Is Theoretical Physics broken?

[Macavity]

.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Macavity

[teoria_del_big_bang]

It was so much easier when I was at school and being told atoms were made from only protons, electrons and neutrons.
This stuff absolutely mesmorises me but I cannot get my head round much of it.
One thing that always sent my head into meltdown was trying to imagine how light works and how it can be a particle and a wave. Maybe one reason I am so enthrawled with imaging as I marvel at catching some of that light that has travelled for so long, from so far, on my little ccd chip and then bringing that to life for all to see 🙂 
Better stop my head hurts now 🙂 

EDIT: I know this thought has been disproved but I love to think that 1000's of years ago something, so far away that it is hard to imaging the distances, emitted some photons because it knew eventually they would land on my CCD chip and so set off as photons and not a wave. All wrong I know but what a lovely thought 🙂 

Steve

Edited October 7, 2022 by teoria_del_big_bang

[Macavity]

On 06/10/2022 at 08:54, teoria_del_big_bang said:

It was so much easier when I was at school...

.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Macavity

[saac]

Perhaps it is a little naïve to expect that the momentum of success made in the early part of the 20th century would be maintained. It wouldn't be entirely surprising if these large advancements in knowledge and experimental success come in surges followed by periods of drought. No I don't think it is broken - not even sure that is possible - hard (challenging) one would certainly hope so. 

Re the scientist fanbase - I saw Brian Cox at the weekend over at the Hydro in Glasgow ; excellent and would thoroughly recommend his tour to anybody interested in Physics. 

Jim 

[Macavity]

.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Macavity

[andrew s]

5 hours ago, saac said:

Perhaps it is a little naïve to expect that the momentum of success made in the early part of the 20th century would be maintained. It wouldn't be entirely surprising if these large advancements in knowledge and experimental success come in surges followed by periods of drought. No I don't think it is broken - not even sure that is possible - hard (challenging) one would certainly hope so. 

Re the scientist fanbase - I saw Brian Cox at the weekend over at the Hydro in Glasgow ; excellent and would thoroughly recommend his tour to anybody interested in Physics. 

Jim 

I think we have looked at the highest energies and smallest scales we can realistically reach on earth. To go further we have to rely on the cosmos. In my opinion that's why theory has reached a dead end (at least for now) .

While beauty may help guide theoretical research critical new data is what is needed. Possibly the JWST might just do that. Each new innovation in instruments has yielded new insight for theorists to get their calculators into.

Regards Andrew s

[billhinge]

13 hours ago, Macavity said:

In "our day", we didn't have the "joy" of the Internet? lol. Scientists didn't
have a (largely lay?) "fanbase", to whom I / we / they could "appeal"? lol
N.B. I use the term *appeal* in the way Cricketers shout: "How's That"! 🥳

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/09/ive-said-it-all-before-but-here-we-go.html
The above could be summarised: "But yeah I’m having FUN for sure."? 🤔

Reminded of: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of
its victims may be the most oppressive"... (Seemingly from C.S. Lewis?) 😉

And science is (genuinely) hard - For most of us? The "field is vast" etc.
Personally, I HOPE that there will always be "young scientists", who (like
me once!) wanted to "take up science". just because *it* inspired us? 😎
 

I didn't read it that way, I thought Sabine made a very good reasoned argument. Whether you agree with her depends on what side of the fence you sit on. If you are a particle physicist I'm sure you well never agree, it isn't in your interest. If you have already nailed your colours to the mast I doubt anyone will convince you otherwise, and nor should they expect to. But if I were a particle physicist I would be thinking of the comment  'And soon enough governments are going to realize that particle physics is a good place to save money that they need for more urgent things.' - rightly or wrongly (I'm happy to pay tax for these things by the way)

I don't always agree with everything she says but I think she is quite incisive. Science maybe hard but it doesn't mean that a proposed bollockon partice is real either

[saac]

19 minutes ago, andrew s said:

I think we have looked at the highest energies and smallest scales we can realistically reach on earth. To go further we have to rely on the cosmos. In my opinion that's why theory has reached a dead end (at least for now) .

While beauty may help guide theoretical research critical new data is what is needed. Possibly the JWST might just do that. Each new innovation in instruments has yielded new insight for theorists to get their calculators into.

Regards Andrew s

Yes, agreed.  I think what this highlights is the interplay between advances in technology and advances in knowledge which then informs further advances in theory.  Neither progresses at a continuous nor independent rate. I may be wrong but I think I read that the likes of CERN represents the practical limit of particle colliders. The higher energy levels would require a collider of planet size orbits!  We are not going to be building Dyson spheres anytime soon  

Jim

Jim 

[Macavity]

I TIRE of this. Reply deleted to protect personal anonymity etc. 🥳

Edited October 10, 2022 by Macavity