2 ms·

She's exactly right. Any science discovery that's worth its salt is falsifiable. If you can't validate your results there's a problem. It's the responsibility o

She's exactly right. Any science discovery that's worth its salt is falsifiable. If you can't validate your results there's a problem. It's the responsibility of every theorist to make testable predictions, and to communicate to experimentalists how they might be tested. There's frankly not enough pressure within the theory community to disregard cagey theorists that actively avoid testing their predictions, or disregard the importance of testing in general.

bsedlm 4y ago
This is a limitation of science. The issue I see, is how to continue to study such purely theoretical matters? Why should everything have to be testable (and thus, potentially developed into a marketable product)? It may not be science, but a lot of people still like to do that kind of theoretical work.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Well, you can do maths research. That doesn't need to be testable, only self-consistent. However, number theorists don't come and say they've uncovered some grand mystery of the cosmos when they prove something about trans-finite numbers, unlike many theoretical physicists.
  - morelandjs 4y ago
    Exactly. A lot of amazing math has come out of string theory.
- morelandjs 4y ago
  Here's the problem I see with it. Say you take multiple "top tier" theoreticians and task them with the same physical problem. Suppose they all make slightly different starting assumptions, and these assumptions lead to mutually incompatible conclusions. Which one is right? Who do we believe? The whole point of testing theories is there can only be "one truth". If you let theories run rampant without testing you end up in logically inconsistent chaos. All that said, theories should certainly be given time to grow when experimental validation is not immediately available. However, there's many in the community that take great liberty with that long leash to the detriment of physics progress.
tappaseater 4y ago
Well Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen was published in 1935. Bell's Theorem was published in 1964. Bell's wasn't tested experimentally until 1972, by which time it was largely forgotten except for creative fellow who worked out a way to test it. I think having testability as a qualification for theory might not serve us well. It blows my mind how much we have deduced about black holes in 100+ years, yet it was only very recently that we could actually "see" one. Would hate to lose that.
- Zamicol 4y ago
  I've always considered Bell's solution somewhat obvious. It wasn't team Einstein's responsibility to propose a solution, his motive was a rebuttal. The fact that it went unstated for 30 years, Einstein died in 1955, reflected poorly on team Heisenberg.

bsedlm 4y ago

This is a limitation of science. The issue I see, is how to continue to study such purely theoretical matters? Why should everything have to be testable (and thus, potentially developed into a marketable product)? It may not be science, but a lot of people still like to do that kind of theoretical work.

tsimionescu 4y ago
Well, you can do maths research. That doesn't need to be testable, only self-consistent. However, number theorists don't come and say they've uncovered some grand mystery of the cosmos when they prove something about trans-finite numbers, unlike many theoretical physicists.
- morelandjs 4y ago
  Exactly. A lot of amazing math has come out of string theory.
morelandjs 4y ago
Here's the problem I see with it. Say you take multiple "top tier" theoreticians and task them with the same physical problem. Suppose they all make slightly different starting assumptions, and these assumptions lead to mutually incompatible conclusions. Which one is right? Who do we believe? The whole point of testing theories is there can only be "one truth". If you let theories run rampant without testing you end up in logically inconsistent chaos. All that said, theories should certainly be given time to grow when experimental validation is not immediately available. However, there's many in the community that take great liberty with that long leash to the detriment of physics progress.

tappaseater 4y ago

Well Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen was published in 1935. Bell's Theorem was published in 1964. Bell's wasn't tested experimentally until 1972, by which time it was largely forgotten except for creative fellow who worked out a way to test it. I think having testability as a qualification for theory might not serve us well. It blows my mind how much we have deduced about black holes in 100+ years, yet it was only very recently that we could actually "see" one. Would hate to lose that.

Zamicol 4y ago
I've always considered Bell's solution somewhat obvious. It wasn't team Einstein's responsibility to propose a solution, his motive was a rebuttal. The fact that it went unstated for 30 years, Einstein died in 1955, reflected poorly on team Heisenberg.