• @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        36 months ago

        Plenty of physics sub-fields are still led by experiments, such as condensed matter physics. I don’t know if your statement applies to anything other than particle physics?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      207 months ago

      Physics is basically “some guy way cooler and way nerdier than you 100 years ago did some experiments observing this law, and because of that we can use really hard math to predict the whole universe.”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Some very specific experiments, precise and weird enough to produce some truly abstract results with strong hints of things like electron spin, neutron decay via the Weak Force, photon entanglement.

        Or out in the field - imagine hiking to the top of Ben Nevis in Scotland, then going up a further couple of kilometers on a balloon, carrying a camera and a vacuum chamber with an alcohol gas cloud within, to photograph the trajectories and interactions of mysterious particles from space.

        Back at Edinburgh or Manchester, wearing your tuxedo on weeknights, for an evening of drinks at the gentlemen’s club, discussing the latest results and implications with your peers, over single malts and cigars.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      67 months ago

      You’re not wrong, but we’re doing the experiments to test the theory, and that requires some math

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        36 months ago

        Or: We’re using math to summarise what the experiments have said so far. And then using that to extrapolate what might happen in the next experiment.