Theoretical Physics: Most Precise & Powerful Science

[raam86]

"Theoretical physics is the most precise predictive powerful area of science we know

The title is a quote of Prof. Neil Turok of The Perimeter Institute in Canada¹. I always had the impression physicists tend to "lie" or diminish mathematical rigor.

My point - I always thought mathematics is the most precise .. we know.

^*I do appreciate the standard model is considered to be extremely precise but I do not think you can deduct this to be a general rule to all of Theoretical physics.

¹
07'32"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVwirDNFQnI&feature

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVwirDNFQnI&feature=related#t=07m32s

 

[JaredJames]

I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this, so I'll just jump in:

The physics is only as good as the initial assumptions you make.

The key is amending the assumptions based on evidence and then refining the theories stemming from them.

Based on this, I'd say any area can be just as accurate as any other. It all comes down to what initial assumptions you have to make. If it's in an area we don't understand so well, then the assumptions can be way off. If it's in an area we know well then they're going to be more accurate.

 

[russ_watters]

Math isn't physics, but in any case it depends on the theory.

 

[Klockan3]

My point - I always thought mathematics is the most precise .. we know.

Is there a special reason you didn't fill this in? Because your answer is right there, maths holds no predictive power in our world.

 

[ZapperZ]

This is a very strange question/poll, and rather meaningless. For example, what does it mean when one says "the most precise area of science"? And then, somehow, things got changed to "the most precise predictive powerful area of science". This makes zero sense because even in physics, different areas have different predictive power (string theory makes no testable prediction, so how can one call it "powerful", whereas condensed matter theory makes tons of testable and tested predictions).

Furthermore, mathematics isn't science.

Zz.

 

[raam86]

I see and understand you conjunctures. I also thought the quote made no sense at all.

 

[Gokul43201]

Mathematics does not make predictions about nature. Science does.

 

[Dembadon]

[Off-topic]

The title of this thread reminds me of this:

[/Off-topic]

 

[raam86]

Zapperz, Have you seen the clip by the way? 7 minutes 32 seconds in you will see the quote.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think library science makes more precise predictions than physics. For example in 1990, it was predicted that the Library of Congress would have 142 million books by 2010 for 3 digits of precision. However, in that same year, physicists were predicting that the sun would die out in 5 billion years for only 1 digit of precision. I should add that the number of books in the library of congress did come very close to the 142 million figure confirming the accuracy of the prediction. So far the sun has not died out so we will have to wait 4,999,999,980 years to see how that goes. However, the universe is expanding at a prodigious rate of 70 (km/s)/Mpc and will collide with the sun in 4,999,999,979 years, so we may never find out.

 

[JaredJames]

However, the universe is expanding at a prodigious rate of 70 (km/s)/Mpc and will collide with the sun in 4,999,999,979 years, so we may never find out.

The universe will collide with our sun?

That sounds like something I should be really worried about...

 

[Chi Meson]

The universe will collide without sun?

That sounds like something I should be really worried about...

yeah coz the universe is like, really huge, innit? The sun's going to get smooshed.

 

[Steger]

There's no such thing as an experiment in Math (by definition that'd make it physics) so Math is infinitely inaccurate or infinitely accurate if you like. As for physics the number often held up is the gyromagnetic ratio of an electron which can be calculated from base concepts and has been shown to be accurate (relative to experiment) to 10-11 decimal places. And no, not even in Chemistry and Bio's wildest wet dreams could they approach even close to that level of accuracy from base concepts (i.e. saying the quantity must be this without a single guess and check with the real world)

 

[russ_watters]

The universe will collide without sun?

That sounds like something I should be really worried about...

Dunno - seems to me if the universe collides without the sun, we don't be affected!

 

[FtlIsAwesome]

"Poll Options:
Which is the most precise area of science?"

Only the science that I agree with.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Pure mathematics: saying something about nothing in particular, but in a very precise way.

 

[Acuben]

This is a very strange question/poll, and rather meaningless. For example, what does it mean when one says "the most precise area of science"? And then, somehow, things got changed to "the most precise predictive powerful area of science". This makes zero sense because even in physics, different areas have different predictive power (string theory makes no testable prediction, so how can one call it "powerful", whereas condensed matter theory makes tons of testable and tested predictions).

Furthermore, mathematics isn't science.

Zz.

i was thinking the same

now if you are talking about practical...well even that's too general