/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15657961
>no fundamental breakthrough in physica
blame free will zealots and their quantum cult.

>>15657961
old good new bad

>>15657961
Can you name some previous pjysiology nobel prize winners?

>>15657961
The same reason there hasn't been a fundamental breakthrough in animal domestication since millenias now. Or a fundamental breakthrough in phone tech since 2008. Or a fundamental breakthrough in infectious disease prevention since the 19th century. We got the right combination and don't need to fundamentally change what we have anymore. When you have imperfect ideas and practices, they change and are replaced often with better ideas and practices. Once you get it right though, they tend to not change as much. Because it's already correct, what are you going to replace it with? There is nothing better to replace it with. Are you going to say "Well in fact, protons don't exist" You can't, because it's just correct now. There is no better theory than that which can be come up with. This is true for any Idea. Many theories have remained unchanged and unchallenged for almost as long as we have records of them (such as some specific economic ideas). Why? Because we got them right the first time. But Physics won't see a fundamental breakthrough for quite some time in the future, because we were on the wrong track before and we already got on the right track in the 20th (getting on the right track is what you call a revolutionary breakthrough. Take the example of astronomy, which hasn't seen a revolutionary breakthrough in centuries now (apart from what physics has contibuted to the field) since almost the 18th c. because Copernicus Galileo and Kepler already put it on the right track). Look for fields that aren't still on the right track entirely and that is where major breakthroughs will happen in the future(e.g neuroscience). Physics is going to continue progressing without a major breakthrough in my estimation forever now. And even if a major breakthrough happens, it will be at CERN or something, not by a person. Individual contributions have largely been exhausted in Physics. That's just all. The mine has entirely been mined. The fruit has all been picked.

>>15657994
I suspect this isn't bait because you put so much effort into it, so you must actually be retarded.

>>15657994
Too many words tardo, but good read nevertheless. I agree, so I'll summarize for the anons instead of just rewriting the same thing.
tldr
>When you have imperfect ideas and practices, they change and are replaced often with better ideas and practices. Once you get it right though, they tend to not change as much. Because it's already correct, there is nothing better to replace it with
>Individual contributions have largely been exhausted in Physics. That's just all. The mine has entirely been mined. The fruit has all been picked.
See, if you wrote just this, would have been a 9.5/10 post. Still, 6/10 for the good content anyways. But lobotomize how you express it a bit.

>>15657961
A team working on breakthroughs in gravitational wave spectroscopy announced the discovery of a stochastic GW background literally a year ago.
Physicists literally added an addendum to the second law of thermodynamics like 10 years ago when it was realized it allows for localized large spontaneous decreases in entropy (which has since been experimentally validated).
There's a front page physics story right now that we may need a fundamentally new explanation for how fucking muons work.

No fundamental breakthroughs my ass. The only people who claim that shit are people who haven't read anything on physics outside of their college physics 101 textbook.

>>15657961
>fundamental breakthrough in mathematics
Did you hear about aperiodic tiles?