Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HumanistHippy t1_j9gs3bl wrote

It was the result of his equation that combined quantum mechanics with special relativity in order to describe the behavior of an electron moving at a relativistic speed.

The equation necessitated a "positron" mathematically. Unless the math was incorrect (which it wasn't), the "positron" had to be there even if we were unable to observe it at the time.

Source: CERN

49

shimadon t1_j9in5h2 wrote

Good answer, a quick correction: even if the math is correct, it doesn't necessarily mean that everything the math predicts has to be real. That's indeed what happened with Dirac, but it doesn't have to be true for all mathematical models of the physical world.

20

Holiday_Document4592 t1_j9jnxdn wrote

So how do we distinguish between the math that has predictive capability and the one that doesn't?

2

mfb- t1_j9ka5v6 wrote

We run experiments to check.

15

tpolakov1 t1_j9lef5p wrote

If a theory predicts something and we don't see it in an experiment, then it was a wrong prediction, or a wrong theory.

6