Is theoretical physics stuck in a rut?
It does not seem that physics can get beyond the discoveries of the last century.
The problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics still remains. String theory seems to be the leading candidate, but its fate remains uncertain.
Cosmologists are making statements that I would find rather embarrassing. They say that there is this unknown dark matter that accounts for most of the Universe, but they don’t know where or what it is. They also say that by their calculations the Universe should be collapsing in on itself, so there must be some dark energy that is causing it to fly apart at about the speed of light. Nobody knows if there is just one Universe or infinitely many.
Is further knowledge possible? Can the LHC or a space telescope provide some missing information?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
13 Answers
I’d say that we are in a period of relative stagnation. Part of it has to do with the fact that most other nations don’t have the resources (labs, education, super-geniuses…) and the one nation that arguably has the most is actively anti-intellectual.
Further knowledge is possible, but without the will to learn, we don’t have even a chance of obtaining it.
I think a situation of “there are still so many mysteries to solve, and things that do not fit together” is infintely better than a state of “Science has discovered everything there is to know.” (as was the case right before Einstein’s Relativity.)
I think the biggest problem now is that, because humans are reaching the cutting edge, some guy tinkering in a small laboratory or some guy scribbling equations in his notebook, is no longer enough to meaningfully advance science. You can build some crude machine in your shed, but not a space shuttle. String theory (more accurately string hypothesis) may look good on paper, but they have no way to test it.
Today’s science requires super expensive machinery like the LHC and Space Telescopes to even hope to advance further.
I reject @jerv‘s contention that science is in a period of relative stagnation. In this country and others, mathematicians are deriving tentative conclusions that scientists are striving to prove or disprove through experimentation. Unfortunately, string theory, dark matter and dark energy are notions that cannot be tested at this time; high-energy colliders and deep space observations may provide evidence in the near future. Established beliefs in science have always resisted conflicting ideas. Rather than being in a rut, theoretical physics is positing concepts some of which may provide a deeper understanding of micro and macro realities.
Didn’t they just prove the existence of the higgs boson a year or two ago. That’s a pretty big deal. The physics of our universe are pretty crazy. If God does exist, he/she/it certainly has a sense of humor.
I don’t think so. It would only be stuck in a rut if we thought we had all the answers but we plainly don’t and we’re looking to extend our knowledge all the time. The LHC may give results that will require new theories and already the theoreticians are trying and failing to describe black holes but they aren’t going to stop trying.
Stuck in the mud only because many hard materialists are having trouble accepting the horrific implications that the latest science suggests… That being… There is NO material reality at all.
Comically, physics may have just undone itself, discovering that physics CANNOT exist. Pop has truly eaten itself. Now we look to the Information and Mind sciences for that which…
… wait for it…
… really MATTERS.
@Bill1939 That is why I used the word “relative”. We aren’t stagnant, but aren’t coming up with new theories every hour and conducting grand experiments non-stop the way we were a century ago either. Things are a little slower these days, and a large part of it is due to the fact that many of our theories are, at present, untestable. Once prices come down to where every major university can have their own particle accelerator, I expect the pace to pick back up.
It’s more like it has jumped off the track.
The alleged scientific method:
1. Observe something.
2. Formulate a hypothesis.
3. Devise a test.
4. If the test fails, go to #2.
5. If the test passes and is confirmed, the hypothesis might be promoted to a theory and used to prove other hypotheses. And it might not.
The actual scientific method:
1. Formulate a theory.
2. Make a computer simulation.
3. Compare the simulation to observed data.
4. If they don’t agree, find some way to adjust the data. If you can’t adjust the data, ignore it.
5. Be sure your fellow scientists will agree with your findings, then publish.
In the actual method, questions about accepted theories lead to insults and professional rejection (access to fancy equipment is cancelled) and in many cases, laws forcing acceptance of a theory without discussion. (Galileo for example, evolution for another example.) In modern times we have a band of dedicated astrophysicists analyzing the universe in terms of electric charge; if you go to Wikipedia you see that it is summarily dismissed as “non-standard”. HERE is a forum provided for people to discuss astronomy pictures published by NASA. Notice rule 15: discussion of alternative theories, the definition of science, is specifically forbidden. That is what I call “off the track.”
Gee, thanks! It’s not often that somebody agrees with me!
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
