i always go for the theoretical side. that is one of the reasons why i fell in love with physics. its not because i have anything against experiments. but i feel like theories and hypotheses are my thing.

Theory all the way!!! I have always been intrigued by the method of mathematical application in particle physics and the mathematical language that has taken root to explain quantum phenomena.

You can hardly leave theoretical physicists alone !! What happens if you do is something I call “run-away-maths”, leaving out any connection to experiment and/ or observation. Best evidence ? Have a look at current articles in the Cornell “arxiv”, eg. in the sections “Cosmology…” and “General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology”; pick any – you’ll hardly find answers to fundamental (or sophisticated) questions about Nature.
Of course, any experimentalist needs his/ her fundamental background to work with; assumptions alone don’t really help.Anyway, I’m still looking for “negative mass” – and perhaps there is an answer in this very course ?!

They really have to go hand in hand. Without a theory, you just have empirical insight, but weak extrapolation power. Without experiments, you’ll always be left wondering whether this is simply mathematically possible, but not a reality in our universe.
Personally, I’m more on the side of theory because then you are not bound to limitations of resources. But, I guess I’m in the minority (I would expect 99%+ of the lay persons to be more interested in actually ‘seeing’ it)

I am more naturally a theorist, but a theory must make predictions which can be tested.

I’d prefer theoretical, or philosophical more likely. Theoretical physicists study several years of math in order to understand higher physics. The modern experiments need huge investments, expensive accelerators etc. Basically home-lab experiments are for general interest. On the other hand one can learn and deepen the existing knowledge with simple experiments and calculations.

The best theory can be is consistent. This is necessary but not sufficient. However valid experimental results gives us reality.
Although I do find theory fun.

The theoretical side, because it’s the underlying mechanism behind all of the amazing features of the universe based on mathematics which opens whole new fields of study.

I prefer the theoretical side, I love the pure, the theory, but that does not mean that I do not like the practical part

Not having given this much thought before, I think I’m drawn to the theoretical side of physics. This is where all the “child-like wonder” happens. But the experimental side has a large draw on my “look at the size of that collider” side. The shear scale of the machinery and levels of energy make my “thought juices” percolate. It’s all amazing and if I had to decide between the two for a career I’d have to do a great deal of introspection.

Why Quantjm Chromodynamics seems to preserve CP symmetry??

I’m more akin to theoretical side. Having studied theoretical philosophy as main subject.

In many of the other courses you’ve heard theorists describe how they try to understand our natural world. In this course, you’ve learned a bit about how an experimentalist goes about the same task. Which do you find yourself more inclined to, the theoretical side, thinking up new science to explain phenomena, or the experimental side, being hands-on and trying to discover incredible evidence? Why?

I honestly find myself more inclined to the theoretical side because I find it more interesting, the idea of someone being able to think up various science to explain various phenomena on the back of an envelope sounds really cool to me. I also think the facts that there are theorists in this world, tells a lot about the capability of human’s mind.

But I also think that experiment is very important, because what’s the use of a theory if it doesn’t agree with experimental result? So theory and experiment, both are just as important because they’re complimentary to one another, but if I have to choose to work as a theorist or experimentalist, I choose theorist any day.

Looking at my own preferences there are attractive features to both the experimental and theoretical. I like to tinker with things, pull things apart and put them back together to see how the parts fit and how they work together, yet I also like to look at the things being worked on and discussed and think through the implications and try to project out from them toward the next thing.

I gues that I prefer the theroical side because you can predict and create a way to understand the universe. You have to find the tool that allows you to describe some phenomena, you have to know how to interpret how to demonstrate and only with some clues. You have a very hard challenge because you have to create something that doesn’t exist and that perhaps can’t be proved for a few years, but you know it’s real. You create the way and the future of many discoveres.

This is a bit like the software dev vs. test dilemma. I’m more on the dev side, so theoretical. Others like experimental, quality assurance and chaos engineering. It’s all a matter of personal preference, I believe.

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am on the hands-on side.

Laying of hands in Biblical terms imply healing. I`ve Reiki level one. But energy work is a curious thing.

The hands-on work put to me from circumpolar science in Nunavut is required to understand terrestrial level swampgas from high level Van Allen Radiation Belts.

But my task has been both theoretical and hands-on.

VARB level is 240,000 feet above the earth. Terrestrial, visible northern lights are under 2000 feet.

Nunavut is an outter-space biome, on the polarcusp. This allows inflow, but also outflow.

http://www.clgurbin.weebly.com