Thread 16772498

Why has science stagnated?

>>16772498 (OP)
It hasn't.

>>16772502
Then where is my jetpack?

>>16772508
the universe just doesn't allow fun things to exist.

>>16772511
based

>>16772502
/thread

Watching Thiel cry there has been no progress in 40 years just because there is no immortatily and he's realized he's going to die was funny but it's not reality.

>>16772508
>>>/wsg/5961965
jetpacks are engineering, not science, though

>>16772508
>>16772511
>>16772540
The Bell Rocket Belt first flew in 1961, lit the flame at the 1984 olimpics and has been used for dozens of displays.
What you want is to be a lazy normy and buy a safe commercial product instead of strapping a homemade tank of HTP to your back like a man.

>>16772498 (OP)
"Peer review" killed innovation in favor of the familiar and academia being more than saturated with credentials-seeking midwits put the final nail in the coffin of scientific innovation as a new idea has even less chance at being noticed amidst the sea of worthless papers being produced every day

Meanwhile all actual innovation is being gatekept as proprietary knowledge within the industry, so new ideas there never have the chance to intermingle and give birth to something greater than their sum

>>16772502
I'd argue that numerous fields sorta did, in that we've had much less paradigm jumping in the last 30 years than we did in the 30 or 60 years prior to that, but that's okay and crybabies should go fuck themselves. There is 0 reason to expect such periods to last indefinitely. Each step requires exponentially more data and resources.

>>16772545
Peer review is literally what the academia was doing for papers since medieval times, only more formalized.
>academia being more than saturated with credentials-seeking midwits
Always has been.

>>16772498 (OP)
I don't have a nerdy science gf. Obviously.

I made it into space university? I managed to get the last insemination.

Aren't we going uphill rapidly?

>>16772508
Imagine how stinky the air would be if every faggot had a jetpack.

>>16772539
you lost tranny

>>16772498 (OP)
Because you exist, OP. If you kill yourself, it'll finally move forward.

>>16772622
I win every time evil CEOs lose.

>>16772508
You can't afford one. Remember?

>>16772498 (OP)
Cult of Einstein.
>>16772502
Give an example of one thing science has contributed to society in the past 80 years?

Protip: Computers are built using science from the 1920s.

>>16772498 (OP)
Dude I’m gonna go on WeGovy (Ozempic) in a few weeks. Finally willpower in needle form. What more could you want?

>>16772545
The modern "peer review" system is dominated by gatekeeping midwits who protect corporate interests and their own tenure.

I find it ironic that physicists mock string theory while IBM and Google use it to build quantum computers for DoD.

>>16772550
>Peer review is literally what the academia was doing for papers since mid-evil times.
Yes. If you look at the march of science it is dominated by people who were mocked in their era by the "establishment" while being vindicated decades later. Modern scientists delusionally pretend that new discoveries are celebrated: they aren't they are almost always attacked by the establishment.

>>16772868
Ah yes, the "cult of Einstein" retard has arrived.

Protip: all science is built upon prior science. By your very own metric, there has been no scientific advancement since the discovery of fire.

this "stagnation" is the exact filter that prevents all different alien species from progressing far enough to develop long distance space travel to interact with each other, the gap to develop that is so extreme that most races either stagnate or annihilate themselves before they come close. Its like we're all primitive animals and none of us have developed opposable thumbs yet

>>16772905
ok but name 1 use case of quantum chromodynamics

>>16772502
>>16772508
>>16772511
>>16772540
lmfao

>>16772498 (OP)
white people?

>>16772948
It put coloreds in physics.

>>16772498 (OP)
Theres a sense in which it hasn't. The rate of publication certainly hasn't slowed down overall (though publications continue to be, as they always have been, mostly crap).

In terms of major breakthroughs in physics based research, we've just hit major points of diminishing returns. To really breakthrough past many of the major hurdles in current technology, we'd really need "new physics" which would require something which has two exceedingly rare qualities at once.

Firstly, it has to unequivocally demonstrate something seriously incorrect about our current approach. The atomic age and the early quantum developments really occured because there were significant areas where the theory just didn't mesh well onto reality. We still have this to some extent. There's a ton that is still intractably unpredictable in biology related fields, as an example. Theoretical and experimental physics do still have some significant problems with matching at the levels of the largest and smallest "things" in the universe (see the "crisis of cosmology" as the clearest example of this). It's pretty easy to see that this is still very much the case in some ways, and hasn't really left relative to the decades of major progress from 1900 to 1970 or so.

Secondly, there has to be practical solutions to these problems available to us. Atomic physics is a fantastic example of this. While the atomic age demonstrated clear problems with our understanding of physical chemistry, there were ample examples of elements and materials which we could experiment with and tease out exactly how to "patch" these holes in our understanding. The problems of digital computing and communications, which were thought largely intractable outside of dedicated academic and research institutions, were found to be almost immediately amenable to being solved by fairly minor extensions of existing electrical and computer engineering principles.

>>16772905
>All science is built upon prior science
The cope is palpable. My point, which you will forever ignore because it highlits your stupidity, is that the current technology is using science from the 1920s.

It has NOT progressed at all--and you are incapable of demonstrating it has.

Standard model is not used and not necessary to make the modern silicon processor... which is my point and something retards like you are incapable of grasping.

>>16773017
The first required quality is basically everywhere. The second required quality for major breakthroughs have become exceedingly rare. We've gotten to the point where even trying to reliably create circumstances where these problems occur requires unbelievable amounts of resources and energy.

We know, as an example, that there are problems with our model of gravity when it comes to absolutely massive distant objects and the smallest possible particles. Creating circumstances which are controllable and model these problems is far less simple than finding enough of some raw material in the ground and the right conditions to amplify their properties.

>>16773019
> My point, which you will forever ignore because it highlits your stupidity, is that the current technology is using science from the 1920s.

Do you know when the turbo codes required to maintain stable broadband Internet were developed? It wasn't the 1920's. Fiber optic communication systems (i.e., what all terrestrial internet connections rely on) weren't even theoretically considered until the Helstrom's group in the late 1960's. They weren't made practical outside of a lab setting until the early 1980's, and now they are the backbone of every cabled internet network on Earth.

>>16773019
>My point, which you will forever ignore because it highlits your stupidity, is that the current technology is using science from the 1920s.
Then tell me, dumb dumb, why didn't we have these things in the 1920's?
I know what you're about to say and I will mock you for saying it.

>>16773017
>There is a sense
It isn't a sense it's demonstrable.

>Major breakthroughs in physics
None. It's all hand waving and vapid claims with no real tangible benefit.
Physicists take credit for production improvements made by engineers that have nothing at all to do with research or even physics. The biggest advancement in computing was made by an engineer trying to make blue LEDs and all he did was improve PVD by putting it in a vacuum.

>Demonstrate something seriously incorrect about our current approach
The history of science is loaded with people outside the system making significant breakthroughs and being mocked by main stream academics and not being vindicated till well after their death.

The reality is the people with the money DO NOT WANT the advancement of science because it would cost them too much money as well as undermine their stable income.

If you think "nothing is wrong with the current system" you're fucking delusional.

>>16772871

> I find it ironic that physicists mock string theory while IBM and Google use it to build quantum computers for DoD.

The DoD is far too practically minded to be spending much on quantum computing (which really doesn't work in all practical reality). I know those spooky fucks spend a lot on quantum communications technology, but that's using standard transistor based computers, not fancy cubits.

>>16773030
Telegrapher's Equations were derived by Oliver Heaviside in 1876. You don't know shit about what you're talking about. As usual.

>>16773032
The first field effect transistor was invented in 1925.

As usual, you don't know the difference between production improvements and science.

>>16773036
>Encryption is tied to hardware but DoD doesn't care about encryption
>Big DATA isn't something DoD cares about, silicon is fine even though it's orders of magnitude slower.
>Quantum computers don't work because obviously they'd make them public immediately and undermine all the standard model physicists
you're so cute.

>"look at all this data"
>"this is a well known phenomenon"
>"we can predict the movement of planets with high accuracy"

>>16773034
There is nowhere in my post that said "there is nothing wrong with the current system." There's a ton that's wrong with the current system. However, one of those problems is not, "nobody is doing real science anymore," (which is patently incorrect).

The problems with our current systems are nearly endless, but it's not a matter of "people not doing real science." We simply have a social and economic structure surrounding research which significantly punishes the kind of "high risk, high reward" basic sciences research which can lead to significant breakthroughs (as the super majority of them do not lead anywhere conclusive). It is far easier to make a career as an academic by spending your time bouncing from one low hanging fruit to another so you can appear productive to suits with business degrees who measure science by the number of citations or the number of dollars your results bring on a quarter by quarter basis.

>>16773038
>you don't know the difference between production improvements and science.
Materials science is a science you retard.
Metrology is a science.
Behind every engineering improvement is a scientific advancement.

>>16773038
Modern communication systems rely on fiber optics, not transmission lines. You'd know that if you actually had any EE education.

>>16773040

You're buying hype sold by people whose careers rely on the promised capabilities of quantum computing. As with NATO's recent quantum initiative, there definitely are folks at DARPA who are interested in quantum technologies. If you've paid any attention to the current sentiments of quantum computing researchers, they are generally getting frustrated at the government money drying up because they aren't able to deliver the results they'd hoped.

>>16773044
only solid state physics has had minor advances while quantum physics and cosmology have had not advances whatsoever since 1930

yeah we can create different color lasers but that is just an engineering variation of the original laser and the idea of population inversion or stimulated emission

>>16773048
NTA, but you are completely lost. Take a look at any modern digital integrated circuits or microelectronics textbook. Just about every manufacturing technology used for modern wafers didn't exist (even in a theoretical sense) 30 years ago. Every cpu made today relies on 3D cmos architectures that are all less than 20 years old, with many of the new atomic layer deposition based approaches being less than a decade old.

>>16773048
Re-read my post and ask yourself if this response you just wrote was in any way relevant to the point being made.

>>16773051
lithography is 500 years old retard, you can even do it at home

>>16773045
The first fiber optic cable was created in 1952.
I need you to feel bad about conflating science with engineering while understanding neither.

>>16773044
You don't need standard model to build a modern computer.
Physicists literally have done nothing for the technology industry in 80 years.
Zip
Zilch.
No new science. It's all been production improvements.

>>16773054
>You don't need standard model to build a modern computer
I didn't say you did.

>>16773051
Sputtering has been around for literally all of human history and lithography is hundreds of years old--as another anon pointed out.
I'll reiterate: no part of modern computing uses standard model. It is NOT necessary for modern computing in any way.

>>16773054
>No new science. It's all been production improvements
Metrology and material science you moron.

>>16773052
if by science you mean anything stem related then a lot has been achieved but we are talking physics specifically which is divided into 3 categories
Quantum mechanics
Cosmology
Solid State physics
We dont do classical mechanics anymore and most other fields of stem are derived from those 4 things

>>16773051
You're confusing digital logic for physics.
There is NO SUCH THING as atomic layer disposition dipshit. 1 nanometer is the lower thermal bounds of silicon dopants--it physically can not get any smaller because of the atomic lattuse and the heat/noise ratio at that scale.

Even 1nm is pushing it which is why they lie about the junction measurements all the time.

>>16773053
> lithography is 500 years old retard, you can even do it at home.

> Why would you need a nuclear reactor for power generation? Nuclear reactors just boil water. We can boil water at home.

>>16773054
> The first fiber optic cable was created in 1952.

Yes, and it took decades of research by EE's, communication engineers and information theorists to turn that "in the lab" invention into something that could reliably be used for modern internet systems. All of that work was science, and much of it was very recent. Turbo codes, which are now used in basically every internet connection system on Earth, were created in the 90's. Having a piece of fiber optic cable in a lab means absolutely nothing if you have no mechanism to reliably send and receive information over it.

> I need you to feel bad about conflating science with engineering while understanding neither

I'm an electrical engineer. Research engineers are scientists. When you do basic research for solving fundamental engineering problems and you publish scientific papers, that is science as well.

>>16773057
>Words words words
Oh please, wise one, tell me what magic new materials are being used who's properties weren't already predicted in the 50s.

I can't wait to laugh at you for not understanding that the problem was never about material properties but about how to produce them to the resolution required in the structures required.

>>16773058
>if by science you mean anything stem related...
I don't, but that raises a good question:
What do YOU mean by "science?"

>>16773063
>the problem was never about material properties but about how to produce them to the resolution required in the structures required.
Material science literally covers methods of production.
Metrology is the science of measurement, I hope I don't need to elaborate on why that's important here...

>>16773061
As usual you're resorting to straw man--hallmark of a weak argument.

>>16773061
>It took years to take science and apply it to technology
Yes, that's called engineering. Based on science FROM THE 50s.

You don't know what turbo codes are and I think that's really really funny.

>I'm an electrical engineer
Appeal to authority doesn't work on me. I used to have teams of you idiots working for me.

You're conflating engineering with science and you clearly understand neither.

Science hasn't done shit in 80 years everything you're talking about is production improvements.

>>16773056
Are you this retarded that you don't realize that the lithography done in modern semiconductor fabs, done literally at the single nanometer level, is a bit different than the basic lithography done hundreds of years ago?

>>16773059
I would bet money that the processor you are using on the device you're typing on used ALD in its wafer manufacturing process. If the CPU in it is newer than 2016, it is guaranteed to used ALD as TSMC finfets have been used almost everywhere since and require ALD in the manufacturing process.

>>16773066
>Doesn't answer the question
>Feigns superiority anyways
You're very dumb, as expected.

>>16773061
> Why would you need a nuclear reactor for power generation? Nuclear reactors just boil water. We can boil water at home.
I guess making a new piston engine is a scientific breakthrough by todays standard and not a 100 year old technology
>Yes, and it took decades of research by EE's
not physicit
>communication engineers
not physicist
>information theorists
not physicist

There have been no new physics developed we have understood optics very well for more than 200 years what we lacked was the ability to create plastics

>>16773069
>ask bullshit question
>have bullshit nature of question spoonfed to you
>"but y u no answer question?"
Moron

>>16773064
>What do YOU mean by "science?"
i literally told you

>>16773067

> You're conflating engineering with science and you clearly understand neither.

Engineering is applied science you fucking moron. Engineers make contributions to basic science all the time.

Also, it's not a strawman, that's just how retarded your argument is. Being able to do lithography with oil and water at home is literally nothing like the lithography techniques that have been developed for modern semiconductor manufacturing, where additive and subtractive technologies are literally creating 3d architectures with nanometer precision.

>>16773070
I'm not a physicist, and I don't care about physicists. I'm an engineer and my literal job title is "research scientist."

Engineering involves the solving of scientific problems at just about every level, and engineering science has advanced massively in the last 50 years.

>>16773073
Are you saying you think physics is the only science there is? Are you that dumb?

>>16773068
I can explain everything from why they use the wavelengths they do, the optical anomalies they deal with in the lenses and the material dopants as well as the atomic lattices.

It's all OLD SHIT dude. New lithography isn't magically different than old lithography it's just more refined.

ALD is still a type of vapor disposition my dude.

Production

Improvement

>>16773074
>Engineering is applied science
Yes, and they've been making the same shit on science from the 20s for 80 years.

>>16773075
>An engineer has the title of research scientists
Everything wrong with modern science right there.

Engineers are dumb as bricks and 90% of their job is applying well known equations and pre-baked systems.

>>16773079
Do you believe that there have been no new thoughts since Shakespeare? We've been using the same words. I would bet you've never created a new word in your entire life. Does this mean you've never had an original thought?

Are you this retarded that you think you'd need to make a new universe to bake an apple pie from scratch?

>>16773070
I've always been talking about physics. The dude kept trying to move the goalposts.

>>16773081
>Another straw man
You have the intellectual capacity of an engineer.

If you actually knew what you're talking about you could use examples of current science to underpin your point.

>>16773080
You are infinitely dumber than the dumbest undergrad engineering student I've ever taught. At least most of them have enough humility to admit when they're wrong.

You're pretending that there have been no scientific breakthroughs between the first transistors, which were literally large enough to have components spread apart on breadboards, to the processors today which requires we do accurate manufacturing of weaved 3D wire designs at the level of nanometers.

Those are so unbelievably different you might as well pretend there's no added sophistication in a modern nuclear reactor because we've been able to boil water forever.

>>16773082
The thread is about science in general. That's the question OP asked.
Your first post ITT was this:
>>16772868
Where you broadly stated "science."

Shifting from science to specifically physics is YOU shifting the goalpost. Nobody but you and you alone.

>>16772498 (OP)
we cant crack quantum gravity. once we figure it out there will be a cambrian explosion of physics since its a gigantic bottleneck that is currently holding us back.

>>16773084
I don't think you understand just how retarded this guy is.
He is special pleading to the degree that, unless it was the result of a literal paradigm shift within physics that nobody had ever conceived of before, then it doesn't count to him.

That's the great thing about arbitrary goalposts. You can never be wrong.

>>16773083
I've given you literally dozens of recent examples.

Fiber optic wire was invented in the 1950's, but it took until the 1990's for people to solve the scientific problem of how to reliably communicate information over them. Scientific innovations have occured at every level, from figuring out how to model fiber optic channels, to actually producing near-efficient real-time error correcting encoding via turbo codes that were so groundbreaking that communications engineers literally thought the first paper's results were faked.

Transistors were invented in the 20's, but we have literally so significantly advanced them that a modern semiconductor fab would look like magic to Shockley. That took incredible amounts of basic science at the level of materials science and physical chemistry to make possible, with a ton of interdisciplinary collaboration between engineers and scientists from dozens of different fields.

Hell, even the battery technologies we use today are incredibly different than they were even 15 years ago. The development of modern lithium ion batteries took work from electrical and chemical engineers, along with physical chemists and materials scientists. Their development literally resulted in a nobel prize in chemistry because of how large of a breakthrough they were in comparison to NiCad or lead-acid batteries.

>>16773075
>>16773076
if you cant solve the schrodinger equation you are not a scientist simple as
>but why do i need
exactly

>>16773090
You're right that I'm wasting my time and effort. I just get frustrated when people pretend that nothing has changed, while the evidence of the blood and sweat of the people to change things is literally surrounding them 24/7. It's so prolific that it might as well be magic to them, but they pretend this didn't take any work and was just obvious all along from the first theoretical papers 100 years ago.

>>16773098
Another random goal post move. Great job.

>>16773102
alright retard what have scientists (physicists) done in the last 60 years

>>16773099
What I love about this whole thing is someone could literally invent FTL travel and this retard could say
>Alcubierre drive was based on physics from 100 years ago
>producing the energy required to do it is an engineering problem
>what material properties weren't conceived of by physicists in the 1920's?

We could literally start colonizing the stars tomorrow and he could still make this same exact non-argument. It's hilarious.

>>16773115
if i use general relativity to invent FTL is it new science?

>>16773108
> alright retard what have scientists (physicists) done in the last 60 years.

Biophysics is physics. Biophysics has advanced a ton in the last 50 years. In fact, pretty much the entire field of structural biology was developed within the last 60 years, with really only the very rudimental developments proving the discipline was worth investigating occuring before them.

Cryo-electron microscopy was developed by a biophysicist in the early 1990s. Cryo-EM has resulted in an absolute explosion in protein physics research, which has directly resulted in significant medical breakthroughs for metabolic diseases, which usually are the result of malformed proteins/enzymes. We would not have been able to identify these malformed proteins/enzymes if we were not able to precisely study their structure and physical geometry. This was done by physicists.

>>16773118
Let's say the answer is "no," because this line of questioning is funnier:
What would that actually mean to you?

>>16773122
>solving schrodinger equation/oppenheimer approximation
>this time with faster computers

>>16773125
then using maxwell equations to create anything electricity related is not new science

>>16773126

Man, where do they make retards like you? Just figuring out how to stop that would be enough of a scientific breakthrough in itself.

Where in that post did you get Schrodinger's equation? It's used sometimes in QM simulations for protein reactions modeling, but it has basically nothing to do with structural biology (the main subject in that post).

>>16773122
can we create graphene in mass?
no
do we know how and why it works?
yes, 80 years old science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuWvO8oig0E

>>16773132
Sure sure. Why not?
I'm going to assume you're absolutely right about all of this bullshit you're saying.

What that implies is that rhis physics from a century ago was so far ahead of everything else that it has been able to sit back and gloat as every other field has been playing catch-up.
You sit on here and decry this "cult of Einstein" while venerating him and his contemporaries to godhood status with your own perspective.
Kiss the fucking boot.

>>16773134
So is that it? Your particular pet project hasn't advanced as much as you'd wish, so you're deploying tactical nihilism to pretend everything else has ground to a halt?

>>16773135
>What that implies is that rhis physics from a century ago was so far ahead of everything else that it has been able to sit back and gloat as every other field has been playing catch-up.
yeah now you get it

>>16773126

> It uses the triangle inequality sometimes. Therefore there is nothing new about the entire field and it's exactly the same as Euclid's first investigation of the Pythagorean theorem.

This is what you sound like.

>>16772498 (OP)
because people are publishing instead

>>16773137
>he cant extrapolate
i dont think you even know what extrapolate means

>>16773140
for over 1000 year people though parallel lines couldnt cross but then someone though about curved space and we know new math

>>16773139
So your whole argument is a non-argument. You have nothing to complain about.

>>16773142
You brought up a non-sequitor about graphene materials science not advancing when I bought up how significantly we've advanced in protein physics over the last couple decades.

Your answer to evidence that a significant area of research in physics has seen major improvements over the last 60 years was to grumble about one particular area of materials science seeing very little improvement.

Do you not see why that looks like you're grasping at straws?

>>16772498 (OP)
>>16772502
>>16772508
reproducibility crisis

>>16773169
You do not understand what that is.

>>16772871
>he march of science it is dominated by people who were mocked in their era

>>16773034
>The history of science is loaded with people outside the system making significant breakthroughs and being mocked

Science has stagnated because someone in a labcoat made fun of anon's schizo theory.

Quantity is now preferred to quality. Everyone must shit out pulp for grants. Publish or perish, baby.
Clout is now preferred to talent. You will be ignored if you don’t work at some august institution.
Admitting retards in the name of equity makes the whole thing extremely cutthroat. This leads to sycophants at the top.
There’s a massive curriculum gap between courses and research. Students learn early 20th century physics and then rush everything to get on board with current research. This leads to researchers drilling shit in their head rather than thinking about things.
Everything above is a positive feedback loop. Retards at the top want retards at the bottom. The retards at the bottom become retards at the top. Rinse and repeat.

>>16772868
>forged steel was built using wrought steel
>wrought steel was build using bronze
>bronze was built using copper
>copper was built using clay molds
Yes Anon technology typically relies on earlier technology for its development, you are very smart.
>b-but we actually had iron ore sitting in the ground since before clay molds
lmao

>>16773213
AI is now being used to rank grant applications. AI is also being used to write grant applications. The trick now is figuring out what prompts to use so your grant writing AI will hit the topics that the grant ranking AI decides are best.

>>16773169
data is proprietary, scum

>>16772498 (OP)
it hasn't but all the big changes are behind the scenes now. Faster data centers, genetic modification for medicine, satellite communications and advanced materials
It is now no longer as easy to point to something new that a normal person can see, but their effects are visible

The basic problem is this: the Universe is not intuitive. We got pretty far for a few thousand years using a model of the universe where things make sense and logically flow from A to B but around the turn of the 20th century we hit the conceptual limit on that sort of thinking. The outstanding problems in physics and mathematics have become utterly alien and ceased to be germane to regular reality. GR is the final word on physics because it's the final word on human observation. You can prove GR to yourself looking up at the stars with a relatively good but not out of amateur budget telescope and some mathematics. Trying to prove QM at home is just an endless exercise in bullshit.
>le double slit
Unless you have a way of isolating a single photon for yourself in your home laboratory this is only interesting as a visual aid if you already know QM, it can't prove any discrepancy to be explained on its own.
You have to actually learn about this stuff to approach it because it's a theoretical framework for something you can't see with your own eyes. Einstein could work towards solving GR intuitively in his 20s and 30s but after that he struggled to marry the beautifully intuitive theory of GR with the clinical practicalities of QM. QM is a theory that 'just works' even though it makes no intuitive sense, so you have to believe it.
A lot of things are like this now. The particle theory of Dark Matter (whichever specific one you believe) is counterintuitive but it's the one that is most consistently capable of describing what actually happens. Modified gravity is more human because it appeals to our innate sense of completeness and fairness but it also doesn't actually work. A particle explanation is the only viable one but it's the type of answer an unimaginative computer gives. "There's matter there we will likely never be able to experimentally verify" is the dumbest theory in the history of astrophysics, but it's also plainly true.

>>16773351
cont.
All of which means that every new advance these days now requires the person providing it to be solidly grounded in decades of crunch before they can get to the limit and start groping around. No 30 year old young buck is going to be telling us how to fix quantum gravity because no 30 year old young buck even understands what has come before but didn't work. You have to be in your 50s just to have enough time to understand what the problem you're trying to solve is. At which point you're now too enmeshed in the establishment to push boundaries. String Theory is nonsense but in order to show it's nonsense you have to talk to String Theorists for 30 years, then when you're 48 you can go do other stuff, but wait you've wasted the best 20 years of your career on nonsense now, bad luck, try again next time. The best you can do is try to stop other people falling into the pipeline, which is what's been happening in recent years. Those 48 year olds have stopped enough 18 year olds from getting sucked into the black hole that we can finally move on as a discipline.

>>16773351
>The basic problem is this: the Universe is not intuitive. We got pretty far for a few thousand years using a model of the universe where things make sense and logically flow from A to B but around the turn of the 20th century we hit the conceptual limit on that sort of thinking. The outstanding problems in physics and mathematics have become utterly alien and ceased to be germane to regular reality.
Lmao we still "don't know" why wires explode in certain experiments because we forgot that Ampere's original empirical(!) formulations of his laws of electromagnetism imply a faster than light longitudinal component to electromagnetic waves, which was represented in Weber's formulation of electrodynamics but simplified out of Heaviside's vector calculus formulation of Maxwell's equations.

Fuck off with that grandstanding. We boxed ourselves into a theoretical framework we can't get out of for entirely ideological reasons, just like the Aristotelians did. We desperately look for evidence of new physics everywhere except the place where it is, and when someone points it out we whine and namecall them because "it just can't be that simple".

>>16772498 (OP)
Too many parasites imfected it.

>>16772498 (OP)
DEI and the attack on the European (and diaspora) family unit for more than half a century by (((you know who)))

>>16773187
cope glow nigger

>need more people in physics to make important discoveries
>barely anyone can get into the field because there's no money
>all the money for smart people is in finance, advertising, tax avoidance, AI scams, etc.
grim

>>16773034
>The history of science is loaded with people outside the system making significant breakthroughs and being mocked by main stream academics and not being vindicated till well after their death.
No, it's not - that's just something schizos tell themselves. In actuality the history of science is loaded with extremely capable people in other highly specialized fields dabbling in areas outside their area of immediate expertise and seeing something new as a result of this cross-disciplinary work.

Euler coming along and rocking physics' shit with rigid body and fluid dynamics because constantly revolutionizing mathematics got fucking boring for him or whatever is not the same as Frank the fry cook convincing himself that dark energy is actually communication signals from a twelfth-dimensional hive mind trying to alert him that he's the new messiah.

>>16772498 (OP)
fusion is basically stuck at the stage where we have a pretty good idea how to build a working fusion reactor, but due to limited funding and infinite EU / giant-international-project bureaucracy it takes forever to actually build that shit.
>2001-2009
ITER construction estimate 10 years, finished in 2016, plasma in 2018, full D-T fusion by 2023
>2010 revision
first plasma moved to 2020
>2016
ITER council rescheduled first plasma to 2025 with D-T operations for 2035
>Covid
ITER council declares 2025 target unreachable
>2024
In 2024, the ITER Council approved a new baseline timeline pushing the first plasma to around 2034, with D–T operations expected by 2039

So let me get this straight, about 20 years ago, they started construction of an experimental fusion reactor, that was supposed to be finished in just about 10 years of construction time. And they get hundreds of millions of dollars every single year.
Now, 2 fucking decades of building later... we are just about... 10 years away from completion?!?!
It is literally, unironically the "fusion is always 20 years away"-meme.

>>16773940
to be fair its being built in europe...they are notorious for taking as long as possible to do things.

>>16772498 (OP)
The process started in the 60s with commercial computers and "counterculture"

>>16773940
All the problems with ITER are because of bureaucracy not science. Every motherfucker wants to add their demands and specifications to the project and every one of them wants a taste of the funding. All of which bogs the project down and leaves it less effective. Same shit happened with NASA’s moon program.

>>16772508
You're too poor.

>>16772948
It gave me a job

>>16772498 (OP)
I think we feel a discovery will have a groundbreaking application immediately when I'm not really sure science gives that
Engineering is what does that
Science discovers baselines and shit and if it does it first it won't have the smashing impact like if an engineer found it and applied it immediately

>>16773892
We need a war. If it's for the military they will fund any research, which can be adapted for other uses later.

>>16773369
>Ampere's original empirical(!) formulations of his laws of electromagnetism imply a faster than light longitudinal component to electromagnetic waves
pls elaborate

>>16772498 (OP)
the most trustworthy tribe was allowed in

>>16774699
NTA but quaternion formulations also introduce this component as a voltage shell. The key manipulation of it is high voltage high frequency switching, not to be confused with radio signals. The follow up effect is the 'implosion' whereby some element is responding to the force - which is why the force is developed in the first place - and the restoration of that once the force is gone.

I think the next big leap requires all of humanity to work together, which is never happening

>>16774800
Probably because you personally never achieved anything, but find comfort in feeling yourself a part of something big.

>>16774699
This guy recently made a video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHykWjtVdNM

The "modern" equivalent way to take this into account, without Weber's cumbersome direct inter-particle force, would be to consider the divergence of the magnetic potential as a real measurable quantity rather than a mathematical convenience, which would give the EM wave a non-zero longitudinal component, which is the same thing you get from the full quaternion formulation >>16774770 mentions, which you sometimes find formulated in geometric algebra instead these days. From it, you also get a scalar field driven by charge non-conservation.

Tesla's more infamous work is based around this, using high frequence high voltage impulses to generate them, as >>16774770 also mentions.

Keywords to search for are Weber's electrodynamics, gauge-free extended electrodynamics, Ampere's longitudinal force, Peter Graneau's wire exploding experiments, Monstein-Wesley longitudinal electromagnetic wave experiment.
This last experiment in particular is funny, because it has been replicated to better precision by mainstream scientists, disproving themselves in the meantime, who then rejected Wesley's theoretical explanation for "a yet unidentified mechanism". A clear example of looking for new physics everywhere except where it is.

>>16772498 (OP)
science stopped
there is a real equivalent to the earth-trisolaris organization and they are sabotaging science

Its becasue of a lack of faith.
Fortunately we of THE ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH are reversing that with our unyielding devotion to God and with our swords. Cleaving a bloody path through the HERESY which infects our world.
Let us be clear. The Universe is fundamentally simple. We merely lack the conceptual abilities to perceive that, for now. What we have done instead is build convoluted complex theories to paper over our lack of conceptual insights. Much like the convoluted mathematics used to describe the motion of the heavens by those who believed in Centralism. Their math was correct, clever even, but their concept of Earth being at the center of the Universe was flawed. So of course, despite their best efforts, their calculations could never exactly match the reality observed
We have created a "zoo" of particles. This is an affront to God. No, the Universe is not complicated. There is one fundamental unit from which everything in the Universe arises, including time itself. This is the new "atom". We call it "FuSS" and we are not sure what it is exactly
We have created patent absurdities in mathematics, which underpin our physics. We speak of infinities and infinitesimals, of lines and points, none of which have any basis in reality. We create band aid fixes to cover the gaping intuitive wounds that bleed mathematics of common sense.
Yet worse there arr many who decry the efforts of those who would wrestle our minds free of such archaic restraints. These are the true enemies of science.
As such we will not rest until Mathematics has been freed from the GOD CURSED INFINITY LOVING SODOMITES who shall be consumed by HOLY FIRE! Then mathematics can be founded upon sound God ordained principles. Infinity will be replaced by MOAN. The Universe is finite. It is discrete. And so shall be mathematics. It is God's will.
Say it with me Brothers and Sisters!
Deus Vult!
and again...
DEUS VULT!
one more time...
DESU VULT!!!!
Praise God!

>>16775138
thanks anon, I will look it up. finally something interesting on /sci/.

>>16775260
it's more like the judeo-christian mindset that holds back humanity. everything must be under the dogmas of some oppressive authority.

>>16772498 (OP)
There are fewer mysteries to solve, and, by natural selection, they are precisely the hardest to solve.

>>16775385
Why would our age be more special than Newton’s for example? I doubt it was easy for him.

>>16772498 (OP)
Because people did.

>>16775429
We have better equipment, a lot more existing knowledge and a lot more eyes on any given problem. The expectations of a breakthrough aren't really comparable between our eras.

>>16772498 (OP)
Multiple replication crisis across core fields maybe? Data poisoning feedback loops, infra and regulatory capture. Peer review forced by competitive publishing in fields that don’t benefit from group think. That and literally making certain elements of information illegal to research. Allowing democratic generalist editing in specialist areas. Perhaps it’s that most major universities have relinquished their chairs or major power positions due to fraud and mismanagement. Not accidents or mistakes. Widespread and long term fraud as an industry standard. Perhaps it could be the weaponisation and monopolisation of information and the diminishment of the individual contributions in exceptional pursuits. The method is alive. Just not practiced in reality, especially not in the west currently.

>>16772498 (OP)
I want to do the sex with her. How to get the sex?

>>16775138
what would be the significane of longitudinal EM waves?

>>16775429
It isn't.
>>16775385
This isn't true at all--you're just a midwit who overestimates your capabilities.

>>16775702
In the context of physics:
All the predictions of General Relativity have been demonstrated.
All the predictions of the Standard Model have been demonstrated (with the footnote that neutrino oscillation is unexpected).
Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to at least 1 part in 1000000000000.
The equivalence principle is accurate to at least 1 part in 1000000000000000.

Most big open questions are cosmological and depend on natural observations and mathematical approximations of those observations rather than predictions and experiments.

>>16775385
There are more mysteries to solve now than ever considering that things like dna/rnaseq and compute are dirt cheap

>>16772498 (OP)
Its a classic case of "can't see the forest because of all the trees"

>>16775749
>All the predictions of GR have been demonstrated
Yes, and several observations undermine GR. What has GR done for society? Nothing. All the equations required for modern technology pre-date Einstein if you exclude digital logic and data structures.

You basically parrotted all the retarded, vapid, talking poitns that the cult of einstein parrots while being unable to point to one thing they've done that's useful other than waste billions of dollars and ignore most of their own data when it conflicts their cult like religion.

Physics hasn't done shit since the early 1900s. You don't need standard model to build the modern computer.

>>16775900
>t. Dunning Kruger

>>16775475
The idea that science progresses in teams is a myth. The history of science is loaded with one or two people making a discovery and that discovery being mocked by the majority of other scientists in their era.

The idea that the scientific community embraces outliers that are actual advancements is a bold faced lie--the opposite is true.

The team approach advances engineering and manufacturing methods. That's why these people make a living.

>>16775945
>Yes, and several observations undermine GR.
What observations undermine GR?
>What has GR done for society? Nothing. All the equations required for modern technology pre-date Einstein if you exclude digital logic and data structures.
"If you exclude these things it's done for society, it hasn't done anything!"
It has also produced much more accurate models of countless phenomena, which is precisely what its purpose is. The success of a theory doesn't hinge on how much it changes the world.
>You basically parrotted all the retarded, vapid, talking poitns that the cult of einstein parrots while being unable to point to one thing they've done that's useful other than waste billions of dollars and ignore most of their own data when it conflicts their cult like religion.
See above.
>Physics hasn't done shit since the early 1900s. You don't need standard model to build the modern computer.
You do need a lot of it for mathematically modelling nuclear reactors though.

>>16775965
>Measure big G
>It varies from place to place and over time
>Vote as a group just to take the average and pretend it is a constant
SCIENCE!

>Standard model has managed to spend Trillions proving standard model is right while not actually producing any tangible results from the billions spent
SCIENCE
>You need it to model nuclear reactors
Which ones--the fucking steam turbine ones or the fusion ones that don't work?

>>16772622
Thiel is horrified of death because he worships dark gods nigga, he is about as evil and kike-y as a man can be yet you still call people who hate him a tranny?

>>16775950
Engineers are the intellectual equivalent of lawn mower mechanics. Fix them? Yes. Design a better model? Yes. Invent a better way to mow your lawns? No. Ask if its necessary to have a lawn in the first place? Lol no. Way above their mental pay grade.

People who say this are gigamidwits

>>16775965
>>if you exclude digital logic and data structures.
>"If you exclude these things it's done for society, it hasn't done anything!"
GR has invented computer science? Lmao what an idiot.

>>16775975
Say what? Use your words like a big boy you can do it.
>>16775983
digital logic is arguably an evolution of graph theory which has been around since the late 1700s. I think the first compiler came out in the 1950s but I'm pretty sure DoD did it as a classified project before that. Routing theory was created in the 60s.

None of that is physics and I'm not even sure I'd count it as science but some people do and it's basically the only thing "science" has done since the 1900s. It's basically applied math.

>>16776016
That only strengthens his argument, retard.

>>16772498 (OP)
It has not stagnated, its just slowed down a lot. To a crawl. It is a result of encouraging stupid people to breed while at the same time discouraging clever people from breeding.
Reverse this and science would accelerate again.

>>16776047
It always amazes me how people like you pretend to be intelligent while paradoxically being unable to elucidate your opinions. Truly impressive.

>>16776687
>It hasn't stagnated it's just done almost nothing since the 70s and even that was mostly consumer goods that were toys that DoD made available to everyone.

The destruction of the white middle class.
The white middle class was the wellspring of scientific innovation and discovery in the early and mid 20th century. A large pool of reasonably well educated young adults with sufficient literacy, numeracy, and critical thinking skills, who could purse higher academic progress in the sciences if they had the talent.

>>16772545
peer review seems like communism to me, the facts are the facts regardless of popularity.