindset with which an experiment has to be taken. Experiment is just demonstration and adds belief to your thoughts.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Electromagnetism