Einstein & Hawking: Delivering Theories Without Experiments?

[Hyperspace2]

Suppose I am simple man, who studies in home and read some scientific journals . Could I be able to deliver some theories(and would it be possibly correct ?.

Would I have to be engaged in big laboratories consiting super computers, advance telescopes etc?

How was eeinstein became able to deliver theory of relativity.? I suppose he was able to deliver theories based on reading scientific journal.
I also came to know that the eeinstein general relativity was simply a result of thought experiement, (he didn't engaged in laboratories and engaged in telescopes or other methods , did he?)
Also I came to hear that hawking was not interested in observational astronomy. He was interested in theortical astrophysicist.
I also have another question, was hawkings deliver hawking radiation theory by observing universe or was it mathematical and physcical treatment.

Sorry I am not original english speaking person, my english is bad.

Thank u!

 

[tiny-tim]

Hi Hyperspace2!

There are two types of physicist: theoretical physicists and experimental physicists.

You can be one, or the other, or both.

Einstein and Hawking were/are theoretical physicists, so either they didn't need any experiments, or they could rely on experiments done by other physicists.

String theory reasearch, for example, is almost entirely theoretical.

All you need is a nice quiet room, and a lot of envelopes to write on.

… How was eeinstein became able to deliver theory of relativity.? I suppose he was able to deliver theories based on reading scientific journal.
I also came to know that the eeinstein general relativity was simply a result of thought experiement, (he didn't engaged in laboratories and engaged in telescopes or other methods , did he?)

The only experimental result that Einstein needed to know was that the speed of light is always the same. Everthing in special relativity followed from that.

And for general relativity, he only needed his thought experiments!

I also have another question, was hawkings deliver hawking radiation theory by observing universe or was it mathematical and physcical treatment.

It was pure maths.

 

[Andre]

Suppose I am simple man, who studies in home and read some scientific journals . Could I be able to deliver some theories

Theoretically a theory is a

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

that's a bit much but a hypothesis may home brewed somewhat easier.

hypothesis (a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations)

++++

(and would it be possibly correct ?.

Now there is a big world between between being "correct" as in absolute truth -that's more in the realm of philosophy and 'assumed to be correct' as theories are and being acknowledged as assumed to be correct, or being promoted to "mainstream". For complications in that area you may like consulting http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html.

Maybe interesting to compare a more ideal, logical point of view about science as formulated for instance by Hinshelwood here

Science is not the mere collection of facts, which are infinitely numerous and mostly uninteresting, but the attempt by the human mind to order these facts into satisfying patterns. A pattern or design is not a purely objective function but something imposed by the mind on what is presented to it. The imposition of design on nature is an act of creation on the part of the scientist, though it is subject to a discipline more exacting than that of poetry or painting. Two painters may depict quite differently a given scene, though the canvasses of both may present essential truth. Science has a greater objectivity than painting, but the formulation of its laws cannot be rendered wholly independent of the human mind. The limitation is the greater since knowledge is never absolute and its expression rarely perfect. Much of the content of a growing science is subsumed in working hypotheses, constructions which in the last analysis are not impersonal.

with Thomas Kuhns vision on scientific reseach in relation to professional education...

..Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".

 

[ZapperZ]

How was eeinstein became able to deliver theory of relativity.? I suppose he was able to deliver theories based on reading scientific journal.
I also came to know that the eeinstein general relativity was simply a result of thought experiement, (he didn't engaged in laboratories and engaged in telescopes or other methods , did he?)

You are forgetting one important aspect of Einstein - he was a physicist! In other words, he understood physics, and not simply dabbled in it as a hobby. This is important, because by being an expert in that subject area, he understands, in intimate detail, of the physics that he's dealing with. After all, you need to understand physics very well to know why there was a problem with the classical Maxwell equation and Galilean transformation.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Suppose I am simple man, who studies in home and read some scientific journals . Could I be able to deliver some theories(and would it be possibly correct ?.

Possible, but very unlikely. There is just too much to learn that it is not practicable to learn it completely on your own. I'm not sure anyone has done such a thing in modern times.

How was einstein became able to deliver theory of relativity.? I suppose he was able to deliver theories based on reading scientific journal.
I also came to know that the eeinstein general relativity was simply a result of thought experiement, (he didn't engaged in laboratories and engaged in telescopes or other methods , did he?)

Einstein's theories build on the experiments and math of others. I'm not sure he ever tested them himself -- but recognize, he was a phd: he was not self-taught.

 

[Hyperspace2]

Possible, but very unlikely. There is just too much to learn that it is not practicable to learn it completely on your own. I'm not sure anyone has done such a thing in modern times.
Einstein's theories build on the experiments and math of others. I'm not sure he ever tested them himself -- but recognize, he was a phd: he was not self-taught.

Probably he didn't bunk the classes, which I do everyday

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

Actually, he did skip classes at least at some point, and did a lot of self-teaching. But this surely isn't a better guaranty of success than following the curriculum. He had a lot of trouble finding his first jobs.

 

[Hyperspace2]

I came up new things.


Today reading at home is becoming easy. we have internet. Now I believe that everysimple guy could understand that special relativity an general relativeity(without bothering maths) simply going with animation and videos(specially videos at you tube).

so i beleve studying at home would not be same painful as you guys are telling.

I am now trying to imagine how productive and powerful would eeinstein woul have been if that time had lot of internet stuffs

 

[Vanadium 50]

If you don't understand the "bothering maths", you don't understand the theory. If you don't understand the existing theory, how can you hope to improve it?

 

[Hyperspace2]

But I usually feel math is needed to make a quantitive analysis.

For example when eienstein knew light's speed was a univeral constant,
then he concluded length and time should not remain constant with velcity.(but this simple idea was simply revolutionary than the math stuffs).

Eeinstein didnot developed whole mathematical theory himself he sought the help from other expert masthematicians.

 

[russ_watters]

so i beleve studying at home would not be same painful as you guys are telling.

Well you are free to believe whatever you want, but the bottom line is that as far as I know, no self-taught scientist has made a notable contribution to science in the modern era.

Eeinstein didnot developed whole mathematical theory himself he sought the help from other expert masthematicians.

The first part is true insofar as new theories build on old theories -- the second part is not true. Einstein did not collaborate with anyone.

 

[ZapperZ]

But I usually feel math is needed to make a quantitive analysis.

For example when eienstein knew light's speed was a univeral constant,
then he concluded length and time should not remain constant with velcity.(but this simple idea was simply revolutionary than the math stuffs).

Eeinstein didnot developed whole mathematical theory himself he sought the help from other expert masthematicians.

This is silly. Physics isn't just a matter of saying "everything that goes up, must come down". Physics also has to say when and where it comes down. It is the quantitative aspect of physics that makes it testable! You not only must say if something changes, but also changes by how much.

Einstein started with a postulate, and THEN, he made logical (i.e. mathematical) deduction to the consequences of the postulate. This is then compared to later observations. Without such comparison, it is another worthless, untestable idea.

But again, this is all moot. If you are so into comparing yourself with Einstein, why are you ignoring the fact that he is a physicist first and foremost, with a formal education in such an area. Do you think he understood classical electromagnetism (the impetus for him to make all those postulate of SR) without the mathematics?

And let's get the myth that Einstein wasn't good at math out of the way. He seek the help of other mathematicians when formulating some field equations. These are NOT easy mathematics. But to use this as an EXCUSE of not learning mathematics, or not wanting to use it, is utterly dubious. SR and GR are full of mathematics.

It appears that you are trying to "justify" your ability to come up with your own theory while being lazy. If you wish for us to give you the answer on whether this can be done without learning physics AND learning mathematics, the answer that you've been given so far is a resounding NO. If this is still not clear to you, and continue to what to carry on your delusion, then there's nothing else that can be said. We refuse to train budding quacks here.

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Zz.

 

[Hyperspace2]

This is silly. Physics isn't just a matter of saying "everything that goes up, must come down". Physics also has to say when and where it comes down. It is the quantitative aspect of physics that makes it testable! You not only must say if something changes, but also changes by how much.

Einstein started with a postulate, and THEN, he made logical (i.e. mathematical) deduction to the consequences of the postulate. This is then compared to later observations. Without such comparison, it is another worthless, untestable idea.

But again, this is all moot. If you are so into comparing yourself with Einstein, why are you ignoring the fact that he is a physicist first and foremost, with a formal education in such an area. Do you think he understood classical electromagnetism (the impetus for him to make all those postulate of SR) without the mathematics?

And let's get the myth that Einstein wasn't good at math out of the way. He seek the help of other mathematicians when formulating some field equations. These are NOT easy mathematics. But to use this as an EXCUSE of not learning mathematics, or not wanting to use it, is utterly dubious. SR and GR are full of mathematics.

It appears that you are trying to "justify" your ability to come up with your own theory while being lazy. If you wish for us to give you the answer on whether this can be done without learning physics AND learning mathematics, the answer that you've been given so far is a resounding NO. If this is still not clear to you, and continue to what to carry on your delusion, then there's nothing else that can be said. We refuse to train budding quacks here.

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Zz.

But it is so mean of you to tell that.

Why you thought I am comparing myself to the eeinstein? because I said I bunk my classes (that eeinstein probably did).

Accept the fact we

human all have ego that we are better than others.

Example-why human civiliztion is rising (because we have ego )

We everybody have a dream to become a great philoshopher or a succesfull person one day and that spirit make us alive. Is it wrong to make thought like this?and shouldn't like this? If you think this wrong and this cannot ommitted, then you are wrong because our verbal expression can't be aparted from our thinking.

You quickly justified me as quack or whatever. This is not place for justifying others.
Have u come inside me and looked how I think and how I behave ? we have never met
each other

Fact is that I have lot of queries and my feelings and queries are spoiled unmanagedly and you are making fun of me.
I was satisfying my queries about how I really begin myself with perfection for entering in the field of physics.


Thanks for you word of encouragement .

 

[ZapperZ]

But it is so mean of you to tell that.

Why you thought I am comparing myself to the eeinstein? because I said I bunk my classes (that eeinstein probably did).

But you keep using Einstein as your example to justify what you are doing. If you stop doing that, I'll stop accusing you of comparing yourself to Einstein.

We everybody have a dream to become a great philoshopher or a succesfull person one day and that spirit make us alive. Is it wrong to make thought like this?and shouldn't like this? If you think this wrong and this cannot ommitted, then you are wrong because our verbal expression can't be aparted from our thinking.

There's a difference between dreaming about something and not doing anything, versus putting the necessary effort to achieve that dream. You are trying to find justification for the former.

You quickly justified me as quack or whatever. This is not place for justifying others.
Have u come inside me and looked how I think and how I behave ? we have never met
each other

If you think you are not a quack, fine. But look at that webpage. Based on what you wrote, you are exhibiting symptoms of a quack. I mentioned this so that you might want to make your own self-examination.

Imagination without knowledge is ignorance waiting to happen. If I'm the first person to break to you the fact that a lot of things worth aiming for will require a lot of hard work, then welcome to real life!

Zz.

 

[JaredJames]

Hyperspace2, think of it like this.

Physics without the maths is like aerospace engineering (my field) without the maths.

You may be able to come up with crude and basic designs and ideas for aircraft which will fly, but without the "bothering maths" as you put it, it is impossible to make necessary refinements and develop and evolve it.

It is the fine details which can be seen in the maths (or not so fine in some cases) that allow you to understand and work with the concepts better.

What you have said above is this:
"I can watch a bunch of videos on how to build an A380, and as such I can develop those ideas and come up with a better/more refined aircraft without ever doing any maths".

This is BS and if you truly believe it you are deceiving yourself. ZZ is correct, what you have written above actually presents you as heading towards becoming a crackpot. They routinely cite various [insert topic here] subjects but don't back them up with any substantial maths and/or sources. This isn't meant as a personal attack, but you should really be careful not to head down that path.

Coming up with a new hypothesis is one thing, backing it up is another. If you can't prove it with the maths behind it, it isn't a substantial claim and will never be taken seriously (even if you are correct - people just won't listen).

The maths is important, it isn't just a way to refine and improve, but it is also a way of spotting flaws. This is a major step that cannot be overlooked.