> For a long time, theoretical physicists tried to explain the results obtained by experimental physicists. I think this changed with Einstein – he actually predicted things. And some Einstein predictions were confirmed only many years later. With quantum mechanics, things seem to have worked that way from the beginning – theoretical physicists predict, experimental physicists confirm (or reject).
In the beginning Plank fit the experimental curve of the black body radiation with a mathematical formula, and an explanation that makes no sense. But it fit the curve! Later Einstein used that idea too to explain the photoelectric effect, and got a Nobel price, but explanation still makes no sense. But it fit the data!
Bohr got a formula for the levels of the atom. It explains the spectrum, but the explanation makes no sense.
Add a lot of people in between, with good formulas and bad explanations. It was mostly a collection of ad-hoc trick than a real theory.
Then Heisenberg and Schrödinger got a better mathematical model of what is happening. From that point on, all the tricks can be explaining using one undelaying theory. This is nice, because everyone hates a collection of tricks that nobody knows if they are incompatible.
So there are like 30 years of tricks to explain experiments, and then after Heisenberg and Schrödinger it's a nice theory.
Still, some parts make no sense, like the colapse rule in a measurement, but we are use to it. Everyone hopes it will be fixed someday, perhaps in 100 years, perhaps in 500 years. Don't hold your breath.
After that, Dirac predicted the positron. It was huge and I think it was the first theoretical prediction of quantum mechanics that was proven later experimentally.
After that, it get's really weird, but still there is a mix of theoretical and experimental results.
For example, I'm not sure how to classify the discovery of the quarks. They look very hard at the pile of experimental data, and realized protons and neutrons and similar particles must have 3 quarks and that there were 3 "flavors" of quarks. And they predicted a few new particles with these 3 flavors.
> For a long time, theoretical physicists tried to explain the results obtained by experimental physicists. I think this changed with Einstein – he actually predicted things. And some Einstein predictions were confirmed only many years later. With quantum mechanics, things seem to have worked that way from the beginning – theoretical physicists predict, experimental physicists confirm (or reject).
In the beginning Plank fit the experimental curve of the black body radiation with a mathematical formula, and an explanation that makes no sense. But it fit the curve! Later Einstein used that idea too to explain the photoelectric effect, and got a Nobel price, but explanation still makes no sense. But it fit the data!
Bohr got a formula for the levels of the atom. It explains the spectrum, but the explanation makes no sense.
Add a lot of people in between, with good formulas and bad explanations. It was mostly a collection of ad-hoc trick than a real theory.
Then Heisenberg and Schrödinger got a better mathematical model of what is happening. From that point on, all the tricks can be explaining using one undelaying theory. This is nice, because everyone hates a collection of tricks that nobody knows if they are incompatible.
So there are like 30 years of tricks to explain experiments, and then after Heisenberg and Schrödinger it's a nice theory.
Still, some parts make no sense, like the colapse rule in a measurement, but we are use to it. Everyone hopes it will be fixed someday, perhaps in 100 years, perhaps in 500 years. Don't hold your breath.
After that, Dirac predicted the positron. It was huge and I think it was the first theoretical prediction of quantum mechanics that was proven later experimentally.
After that, it get's really weird, but still there is a mix of theoretical and experimental results.
For example, I'm not sure how to classify the discovery of the quarks. They look very hard at the pile of experimental data, and realized protons and neutrons and similar particles must have 3 quarks and that there were 3 "flavors" of quarks. And they predicted a few new particles with these 3 flavors.