Why Physics research is difficult than any other subject?

Answer 1

Depends a lot on the researcher doesn't it?

As a degreed physicist, I always thought psychological research was waaaay more difficult than physics. I mean, people are wierd and really hard to understand under any rational basis. In fact, any kind of research involving people is far more difficult to get a rational handle on than physics, chemistry, math, or any of the so-called hard sciences. How does one rationalize irrational behavior?

But if your question is really "Why is physics research so hard," then the one answer that said because we can't see what we're researching is correct, up to a point. I think another reason is because, until recently (some time after I got my degree in 1973), physics only explained "what" happened. It failed to explain "why" it happened.

Gravity is a prime example of this what vs why aspect of physics research. Newton's F = GmM/R^2 gravity force equation just tells us what the force between two masses will be. It does not tell us why those masses create a gravitational force field. Einstein's bent space model for gravity tells us space bends under mass, but, again, it fails to say why.

It was not until quantum mechanics came into being that physicists began to get a handle on why there is gravity. And string theory expanded on the quantum idea with its infinitely thin, very short strings that replace point quanta. Thus quantum gravity and string/M theory are trying to explain why there is gravity as well as what it does. But, to date, the posited gravity quantum, the graviton, has yet to be observed as the messenger particle, the why, of gravity.

Another what vs why is Newton's inertia law. "What" is easy...mass will not alter its velocity unless there is a net force to do it. That is, if mass is at rest, it'll stay there; if it's moving, it'll coontinue to move in a straight line. That's what happens, but why does that happen? Why does mass have inertia?

Again, physicists are just beginning to tackle that issue. To date, the so-called Higgs Field, a higher dimensional force field is the explanation on why some particles (mass particles) show inertia and others (energy particles) do not. And like string/M theory, the Higgs Field has yet to be validated through experiments.

So, yes, physics research is hard in part because it often deals with sight unseen things. But I think it is also hard because it is now just beginning to delve into the why of physical phenomena and those are intrinsically hard mysteries to solve. Why is always harder than what, no matter what domain the research is done in.

Answer 2

I don't think it is, necessarily. If you're doing theory, the math might be more complicated, but observational or experimental is pretty much the same level of difficulty as, say, chemistry or pharmacuticals.

Answer 3

Because you are experimenting with things that you cannot see, and the only evidence for them is the traces they leave when they smash into each other.