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.”
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.
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?
I would argue that physics is based more on experiments than math.
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.”
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.
You’re not wrong, but we’re doing the experiments to test the theory, and that requires some math
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.
Thats how it used to be. Now physics is eating its own theoretical tail.
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?