Theorists vs Experimentalists

[Maciej]

By the looks of things, the vast majority of people here who are engaged in research do experimental work. Are there any theorists out there? You know, people who tell the experimentalists what to do? :wink:

[Xerxes314]

You forgot the computationalists.

Xerxes

[Fernanda]

hahahahA! you think these people TELL us what to do?

u r funny ;)

From my point of view, it\'s amazing at all that theorist can even fit the data we give...they THINK they have the answer, but can\'t explain a hoot of what we produce.

Infact, many experimentalists in condensed matter are left to interpret the data themselves... cause in the LA LA land of theorists it all \"should\" work like so-and-so\'s theory...

:fresh:

[Maciej]

Well I don\'t mean they exactly tell you what to do, I think that theory guides experiment, at least for the most part.

In general wouldn\'t you agree that most theories in the past preceeded their experimental counterparts? Even if technology was the limiting factor, first you\'d need an idea and then a verification of it.

Sure it can go the other way with some experiment giving unforeseen results which would give theorists headaches. But the whole motivation behind an experiment must be some theory, whether it\'s an expectation to receive certain results or no results at all.

I\'m a steadfast theorist, I don\'t like doing those silly lab write-ups and then get graded on neatness (I\'m not very neat at all) which has nothing to do with physics.

I see that the two most popular faces on here are an experimentalist and computationalist. Speculative thought should be more popular :eureka:

[Xerxes314]

Everybody wants to be a theorist until they get to grad school. Most undergrads have very little idea what it is that theorists (or for that matter experimentalists) actually do.

Xerxes

[Maciej]

I couldn\'t imagine myself being an experimentalist. Even though the field would make more sense because you\'d know what you\'d be doing each day, and what to plan for the days ahead. But at the same time I don\'t think it would be as challenging / stimulating as theoretical work. I\'m sure to remain a theorist. I find it much more fascinating and engaging. The majority of the faculty at my university are theorists (we don\'t have a graduate department here).

[Fernanda]

first and foremost, neatness has everything to do with Physics.... Afterall, if you can\'t be neat about your procedure and data, why should we trust your sloppy experiment?

Theory does not drive experimentation. Specially in Condensed Matter, when theorists are catching up with the data given. There is no theory out there to explain some of the things produced in material physics, maybe a vague idea, but no sound theory... this isn\'t your 7th grade \"form a hypothesis, then test your theory\" sorta science anymore. It\'s more like...\"what happens when we put a monolayer of this on that?...hmm let\'s try it\"

If you\'ve ever sat at a theory session at a March Meeting, you\'d realize that condensed matter theorists today are struggling to explain the huge amounts of data thrown at them by experimentalists. The experiments are so many and so complex, it\'s extremely difficult to process all of the data from all of the available groups and sources.

You, like many others, must be thinking of Nuclear theory which is a very mature (not to say old...) science. They had much more time to predict since the equipment was not available until this modern age, specially computing.

Read any recent paper today and you\'ll find experimentalists have two tasks: To come up with something new, then explain what happened and hopefully there is a theory out there to make that easy.

Whereas many theorists are oblivious to experimental setups and procedures.

I don\'t think everybody wants to be a theorist... I always wanted to do experimental research simply because the thought of using someone else\'s data to try out my theories seemed crazy...why would I want to trust someone else for my work?

If you don\'t think experimental work is challenging, ask me! I spent 3 weeks at ORNL, half of which was fixing leaks and the other half just trying to get the darned substrate clean enough for experiment... you are constantly troubleshooting and doing everything from chemical safety and installation to engineering your own parts simply not available in industry.

I\'d much rather that then spend my days at a computer, then find out I don\'t care or can\'t have an academic job...then what? Programm for IBM competing with thousands of programmers fresh of college who know 10 different languages or work as an engineer for industry/government that are constantly in need of thinking type engineers? I choose the latter... much less competition.

Maciej, you need to really bone up on your ideas of who does what...cause you\'ll find that theory is not as glamorous as you may think, and you certainly have it all wrong about experimentation.
You\'ll need to visit a college with a grad department...

[Maciej]

I wasn\'t just refering to nuclear theory. Relativity theory, quantum mechanics, not to mention Maxwell was a theorist. It may just be that those events came so long before the available technology to verify them, so perhaps I should just move back in time to the good ol\' days of physics without computers.

What I was saying about neatness was that it only counts in experimental work; data taking, documenting procedures, etc. You don\'t neat to be neat to do theoretical work. Sure once you publish it then you use TeX to make it look nice but that\'s not how you do your work.

I like to take a philosophical approach to physics, and like some guy said (I forget who, maybe Hegel or Kant), speculative thought is the highest form of something (I forget what, too). I really believe that theoretical physics is the best kind of physics.

I don\'t really think that theoretical work is glamorious, unless of course you make some monumental theory or something. Experimental work is more practical and you can make more progress in it (not to mention probably make more money). But don\'t physics fanatics ever find that spending a day manipulating equations (without a computer), designing formalisms, and just doing philosophical nerdy physics stuff is more titillating than working with some machine or apparatus?

I guess with the popularity of condensed matter physics, particle physics, atomic physics and what not in the modern age then experiment may come before theory. But I don\'t understand what all the hype is about everyone talking about engineering and the things I just mentioned, but no one saying \"Oh, I\'ll get a PhD in relativisitic quantum mechanics with emphasis on Hilbert spaces\" or something. Nobel prizes in physics these seem to only go to experimentalists (did a theorist ever get one?).

As a side note, what computers/platforms do you use for your computer work?

[Fernanda]

yeah...Einstein!

[editor]

This reminds me of the old physics joke:
An experimentalist shows a graph to a theorist, and the theorist says \'Ah, yes this is because ..............., and I have the maths to prove it.
Then the experimentalist says \' Hold on, I had the graph upside down,. Then the theorist says\' \'Ah, yes this is because ..............., and I have the maths to prove it.

[Fernanda]

:lol::lol:

[Maciej]

Why don\'t people take theorists seriously :(

[editor]

Anybody that takes themselves so seriously is asking for a bit of rhubarb.

[Maciej]

Oh no, I don\'t take myself seriously. You should see the way I work :cool:
But in general it would seem that theorists are the butt of many jokes, all they would be best at is sitting and thinking.

[Fernanda]

they should think of some comeback jokes then :D

[Maciej]

As a matter of fact, I have a few things on understanding experimentalist research papers :P
What experimentalists say and what they really mean:

\"It has long been known that...\" - I haven\'t bothered to look up the reference

\"...of great theoretical and practical importance\" - ...interesting to me

\"While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to these questions\" - The experiments didn\'t work out, but I figured I could at least get a publication out of it...

\"The W-Pb system was chosen as especially suitable to show the predicted behavior\" - The fellow in the next lab had some already made up

\"High purity...very high purity...extremely high purity...spectroscopically pure\" - Composition unknown except for the exaggerated claims of the supplier.

\"A fiducial reference line...\" - A scratch

\"Three of the samples were chosen for detailed study\" - The results of the others didn\'t make sense and were ignored...

\"...handled with extreme care during experiments\" - ...not dropped on the floor

\"Typical results are shown...\" - The best results are shown...

\"Although some detail has been lost in reproduction, it is cleaer from the micrograph\" - It is impossible to tell from the micrograph

\"Presumably at longer times...\" - I didn\'t take the time to find out

\"The agreement with the predicted curve is: excellent [fair], good [poor], satisfactory [doubtful], fair [imaginary], ...as good as could be expected [non-existant]\"

\"The most reliable values are those of Jones\" - He was a student of mine

\"It is suggested that..., It is believed that..., It may be that...\" - I think...

\"It is generally believed that...\" - I have such a good objection to this answer I shall now raise it

\"It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding...\" - I don\'t understand it

\"Unfortunately, a quantitative theory to account for these effects has not been formulated\" - Neither does anybody else

\"Correct within an order of magnitude\" - Wrong

\"It is hoped that this work will stimulate further work in the field\" - This paper isn\'t very good but neither are any of the others on this miserable subject

\"Thanks are due to Joe Glotz for assistance with the experiments and to John Doe for valuable discussions\" - Glotz did the work and Doe explained what it meant

:fresh: :lol:

[Xerxes314]

How many experimentalists does it take to change a light bulb?

0.93 +/- 0.08

Xerxes :grin:

[Fernanda]

what? ganging up on us experimentalists?

just wait for your comeback ;)

[editor]

: How many general relativists does it take to change a light bulb.
A: Two. One holds the bulb, while the other rotates the universe.

Q: How many quantum physicists does it take to change a lightbulb
A: One. Two to do it, and one to renormalise the wave function.

Q: How many quantum mechanicians does it take to change a light bulb?
A: They can\'t. If they know where the socket is, they can’t locate the new bulb.

Q: How many astronomers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None, astronomers prefer the dark.

Q: How many radio astronomers does it take to change a light bulb.
A: None. They are not interested in that short wave stuff.

Q: How many theoretical physicists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: They can\'t change light bulbs but they can run expensive computer simulations which predict the lifetime of the bulb with order of magnitude accuracy.

Q: How many experimental physicists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: They don\'t replace the bulbs, they repair them.

Q: How many physicists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: If the light bulb is a perfect sphere, one. The solution for a light bulb of arbitrary shape is left as an exercise to the reader.

Q: How many theoretical physicists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Hmmmm, let\'s see
Q: That\'s correct!

Q: How many theoretical physicists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: A theoretical physicist is one that is postulated to exist, but has never been actually observed in the laboratory.

Q:What do you get when you cross a biker and a physics major?
A:A guy that has Maxwell\'s Equations tatooed on his chest.

[Fernanda]

hahahaah
:grin:

Q: How many physicists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: If the light bulb is a perfect sphere, one. The solution for a light bulb of arbitrary shape is left as an exercise to the reader.

[Turbovolver]

Originally posted by editor
Q:What do you get when you cross a biker and a physics major?
A:A guy that has Maxwell\'s Equations tatooed on his chest.
Look out for these guys... people who know physics fight surprisingly well :(

[lysdexia]

Q: How many computer scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: 0 if 0; 1 for very high values of 0.

Take that, Xerxes!

[kghose]

Do you like math ? Intensely ?
Do you like solving puzzles in your head ?
Would you mind banging your head against the same equation/idea over and over again for months ?

I think whether you do experiments or work out theory depends on what you have the most patience for. If you don\'t like tinkering with stuff (like what fernanda mentioned) then you probably don\'t want to be an experimentalist - thats what they do - in any field (I\'m in biology).

If you would rather spend hours guessing solutions to equations and trying to come up with the minimum explanation that will fit various pieces of information - then you\'d probably like being a theorist.

-kg

[kghose]

Originally posted by Maciej
As a matter of fact, I have a few things on understanding experimentalist research papers :P
What experimentalists say and what they really mean:
.....

I forget which book this is from, but I remember it was poking fun at science in general - especially the publish or perish syndrome.

-kg

[Edited on 1-27-2005 by kghose]

[Pascal]

\"first and foremost, neatness has everything to do with Physics.... Afterall, if you can\'t be neat about your procedure and data, why should we trust your sloppy experiment?\"

You only reffered to experimentalists section of physics. Please refer to theory next time you wish to criticize theorists about neatness. As for me I wish to be a theorist myself. I find starring at a whiteboard with a marker in hand writing out the equations of the universe facinating. After all with a few pen strokes I can solve the deepest questions of the universe. Not to mention that all of this only costs the price of the whiteboard markers, eraser and spray. This is compared to the millions spent by experimentalists for huge research facilities. This garuntees that I can discover the universe by use of my mind and my dreams can\'t be stiffled by budget cuts. I\'m sorry to hear this arguing but I know that it is really all good fun. I have a better Idea instead of theorist and experimentalists arguing let\'s pick on engineers! Those useless no good... wait I have a few freinds that are engineers. Well who cares, you probobly don\'t. Get to it! :D

[Maciej]

The downside of theoretical work, however, is that the results are often less tangible. This means that it is harder to convince an institution to continue paying you a salary when most of your work is in your head. But of course we can continue working even without a salary, only eating and living become a problem then. :wink: