Science discoveries always 'leak out'. Computers, the jet engine, rocketry and space engineering , radar and sonar, atomic energy. All largely developed to fruition at the auspices of various military powers. And all were taken on and further developed by private enterprise. Successful innovation is simply to beneficial and profitable to leave on the shelf. And its been like that since Pope Innocent the 2nd tried to 'ban' the use of the crossbow in 1139.
Well, you certainly found a good example! But, I think the issue with CERN is different than that in that they know there is more to learn, but have found their collider to not be as helpful as they hoped. This is dissapointment with current tools, not arrogance.
Which is why they are upgrading. Its disappointing in that supersymmetry has yet to be found. But its gone a long way in proving the existence of other theoretical particles. The LHC is the coolest most complex machine every built by man. Takes some time to get things to the level needed I guess.
Yes - all agreed. However, my understanding is that there is no promise that the creative and aggressive updates to the machine will allow it to address the more significant problems. In some areas physics seems to be moving toward being less accessible, I think.
True there is only the hope that it will push back the barriers. I also agree that quantum particle physics is rather inaccessible to most of the planet.
just saw this article. seemed germane to the issue of stagnation. https://medium.com/@roblea_63049/quantum-gravity-lacks-symmetry-4bd7dd169f2b
Thanks - food for thought. I would say there needs to be a lot of problems being worked on in order to consider physics not stagnant. And, there are some. Climate, dark matter, cosmos, materials science, etc. Some measure would have to be created for stagnation, I think. Is it phd's per year? Is it total employment of phd's in science?
The search for dark matter/energy has now been ongoing for almost 87 years! (since 1932) so far with a complete lack of success. Likewise our failure to come up with a unified theory of everything that integrates gravity with the other known forces has continued to frustrate theoretical and research physicists around the globe as does our failure to model certain large scale/distant features of orbital mechanics in the known universe. This may eventually lead to a radical re-think of some of the current 'hot favorites' amongst competing theories of gravity et al and a return to some of the more left field theories (like MOND for instance) circling the perimeter of conventional physics and as such currently out of favor. Would be nice to see it all resolved in my lifetime but ??? still nice to sit back and watch the ride.
But do we yet know how far ‘it all’ extends? It’s one thing to wish for an explanation/theory of everything but when the extent of ‘everything’ is not fully known ? I’m reminded of a peculiar protocol for collecting data from cyclotrons/nuclear particle accelerators. When these particles are smashed together there are so vast an amount of events triggered the installed detection software cannot record all of them. The solution is to aim detection at areas where theory suggests they will be of most interest. ("But that hasn’t stopped researchers from performing calculations and simulations that show us what properties and elements such a theory should? display.") Problem is such as approach can involve a degree of self-fulfilling prophecy. Some physicists claim the approach unscientific. Problem is it’s often the only one that’s economically feasible.
No, I don't think "stagnation" can be measured by either graduation rates or employment rates for grads. I think it has to be tied to the number of projects and their results over time. Its about actual production and knowledge advancement, as opposed to the size of the employment market. I look at the challenges in physics today and while I am no physicist, it seems to me that there are a myriad of questions demanding answers. One measure is the incredible advances in tools to extend both our own observational powers and our ability to manipulate matter at the quantum level and I don't see how anyone can claim that physics is stagnant.
The challenge of dark matter is that we have yet to build any observational tools to "see" the stuff. So far the only evidence of dark matter apart from the theoretical math that directly implies its existence, is that its "existence" explains some observed gravitic anomolies in galactic movements and their distribution. I agree that as we advance our technology and knowledge, some accepted "hot favorites" will be discarded and its a good bet that some wild arsed rejected idea will be proven. That's the way science has operated for the past few hundred years. I got maybe 20 years or so left, so barring some new Einstein arriving on the scene, I doubt I'll see much resolution. But I'll continue to watch with great interest and hope.
