3 ms·
I'd say that fuse/splitting the atom counts as a significant advancement in physics whether weapons or power generation. Next, I'd say solid state transistor ph
by kurthr 7y ago
I'd say that fuse/splitting the atom counts as a significant advancement in physics whether weapons or power generation. Next, I'd say solid state transistor physics (not to mention Lasers, LEDs, OLEDs) also count as significant advances. I guess we're APPROACHING a century, but we're no where near it yet... maybe another 30 years?
If we're talking about understanding the universe, strong/weak force (also Neutrinos have mass), dark matter/energy (and Cosmic Microwave Background), gravitational waves (and black holes) all seem pretty significant and happened after 1920.
What has happened is that the advances have gotten harder to explain and more ubiquitous in their effects. So maybe it feels like there's not advancement, because we're soaking in Moore's law and post WW2 economic growth?
- tus88 7y agoYour talking about applications not theory. And the new theories you mention (dark energy/matter) are right at the heart of the current crisis in physics.
- kurthr 7y agoNone of those issues were even known of 100 years ago. We barely had the photo-electric effect much less the Copenhagen interpretation (1925) and they weren't fully accepted. Even so theory isn't much (see Strings) without application and experiment. Nobel prizes are given for things that have consequences rather than just seem interesting.
- tus88 7y agoGeneral relativity - 1915 Schrodinger equation - 1925 Theory is good when it explains observations, no application necessary. The latter is mostly engineering challenge, how do we refine uranium for example.
- kurthr 7y agoObservations sensitive enough to really confirm general rel weren’t possible until the 50s although the precession test in ‘19 was useful.