why has nothing big happened in physics for the past 80 years or so? sure we verified a few thing with experiments that took a while like gravity waves, but thats not a breakthrough. string theory is pure wankery and can barely be called science. all the important parts of the standard model were hashed out eons ago. literally nothing ever happens and Im fucking sick of it.
What do you know about the string theory? No need to type in the answer, we both know it. Just remember this before you write something this stupid next time.
>>16916807Maybe we reached the limits of what is possible under natural law and this is the apex of technology.Don't tell me you actually fell for the infinite progress meme.
>>16916825>t. branelet
>>169168072022 was the first time nuclear fusion reactors had net energy gain. I guess that could be called a breakthrough. Maybe just bad allocation of funding and junk science has slowed things down a lot.
>>16916885thats an engineering breakthrough, not a physics breakthrough.
>>16916892In the same way making an aqueduct is an engineering rather than an irrigation breakthrough? Physics breakthroughs don't require engineering to be realized?Are you only concerned with theoretical developments and not actual verifiable concrete developments or something?
>>16916894>only concerned with theoretical developmentswell yeah that's what is actually interesting. a better fusion reactor doesnt teach us anything new about the universe.
>>16916897It teaches us how fusion actually practically works in practice rather than just guessing and calling that good enough.You definitely won't learn about the actual universe with unverifiable number games about things that are impossible to observe any more than reading magic spells in harry potter books would inform you about the universe.
>>16916902>unverifiable number gamesyeah I already mentioned that string theory is shit. My question is have we actually reached a plateau where no more meaningful theoretical work can even be done.
>>16916904We have an excessive glut of theoretical work that can't currently be validated, the problem is proving any of it to be accurate and practical.
>>16916807>why has nothing big happened in physics for the past 80 years or so?Because the last philosophically-minded generation of physicists died off and now it's just academic wagies doing infinite reductionist antwork for diminishing returns.
>>16916807How much of the total body of science do we even have figured out? The known and unknown, it seems like there isn’t much left in physics while feeling like math has only just started.
>>16916948we literally have no idea, absolutely zero clue what constitutes 95% of the matter and energy in the universe. meanwhile if math stopped tomorrow it would make no practical difference
>>16917020Bro math gave you everything that you have right now. Modern society might be AIDS, but at least we got it in 4K.
>>16917020We have no clue if the 95% number is correct.Assumptions. Stop thinking in bumper sticker factoids.
>>16916907This .Making meaningful theoretical progress requires us to have a way to test predictions made by new models under some very exotic circumstances. Broadly, we need some way to either generate insane amounts of energy or sensors with resolution current models suggest is practically impossible. The "progress" that media has trained you to imagine was based on a golden age where the differences between competing ideas were relatively cheap and easy to check.
THEM
Has this book ever been proven wrong?
>>16916807lots of stuff happened, you are just a retard>>16916885they did not have net energy gain, just net "local" energy gain i.e. more energy than the laser blasting the sample takes, but it doesn't count the rest of the reactor, really the energy gain is still like -99% lol
>>16916807https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cosmic_structures#List_of_largest_structures
>>16916885>2022 was the first time nuclear fusion reactors had net energy gain.you fell for the marketing department's shenanigans. They only counted the laser's output power as the input, which assumes the laser beam is generated with 100% efficiency (impossible).And even if we assume the laser is 100% efficient, it would still be a completely useless power source because you need a much bigger energy return on investment (EROI) than 1.1.
>there has been. there's plenty of new physics, anti-trust laws made it https://youtu.be/23L9cKEQTW0?si=ql0QdThhmrUBg_Ix>check out my youtube
>>16916807What PhD does he have?
>stop posting this thread>https://youtube.com/shorts/KVQL0cXJzI4?si=H_k0vrnC-43_HEIc
>>16920305Applied nicocadics.
>>16916807why do spergs make videos like these?
>>16916807we've been busy conditioning the population in preparation for the pod life
real science was solved so they turned their attention to gender studies
hehe gravity go brrrr
big theoretical gains have been made (string theory) but they cant be verified cause we hit the wall on testable phenomenon.
>>16916807aliens have put an end to meaningful scientific advancement
