3 ms·

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 exp

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.

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.