James A. Putnam
Theory Introduction Page
Website Homepage
Table of Contents
ã 2003
Trying to improve theory is an arduous task involving many
precarious decisions. Choices must be treated as being tenuous. Error must
continuously be driven out. It is first necessary to determine what errors
exist in previous theoretical interpretations. Secondly it is necessary to
determine how those errors should be corrected. Thirdly, it is necessary to
continue the effort of revision when your own work repeatedly turns out to be
in error. Sometimes these errors are made clear by incorrect results. Often
they are discovered by an intuitive thought. It suddenly becomes clear that your
subconscious mind has been thinking it over and has discovered that something no
longer seems right. You are made aware of it in an instant, as if you have been
signaled to see it. This thought frees the way for your mind to offer a new
idea about what may be the best way to proceed.
The important question becomes: How do we know when an
intuitive idea is a better scientific answer? One common test is: If an idea
helps to successfully predict new empirical data, it gains greatly in
credibility. This occurrence is certainly of great value. However, it is not
enough for the new idea to lead to new predictions in order to prove its
truthfulness. These can very often be predicted by incorrect theory. This is
true because all theories are designed to fit existing empirical data. Theories
are formed around the patterns found in empirical data. Afterwards, these
patterns are capable of making further successful predictions. This occurrence
gives the appearance of confirmation of our theories, even though there is no
other established physical connection between theory and reality. New theory
needs more than predictions in order to demonstrate improvement.
One important indicator that the theory is improving is:
After correcting an error and its effects, the new idea and its new effects
make it possible to expand the theory. The theory grows into important new
areas. Problems, that before seemed unsolvable, now have solutions. If it is
found that an idea has the opposite effect, or that the work using the idea remains
compartmentalized, then the idea is highly suspect for being wrong. It does not
save the idea if the work produced demonstrates greater simplicity then
previous ideas. Isolated simplicity is not a sign of a good result.
The thrust of this measure of merit is whether or not the
theory exhibits progress toward unity. I do not mean this in the sense in which
current physics theory is being united. Unity cannot be an afterthought or an
added on effect. Real unity does not follow after the fundamentals have been
developed. It is, instead, an inherent property of good theory. Unity should
appear as a part of the development of the fundamentals. As more theory is
added it should demonstrate the continuity of unity. True unity will have a
constant appearance in the theory. It will not be gained or lost by changing
levels of energy or any other property of the universe.
There is another strong indicator of correctness that became
apparent to me during the development of my own work. Even in incorrect theory
there appear fundamental constants. These constants are not dispensable,
although their theoretical interpretation may be in error and in need of
radical correction. As the theory is corrected these fundamental constants
reappear. Their new interpretations contribute importantly toward theoretical
unification.