Edoardo Vescovi
answered on 14 Nov 2019:
last edited 14 Nov 2019 8:09 pm
My research is essentially theoretical and has not to do with experiments or models that describe nature. Instead, the focus shifts to simpler models of fictitious universes that can be completely understood and solved, given little information on the particles in them. The story doesn’t begin with the outcome of an experiment and ends with tweaking the model accordingly — as the scientific method says — but the other way around. We choose particles and interactions, then calculate the result of an imaginary experiment. It’s imaginary because on a scratchpad.
The reason is that these models are far easier than nature, more symmetric, have less numbers to adjust (like masses and electric charges). Simplicity means that many quantities are calculated without approximations or measurements. The dream in the long run is to use some calculations and techniques to say something — even not with high precision — on the behaviour of real particles and their collisions.
.
A bit more if this is still “bluffing”.
— Which force? My toy models contain point-like particles similar to photons and gluons of the real-world Standard Model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#/media/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg). These particles carry the electric-magnetic force and the force forming atomic nuclei in the real world. I’d say that mine are pretty much the same, except that they do not form atoms.
— How strong the force? In my toy models, the force intensity is controlled by a number, called “coupling constant”, which can be seen as a cousin of the real-world electric charge. In the real world the electric charge has fixed value, in my fictitious universe the coupling constant is a handle to turn up and down as you like. We’re not after matching calculations and experimental data after all.
— Which matter particles? Ordinary matter is made of quarks and leptons (see link again) and similar particles are inserted in my models too, in variable number though.
— All calculations (of collisions, energies between particles etc.) are done on paper and computer. We use different calculational methods (which involve approximations — or not) depending on the value of the coupling constant (small and large — or a medium number close to 1).
.
Feel free to comment or join us in the next live chat!
The short answer is yes in this (theoretical) research. It is still part of science and it does not use the scientific method (say, observation-hypothesis-testing) because it does not aspire to acquire knowledge from nature.
.
I think it’s more honest to label this research as a branch of mathematical/theoretical physics rather than pure physics. Putting it into a broad context, here models should be eventually taken as playgrounds where certain computational techniques are developed and certain relations discovered. This may deliver applications and raise questions in the more complicated Standard Model that describes nature at microscopic scale so well. The emphasis on mathematical aspects is somewhat reflected by the fact that theoretical physicists usually work in Math departments rather than Physics in the UK.
.
Given this clarification on scope and aim, the approach of theoretical physics is not in opposition to the scientific method used, for example, in particle physics for accelerators in CERN. Scope and aim are simply different. Real physicists use experiments (collisions of particles) to tune the input numbers (masses and electric charges) and possibly improve the Standard Model. This way of proceeding seems good to question nature (via experiments) and build a language (the models) for extracting extract precise numbers and making further questions to improve the model. I think such scope and aim is laid out well by the first lines in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method .
.
Going back to the first part, I think certain passages and the figure in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics
convey the distinction physics/math physics, while a section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_physics
may help for distinction math/theo physics, which I glossed over.
.
I’d be happy to address other doubts if they arise.
Comments
tulloche commented on :
so is this flipped around method common in research rather than the standard scientific method?
Edoardo commented on :
The short answer is yes in this (theoretical) research. It is still part of science and it does not use the scientific method (say, observation-hypothesis-testing) because it does not aspire to acquire knowledge from nature.
.
I think it’s more honest to label this research as a branch of mathematical/theoretical physics rather than pure physics. Putting it into a broad context, here models should be eventually taken as playgrounds where certain computational techniques are developed and certain relations discovered. This may deliver applications and raise questions in the more complicated Standard Model that describes nature at microscopic scale so well. The emphasis on mathematical aspects is somewhat reflected by the fact that theoretical physicists usually work in Math departments rather than Physics in the UK.
.
Given this clarification on scope and aim, the approach of theoretical physics is not in opposition to the scientific method used, for example, in particle physics for accelerators in CERN. Scope and aim are simply different. Real physicists use experiments (collisions of particles) to tune the input numbers (masses and electric charges) and possibly improve the Standard Model. This way of proceeding seems good to question nature (via experiments) and build a language (the models) for extracting extract precise numbers and making further questions to improve the model. I think such scope and aim is laid out well by the first lines in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method .
.
Going back to the first part, I think certain passages and the figure in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics
convey the distinction physics/math physics, while a section in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_physics
may help for distinction math/theo physics, which I glossed over.
.
I’d be happy to address other doubts if they arise.