Why has there been no progress in physics since 1973?
The twentieth century was a truly exciting time in physics. From 1905 to 1973, we made extraordinary progress probing the …
source
"Harmony in Every Heartbeat
November 8, 2024
Headlines
CERN is total BS
I’m not understanding. Why would the physics community deny a better method offered by Wolfram… How could one deny the reality of a solution?
The Standard Model was fairly complete by the mid 1980s. The Higgs boson was detected at the LHC in 2012. And that's about it – nothing major has happened in fundamental physics since then. All BSM (beyond the standard model) hypotheses have come up short. Strings, supersymmetry, axions, etc – none of these have been detected. Why? Because they don't exist. But the real problem is at the very core of every research university – the obsession with getting grant money. I was a graduate student in physics when I had the realization that what REALLY mattered was getting grants – I saw professors spending more time writing grant proposals than doing actual research. A friend of mine, an oceanography professor, told me flat out that tenure depended on how much money one could bring in. At that point, I decided I really didn't want to go down that road. Yes, I got my PhD, but I went to a teaching college instead of a research university. Honestly, researchers scrambling for the next big grant reminds me of drug addicts looking for the next fix. All the thousands of papers on the arxiv are just there to get grant money – most of them are at best minor results and at worst complete garbage. Well, I've said my peace.
Let's see… lasers? Gravitational wave detectors? Modern intetgrated circuits? etc?
Maybe, all that we have discovered so far has been low hanging fruit!
Since the 20yr disclosure and been extended youd think the studies of the technology being steered into frequency's of the operating peramiters of the human body and mind. One would think thered be a decent dollop of information regarding this disclosure but nope the disclosure term isnt disclosure at all but the holding of information. Science is no longer science and knolage become stagnant for our next generation is nolonger furthering discovery using previously descovered truths. Science seems to engeered its own platoe and is contently stationary….
progress isn't redoing basic laws, jesus christ, you are posting this high definition, phonefilmed video through fast internet connection, doesn't that seem odd for you that it wasn't there 20 years ago?
Because there is an intentional obscurantism. Real scientists like Jean-Pierre Petit are silenced by pseudo-academics.
Do you think relativity, black holes, neutrinos, higgs and the rest of the zoo of elementary particles has to be challenged?
When they stop looking the other way every time plasma and electromagnetism raise their heads, things will change.
Because science doesn’t know what it doesn’t want to know.
Yes @3:27 that building is ugly and uninspiring. What is it? Ah! Centre for String Research? But do you have any better ideas? Were you really stopped from coming up with something better?
Thanks for this viewpoint and opinion. I chose to go into a really applied physics area and work to help others by working in medical physics. I really liked seeing how my training in physics, mathematics and computer science had real applications to detect, diagnose and treat diseases. Now that I am retired, I can go back to finding out what the universe is made of and, as a child, see if I can address the question I asked when I was 5 or 6 “are people made of atoms too?”. I really like the accessibility of Wolfram Physics and the intellectual stimulation of getting back into Mathematical and doing that level of coding again.
Lasers
Eric Weinstein has pointed blame on Edward Witten's rise throughout the years with a stern grip on upholding String Theory. Not sure what E.W. would pivot to if String Theory is no longer pushed as the cutting edge toolset of trying to understand the universe. Of course, Physicists all have a choice to practice in whichever theoretical sciences they'd like……But they also can't help but fall victim to a popularity contest of reaching social doctronization.
Outer space? I reject your premise.
I became aware that physicists were not going to do much in 1964 when I was in physics class in high school and learned how feeble-minded physicists were. Our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He explained that Einstein had proven that a moving clock runs slower than a clock that is not moving. So for the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had, he would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using a faster clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to learn that Einstein was using equations that show that the pilot and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane. Eventually, I concluded that physicists were using the wrong equations for relativity and began to search for the correct equations. To my surprise, I was able to find the correct equations. They were the equations that scientists discarded in 1887 in favor of the Lorentz equations, which show the same speed as calculated from either frame of reference.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
Einstein did not invent slower clocks. Slower and faster clocks have existed since clocks were invented. The correct way to show the time of a slower clock is to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables to show time and velocity as indicated by the slower clock.
x = x' – (-vt/n')n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
n' is the time of the slower clock in the airplane. (-vt/n') is the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane according to the time of the slower clock. n=n' shows that the time of the slower clock is being used in both frame of reference. Physicists are not going to progress much until they start using the correct equations for relativity. I do not foresee that happening any time soon. They have a disadvantage as compared to the scientists who tattled on Galileo to the Pope and had him tried for heresy when he contradicted Ptolemaic astronomy. Scientists of today are mostly atheists. They are only going to tattle to themselves. Instead of threatening with torture or imprisonment, they will just ignore anyone who points out that they have made a mistake. Consequently, there will be no great opposition to their errors. They are too far gone into delusion to ever correct themselves. They will go to their graves talking about the twin paradox and other nonsense they have imagined. That is just the way it is.
Computation vs mathematics
It's not just physics. It's all of academia. The problem with academia is that it has an absolutely perverse incentive model. I see a lot of work in AI/ML centered around bending over backward to write a paper that seems to show that some narrowly defined benchmark has been beaten. On the one hand, we've made tremendous progress in AI through empyrical methods, but on the other hand, those empirical methods have usually been motivated by some insight into the nature of intelligence. If you look at the key ideas implemented in, say, ChatGPT, the group of people who came up with all of them is surprisingly small and surprisingly connected.
If I had a few tens of millions of dollars, I would set up a different structure modeled on a Japanese Buddhist monastery. Such a structure (akin to Neal Stephenson's Anathem) would offer a plausible alternative to those who really want to dedicate their lives to deep intellectual pursuit without the pressure to constantly prove their worth. I always find it surprising that Buddhist monasteries are not in the business of doing fundamental physics. True, Gautama's main preoccupation was teaching the path towards cessation of suffering, but it would be good to know why the path is possible in the first place.
Big bang brainwashing
1973? More like 1925!
crackpot
There is an additional factor that compounds the problem you discuss: centralized funding of science. Without diversity in funding sources it is difficult to have diversity in the sorts of research projects that get funded.
nah. its natural. its very easily understood by the mind that there arent any very apparant super interesting things to do. all have been done.
thats the point of anything today. everything is mostly finshed and done with. now there is nothing more really interesting to do.
something like diminishing returns. find some super theory and it will be used in some other super place like the paeticle acceloerator. not related to life.
gravity to nuclear was related tk life. not its just fancy things that bring very diminished return.
Yes there has been little progress in physics for some time. But there have been several breakthrough papers published in obscure journals, and totally ignored by professionals.
JUst to make the point: These include a derivation of Newton's G (= 6.674273033 x 10-11 SI units), based on the concept of the electron as a relativistic toroidal EM quantum circulation. And an expression for the ratio Strong Force /gravity at about 5.706835 x 10^44 or c^4. x alpha ^-4/3 where c is in the old cgs units and alpha is the fine structre constant at 1/137. This relates to the relativistic factor of the electron rotational energy at alpha ^-2/3. And a similar concept for the proton mass which matches the empirical value to the uncertainty level.
What the FUCK are we on about here? The field of physics has continued to EXPLODE since the 50’s…. One can hardly keep up! I am sorry but this is absolute nonsense!!!
Atheism turns off creativity. Absence of creativity turns off innovation.
How hard will I eventually laugh after all these completely false but sacred model-dogmas have stopped being able to describe things we experience and measure! When will the official science become intellectually adapted to differentiate between culture-cancelling, fact-denying, esoteric Ludditism (of rings/strings/multiverses, supreme beings, 20th or 30th spatial dimensions, rainbow energies) and valid re-modelling of our obviously twisted and narrow minded model of ALMOST everything! Who, with multiple PhDs and respectable scientific positions, would want – while risking livelihood both financially and ideologically – to look vulnerably open minded and dangerously fallible when they can stay safely bigot and profitably cocksure with the fraction of effort?