4 ms·
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
by 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 agoWell, 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 agoExactly. A lot of amazing math has come out of string theory.
- morelandjs 4y agoHere'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.