Are There Ever Multiple Theories That Fully Explain the Same Phenomenon?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the possibility of multiple theories fully explaining the same phenomenon without being subsets of each other. While it's theoretically possible, it's deemed unlikely due to the principle of Occam's Razor, which favors simpler theories with fewer assumptions. In well-established scientific concepts, typically only one theory prevails, while in emerging research areas, multiple competing theories may exist until one becomes dominant. The analogy of guessing the contents of an opaque box illustrates how theories evolve and narrow down based on new observations. Ultimately, scientific understanding tends to converge on a single, consistent explanation over time.
xaratustra
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Was just thinking, is it ever possible that the same phenomenon can be fully explained by two theories that are not subset of each other?

:rolleyes:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Of course. It's just extremely unlikely that both theories are equally simple with the same amount of assumptions. One would almost inevitably fall under Occam's Razor.
 
  • Like
Likes xaratustra
Drakkith said:
Of course. It's just extremely unlikely that both theories are equally simple with the same amount of assumptions. One would almost inevitably fall under Occam's Razor.

true. Thanks. Now I have to think more... o_O
 
Physical theories are mathematical models and for any set of given data there are an infinite number of models that fit that data. As the other poster said, one usually chooses the simplest.
 
cosmik debris said:
Physical theories are mathematical models and for any set of given data there are an infinite number of models that fit that data. As the other poster said, one usually chooses the simplest.

But we need to make a distinction here between "research-front" areas versus well-known, well-accepted concepts. In the latter, overwhelmingly, there is only one description that works.

In research-front areas, we may have several competing theories trying to explain what is still unfolding. It's like you are trying to guess what's inside an opaque box. First you propose a bunch of things based simply on the observed size. Then when someone managed to pick it up, then the rough estimate of the weight will narrow down to the list of possible objects inside of it. Then someone shakes the box and listens to how it rattles, and you narrow it down some more... and so on. But eventually, practically everything settles on one, consistent description that fits and explains all the known observations.

Now it doesn't mean, later on, that description doesn't evolve as new observations and ideas come along, but the evolution of our knowledge very often leads to a single concept, not multiple, non-"subset" descriptions.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes Nugatory
Assume that this is a case where by sheer coincidence, two sources of coherent single-frequency EM wave pulses with equal duration are both fired in opposing directions, with both carrying the same frequency and amplitude and orientation. These two waves meet head-on while moving in opposing directions, and their phases are precisely offset by 180 degrees so that each trough of one wave meets with the crest of the other. This should be true for both the electric and magnetic components of...
Back
Top