1
$\begingroup$

Example this question was closed as duplicate. It is a duplicate as a question and when one goes to the link one finds a good answer in fairly theoretical terms, the first part not really geared towards the level of the question, and certainly not of the question made duplicate.

In addition it offers what I call a " platonic physics view", i.e. beautiful theories have been found and are the miraculous mold on which nature is poured. One reason I keep my attention on this site is because it is dominated by theorists and graduate students of theory and the answers are geared towards the "platonic". ( the other is that I seem to be the only woman physicist here with some reputation :) and do not want to let the side down ). I try to inject the experimentalist's view."

Now the platonic view may be the correct view and vindicated if we find a TOE finally. I.e. :"Mathematics molds the world". But it is not the view we have now. The view we have now is continuously testing the mathematics against the data, and the only real, imo answer to such questions is that this is what observations tell us and we have modeled them mathematically successfully . I would not mind if the site was from graduate students up, but such type of questions come from enthusiastic young aspiring physicists and answers always biased towards theory are not a good guide for them. They must realize that data and experiments are what inspire the theories and a theory in the air is just mathematics. It is the kind of thinking, "if I think deeply I will solve the equations of the world" without a strong basis on the data base ,that generates the cranks.

Thus I tend to answer such questions , but I do not get to them fast enough before they become duplicate. Maybe the duplicate should be signaled for one day or two before making it impossible to answer a simple question with a simple answer.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ +1 for pointing out the flaws and dangers of being all theory with no data. As for this particular question, though... well, it really doesn't distinguish itself in any way from the earlier one. Is there something wrong with putting your experimentalist's perspective as an answer to the older question, so that everyone who finds that page sees both ways of thinking presented? PS: Please continue to bring balance to the force... um... I mean "inject the experimentalist's view." :) $\endgroup$ – user10851 Feb 21 '14 at 6:08
  • $\begingroup$ @ChrisWhite the problem is that the one who got closed as duplicate will probably never see my answer in the referred link. Only the original OP is notified. Actually I started composing an answer there, and got the impetus for asking here. $\endgroup$ – anna v Feb 21 '14 at 6:36
  • $\begingroup$ I agree with the part on cranks, but I disagree that a platonic view is in disagreement with the experimentalist's view. A platonic world view does not state that experiments are not required to test theoretical predictions, going back to their postulates. $\endgroup$ – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir Feb 21 '14 at 15:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .