1

at present, I write a thesis about how one theory of physics can be "embedded" into another one in the sense that all phenomena that hold in one theory emerge as special cases or approximations in another, more general theory.

In order to obtain meaningful results, I do not only want to compare phenomena from a mathematical, formal point of view (e.g. by copying the proof that newtons law can be obtained as special case of the geodesic principle) but I want to make reference to empirical bounds of the validity of these phenomena.

For example, as a start, I would like to have data on experiments in electrodynamics (Coulomb's law, Ampere's law, Faradays law) and if possible, I would like to plot this data, that means, it would be amazing if there are some actual data $tables$ that could be downloaded somewhere, though overall results are also welcome.

The experimental bounds will be necessary to describe clearly what the exact range of phenomena is that can be described by certain theories because their equations do not tell us everything about this (as all laws are interpolations of observations).

I know of the Particle Data Group. This seems fine for determining the masses, charges, decay modes etc. of particles, which can then be compared with quantum field theoretical predictions. However I was not able to find a similar listing of tables for associated QFT laws like e.g. the quantum hall effect or the Klein-Nishina formula.

And especially not of simpler theories in physics like Newtonian mechanics, Electrodynamics and Special relativity. To search for and select original papers on these matters is possible but seems very tedious and first experiments were often not very accurate.

Any information and help is highly appreciated! Thanks.

EDIT: Thank you for pointing out that the threads "A reference request for real world experimental data" and "Where can I find the datasets from LHC?" are related to the question. Indeed the answers point to interesting sites that contain more information on particle physics, for example the opendata-project and an attempt for recasting data analysis in a new scheme that comes nearer to the idea to consolidate a platform for common data.

However, I am not specifically looking for particle physics data. I know that the machinery to process this data is extremely complex and I am happy with the already filtered data in the opendata-project and on the particle data group site. For the overview (using a framework involving category-theory) that I want to give over the connection of several theories, I want to start with the most simple laws and then gradually built up on that. Furthermore, many experiments that validate parts of QFT like the Casimir-effect or the Lamb-shift do not need to make use of particle accelerators.

I found another project on GITHUB that outlines an idea that comes pretty close to what I am looking for: https://github.com/LibrEars/Linked-data-for-scientists-with-python/ As said in the comments, it is actually a totally natural idea that something like that should exist. So if anyone has more sources, or even an efficient strategy to find papers with downloadable up-to-date data, please let me know.

exchange
  • 234
  • 1
    NIST might be able to help you. – probably_someone Nov 13 '17 at 22:40
  • 2
    This is one of those blazingly obvious things that ought to exist but that I doubt it exists. Part of the reason is the cost/effort of curating the data. Most physics disciplines are likely only interested in doing something like this internally, not making it comparable across disciplines. – Anders Sandberg Nov 13 '17 at 23:46
  • 1
    Tables of experimental results are rarely published with the account of the experiment - except when the table of results is the object of the research, as for metrology (NIST, for example). For other results, identify a group which has conducted the research you are interested in and write to the group leader or the lead author of the published report. – sammy gerbil Nov 14 '17 at 01:09
  • To elaborate on @probably_someone, NIST has a database of atomic transitions: https://www.nist.gov/pml/atomic-spectra-database . But in general, what you suggest is challenging and even in a sense subjective, because there are many possible extensions of a physical theory that one can consider and most constraints of the type you describe would be with respect to a particular one (or family) of these theories. So for anything much more subtle than measurements of fundamental constants this might not be really possible. – Rococo Nov 14 '17 at 02:07
  • @Rococo Thanks for the comment. Could you elaborate in an example on what exactly is subjective? – exchange Nov 14 '17 at 02:22
  • 2
    Of course the classical—and impossibly difficult—answer is "in journals stretching back to the first newsletters of the Royal Society and in persona communications between scientists some publish and much not". A slightly better—but still impractical—answer for well established science is "you'll find an adequate number of references in the body of textbooks". Your basic problem is that the scope of the project is mind-bogglingly huge and the depth of the history makes it worse because sources and even vocabulary and style shift over time. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Nov 14 '17 at 03:00
  • 2
    That said, I suspect that some of the historical heavy-lifting may be getting done for you on [hsm.se]. But it won't be comprehensive. Again, I doubt you really understand the scale of the undertaking: it would be a monumental task to do just for a modern sub-discipline like electroweak physics. Doing it for all of nuclear physics or all of particle physics would be bigger still. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Nov 14 '17 at 03:03
  • @dmckee Thankyou! Yes, as said in the edit, I want to start with the simplest laws and then work myself upward from that - I am aware that I can not deliver a complete account of all interconnections between physical theories - and that even for a single subarea I will probably still have to rely on some estimates but I hope to be able to narrow these down and get an overall picture of a subarea at least. – exchange Nov 14 '17 at 04:01

0 Answers0