Out of all the STEM disciplines, they seem to be the most quiet one. Remarkable difference compared to the last century, which was the century of physics.
>>17037995Theyve been perfecting all the old machines lol.
Gravitational waves, spintronics, quantum computers, quark gluon plasma and more. Your ignorance of the evidence is not evidence of nonexistence. Never post on this board again. Perhaps >>>/x/ is more your speed, fag
>>17037995Physics has been flying under the radar for the last couple decades but there are definitely two things that physicists did that made a big difference in the last decade:1) did you notice that battery life in phones and other mobile devices went way up over the last 5 or so years? Physics. Lithium ion physics is a thing.2) Lights? LED lighting is not super bad any more? that is due to some physics shit. LED lights can make “natural” looking light now and that is due to relatively recent developments by physicistsof course there are ongoing developments in computer chip technology and other things but we need to wait a little before they become obvious to consumers like the other things i mentioned above
>>17037995they spent all their psychic energy on dead ends, now they are being eaten by computer science, even their nobel prize is given to a computer scientist
>>17037995The change came in 1989 when the Wall came down and people demanded to see the much promised "peace dividend" and lower taxes. Tuirned out, much of defence spending goes to salaries and contracts but hey, we can at least kill some research! was the thinking, so a lot of research and development was killed, especially related to physics.The discovery of high Tc superconductors in 1986 was like a liferaft for many and that field went supernova until it burned out about 10 years later when room temperature superconductors and SIS junctions failed to materialize. Things looked pretty bleak then.Then a second liferaft, fullerenes, hit the scene in 1985, and as high Tc cooled down, people left in droves for nanotech. While nanotech didn't take off, they had not made any outlandish promises so that field still potters on, also in chemistry and material science research.Solid state physics is still active but rarely makes for headlines. A lot of work goes into solar cells, semiconducting devices, optics for fab lines and more. Fusion is also ongoing but is slow and expensive. Quantum mechanical devices for computing is still fairly hot. So physics is still alive but lacks enormous financing to reach the headlines.
>>17037995If you know. You know. It's a small club.
>>17038071That's because some Chinese lab developed a cyan phosphorus. Basically nothing happens in the west anymore, and hasn't for decades.I don't mean to call chinese physicists not real, btw.
>>17039191>a cyan phosphorus.cyan phosphors
>>17038071>1) did you notice that battery life in phones and other mobile devices went way up over the last 5 or so years? Physics. Lithium ion physics is a thing.2) Lights? LED lighting is not super bad any more? that is due to some physics shit. LED lights can make “natural” looking light now and that is due to relatively recent developments by physicistsBoth of these things fall in the realm of chemistry and materials science though. Science is interdisciplinary now, can't ascribe those accomplishments just from the field of physics
>>17039210Physics is the mother of all natural science. Chemistry is ontologically subordinate to it.
>>17039210So you agree they exist because of physics. What hair are you trying to split here and why? Every materials scientist I've known has been either a physicist or an electrical engineer (as in what they for their PhD in) never a chemist. Are you some kind of butthurt chemist trying to steal some valor here?
>>17039215I'm a philosopher. Kiss my fucking feet, you pitiful wretch, wallowing in your impure lower "sciences"
>>17039252Buddy the only one getting triggered here is you at the mere notion that it wasn't just physicists who contributed to these technologies. If you spent any time in research or academia then you would know that you're either interacting or reading papers written from all sorts of people from different fields solving the same problem, hence interdisciplinary. This is just expected in higher level research.>Every materials scientist I've known has been either a physicist or an electrical engineer (as in what they for their PhD in) never a chemistYour personal anecdote isn't objective reality. If anything this just makes you look like you're not in the field, or never attended a related conference. If you want to talk about splitting hairs and "stolen valor" the ones who discovered OLEDs and batteries, which led to the awarding of the Nobel Prize in CHEMISTRY, were primarily chemists by the way. I'm sure you got so rustled by my comment because you were grasping at straws and know physicists haven't contributed anything useful other than circlejerking themselves with ego and titles in their nepo baby circles, LOL.>>17039215Sure scientists are always using or applying their knowledge in physics in some way just because of the nature of our universe. By that definition, we are all physicists. But different fields of science and engineering do approach certain problems differently and look at it from the perspective of their field. That is the difference.
>>17039929You know how easy it is to refute me? Cite three (3) materials scientists who have phds in chemistry. Should be easy.
>>17039929Double check what phds those nobel laureates you cite have lol. The results may surprise you. Hint: it's mostly physicists and engineers :)
>>17038071>did you notice that battery life in phones and other mobile devices went way up over the last 5 or so years? Physics. Lithium ion physics is a thing. chemistry>Lights? LED lighting is not super bad any more? that is due to some physics shit. LED lights can make “natural” looking light now and that is due to relatively recent developments by physicists also chemistry
>>17039215>Physics is the mother of all natural science.Physics is a completely separate thing from other disciplines, because it operates in a different way from all the others.To use a linguistic framing, there is a sort of proto-physics, which doesn't really exist, but functions as the "mother of all natural science", but it is not even remotely related to what we called "physics" even 100 years ago. It's like the relationship between proto-indoeuropean and dutch.
>>17039329Anything that holds itself accountable to objective, observable reality will always be superior to something that is not. Learn your place, trash.
