5 ms·

Well considering that we know everything pretty much about most of everyday physics and new physics requires energies that are almost unreachable and billions o

Well considering that we know everything pretty much about most of everyday physics and new physics requires energies that are almost unreachable and billions of dollars in experimental investment and/or years and decades to collect sufficient data, it's not a surprise at all that foundations of physics progress has slowed. I don't think the physics community is to blame here. Just the nature of reality

rossdavidh 8y ago
I agree, although I think it could be argued that a logical outcome of this fact, is that most (although hopefully not all) of the physicists should go work on other things, like maybe the physics of planet formation, where we are getting new data all the time. Or maybe in areas outside of physics altogether, like the social sciences, where again we have orders of magnitude more data than we once did. If the low-hanging fruit is all gone, move on. That's hard news if you've sunk two or three decades into becoming an expert in a particular niche.
- Sean1708 8y ago
  > Or maybe in areas outside of physics altogether This does actually happen already. I'm not sure how widespread it is, but I've noticed it in a couple of Condensed Matter Theory groups. For example Imperial's group[0] do research on Complexity and Networks including the "application of these principles to a variety of stochastic phenomena, ranging from ant colonies to cardiovascular biology, from sandpiles to earthquakes". [0]: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/condensed-matter-theory/research/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/condensed-matter-theory/research/
- kgwgk 8y ago
  Physicists: https://www.xkcd.com/793/ https://www.xkcd.com/793/
peteradio 8y ago
I studied under a very smart professor who believed that somehow table top particle physics would be a possibility. See http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6355/990 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6355/990 . Maybe the HEP experiment consoritium is just a global grant conspiracy. Wake up sheeple!!
Balgair 8y ago
Well, if you can't build your own super-energetic-particle accelerator, borrow some-one else's! In this case, that would mean telescopes pointed at jetting black holes. Those bad boys are very high energy and should be making some really exotic particles. Granted, the resolution we need isn't really there yet either, but I think that making a system spanning telescope is a bit easier than a system-spanning accelerator. Still, you're right, the next (theoretical) energy regimes are much higher than what we can manage to build today. We're forced to look at the stars for 'inspiration' for the foreseeable future. This particular golden age of physics is passed.
danbruc 8y ago
Well considering that we know everything pretty much about most of everyday physics [...] That's true and also not true. Yes, we have a working theory that explains essentially everything with unprecedented accuracy as long as you don't wander too far outside of everyday length and energy scales. But on the other hand we still do not really understand basic quantum mechanics almost a century after its discovery or at the very least there is no consensus about what the theory actually says. Quantum mechanics is not even self-consistent.
- thicknavyrain 8y ago
  Sure, but there are some interesting and affordable tabletop experiments being done to probe certain features of QM (like Weak Measurement: https://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/qupot/ https://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/qupot/) and test fundamental assumptions. The work on that front is progressing, but when people think of "Laws of Nature" i.e. GR and the Standard Model, short of expensive facilities like new particle colliders or telescope arrays like LSST and Cosmological surveys, it's unlikely "new physics" is going to be jumping out of the woodwork any time soon. Which is not to say people aren't trying. Conferences are held probing this exact question (e.g. can we come up with DM detectors that aren't just enormous tanks of cooled liquids?) and trying new strategies. It's not like the community isn't engaging in good faith with some of these proposals, it's also that we haven't had a new hint of where to look from a collider experiment since the discovery of the Higgs. Despite everyone's best efforts. Yes, we need some experimental ingenuity to push through this frontier, but I also agree with OP that Physics is just being very stubborn against yielding any further secrets at present.
- DoctorOetker 8y ago
  I'm really interested in noted inconsitencies in physics since historically major progress was achieved by refusal of some to ignore an inconsistency, because that is often the last thing people talk about (as opposed to open questions). I know a couple that occupy my mind, but I am always looking for more such inconsistencies. It's in such a state of mind that I would like to know which problem you refer to in your last sentence, and not in the state of mind of bashing the perceived outsider.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
CydeWeys 8y ago
This isn't true though. They said the same thing over a century ago, yet if you took those people and plopped them into the present they'd be unable to explain such an important everyday technology as GPS, because it requires an understanding of general relativity to work. We don't know what we don't know. It's very likely that more discoveries will result in obvious changes that are visible in everyday life, like GPS. My bet is on quantum mechanics. There's a lot there we don't understand or don't know how to make use of quite yet that nevertheless seems likely to have a very obvious effect on everyday life in the centuries to come.
- ncmncm 8y ago
  > "they'd be unable to explain ... GPS, because it requires an understanding of general relativity to work. It requires GR to make it work, but not GR to understand how it works. I.e., GPS would work fine -- in fact, be easier -- in a world without GR. The clocks on board the satellites depend on QM, but the idea of an accurate clock is easy. Same with orbits -- staged rockets came late, but orbital mechanics goes back a long way. Transistors are new, but amplification is old.

rossdavidh 8y ago

I agree, although I think it could be argued that a logical outcome of this fact, is that most (although hopefully not all) of the physicists should go work on other things, like maybe the physics of planet formation, where we are getting new data all the time. Or maybe in areas outside of physics altogether, like the social sciences, where again we have orders of magnitude more data than we once did. If the low-hanging fruit is all gone, move on. That's hard news if you've sunk two or three decades into becoming an expert in a particular niche.

Sean1708 8y ago
> Or maybe in areas outside of physics altogether This does actually happen already. I'm not sure how widespread it is, but I've noticed it in a couple of Condensed Matter Theory groups. For example Imperial's group[0] do research on Complexity and Networks including the "application of these principles to a variety of stochastic phenomena, ranging from ant colonies to cardiovascular biology, from sandpiles to earthquakes". [0]: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/condensed-matter-theory/research/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/condensed-matter-theory/research/
kgwgk 8y ago
Physicists: https://www.xkcd.com/793/ https://www.xkcd.com/793/

peteradio 8y ago

I studied under a very smart professor who believed that somehow table top particle physics would be a possibility. See http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6355/990 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6355/990 . Maybe the HEP experiment consoritium is just a global grant conspiracy. Wake up sheeple!!

Balgair 8y ago

Well, if you can't build your own super-energetic-particle accelerator, borrow some-one else's! In this case, that would mean telescopes pointed at jetting black holes. Those bad boys are very high energy and should be making some really exotic particles. Granted, the resolution we need isn't really there yet either, but I think that making a system spanning telescope is a bit easier than a system-spanning accelerator. Still, you're right, the next (theoretical) energy regimes are much higher than what we can manage to build today. We're forced to look at the stars for 'inspiration' for the foreseeable future. This particular golden age of physics is passed.

danbruc 8y ago

Well considering that we know everything pretty much about most of everyday physics [...] That's true and also not true. Yes, we have a working theory that explains essentially everything with unprecedented accuracy as long as you don't wander too far outside of everyday length and energy scales. But on the other hand we still do not really understand basic quantum mechanics almost a century after its discovery or at the very least there is no consensus about what the theory actually says. Quantum mechanics is not even self-consistent.

thicknavyrain 8y ago
Sure, but there are some interesting and affordable tabletop experiments being done to probe certain features of QM (like Weak Measurement: https://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/qupot/ https://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/qupot/) and test fundamental assumptions. The work on that front is progressing, but when people think of "Laws of Nature" i.e. GR and the Standard Model, short of expensive facilities like new particle colliders or telescope arrays like LSST and Cosmological surveys, it's unlikely "new physics" is going to be jumping out of the woodwork any time soon. Which is not to say people aren't trying. Conferences are held probing this exact question (e.g. can we come up with DM detectors that aren't just enormous tanks of cooled liquids?) and trying new strategies. It's not like the community isn't engaging in good faith with some of these proposals, it's also that we haven't had a new hint of where to look from a collider experiment since the discovery of the Higgs. Despite everyone's best efforts. Yes, we need some experimental ingenuity to push through this frontier, but I also agree with OP that Physics is just being very stubborn against yielding any further secrets at present.
DoctorOetker 8y ago
I'm really interested in noted inconsitencies in physics since historically major progress was achieved by refusal of some to ignore an inconsistency, because that is often the last thing people talk about (as opposed to open questions). I know a couple that occupy my mind, but I am always looking for more such inconsistencies. It's in such a state of mind that I would like to know which problem you refer to in your last sentence, and not in the state of mind of bashing the perceived outsider.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

CydeWeys 8y ago

This isn't true though. They said the same thing over a century ago, yet if you took those people and plopped them into the present they'd be unable to explain such an important everyday technology as GPS, because it requires an understanding of general relativity to work. We don't know what we don't know. It's very likely that more discoveries will result in obvious changes that are visible in everyday life, like GPS. My bet is on quantum mechanics. There's a lot there we don't understand or don't know how to make use of quite yet that nevertheless seems likely to have a very obvious effect on everyday life in the centuries to come.

ncmncm 8y ago
> "they'd be unable to explain ... GPS, because it requires an understanding of general relativity to work. It requires GR to make it work, but not GR to understand how it works. I.e., GPS would work fine -- in fact, be easier -- in a world without GR. The clocks on board the satellites depend on QM, but the idea of an accurate clock is easy. Same with orbits -- staged rockets came late, but orbital mechanics goes back a long way. Transistors are new, but amplification is old.