[pa7x1]

This is a complete misunderstanding of the state of physics. The problem is not theoretical physics, if anything, the problem lies in our technological/engineering prowess that has not been able to follow our advances in physics.

The Standard Model has some issues but it's, in principle, a valid effective description of all the fundamental forces minus gravity. The issue is that quantum effects of gravity are negligible until the Planck scale, we have no technological means to get even close to those levels. That is, physicists have been able to provide an understanding of the universe that for all we know for certain might be valid up to the Planck scale, which is where we know for sure new physics must appear. And because our technological ability is lagging much farther behind they must probe that new physics blindly, without any experimental evidence. This is an incredibly difficult thing to do.

Imagine that the ancient greeks managed to discover Quantum Mechanics. They lay down the correct Schrodinger equation, and understand the superposition principle, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, etc. They know it can potentially explain the atom but lacking sufficient engineering prowess they cannot really test the theory and verify its validity. This is the situation physics is in, we have mathematically consistent theories of quantum gravity but we cannot know if it's the correct description of the universe because experimental evidence is inaccessible and might be inaccessible for centuries to come.

[alangibson]

> The problem is not theoretical physics, if anything, the problem lies in our technological/engineering prowess that has not been able to follow our advances in physics.

That used to be my view, but it turns I was wrong. The standard model was complete in the 1970's, and everything beyond it since then has been fruitless. Axions excluded, the other kind of axion excluded, sterile neutrinos excluded to make just a few.

Even Roger Penrose thinks we're on the wrong track with quantum gravity.

Check out Sabine Hofstetter's voluminous output on this issue for a better breakdown than I can give.

[pa7x1]

Roger Penrose is a remarkable mathematician and has made profound contributions to mathematics and its application to General Relativity. But his opinions on Quantum Mechanics, (e.g., its relationship with conscience) are very fringe, when not outright quack-material. Nobody takes him seriously on this topic and he has made no recognizable contribution or proved anything that would grant any credibility to the idea.

Sabine Hossenfelder is a peculiar character. She raises some good points regarding the futility of a lot of the phenomenological models that are published, in my mind they are little more than busy-work to have something to publish and survive the publish or perish attrition that researchers must endue. And she is right that is not the way to do science. It's a form of overfitting and throwing things to the wall in the hope something sticks. But this is mostly due to publish or perish. Discovering something deep is very difficult and if you have to have several publications per year to renew your contract you have strong incentives to build a silly toy model with little chances of being right. But the problem lies in the incentives that have been set up in academia. Remove them and most of those silly publications will disappear. But then it's hard to establish a different set of incentives that ensure those that most deserve funding get it. Beyond that fair criticism it's hard to understand what she proposes as an alternative. She doesn't bring anything constructive to the table. Pack it up and de-fund physics until our technical means allows us to probe the Planck scale?

There is certainly an argument to be made on how much funding different sciences should receive given their potential contribution to society. And I see a lot of low hanging fruits in other sciences that would grant most funding going there. But theoretical physicists cost pennies to our society; they are few, poorly paid, and require little more than pen and paper. At the same time, theoretical physicists have contributed to this date immensely valuable contributions that make our developed world possible. It's my perhaps biased opinion that they have had the most outsized impact into our progress. It's sensible capital allocation to keep some funding in the chance they keep changing our lives for the better as profoundly as they have done in the past.

There is this apocryphal quote that summarizes it quite well, it is said that William Gladston (british minister of finance) asked Michael Faraday what was the usefulness of this electromagnetic field he was researching. To which Faraday purportedly answered, "I don't know, sir, but one day you may be able to tax it". Even if this particular exchange didn't happen, it contains a very valuable truth, when you are researching the frontiers of science the practical application is not always obvious but that shouldn't deter us from doing it.

[sampo]

> "I don't know, sir, but one day you may be able to tax it".

You can't just take any and every topic of research and apply this quote to it. There are always more potential research topics than there is research funding. You need to prioritize somehow.

> when you are researching the frontiers of science

There are many other frontiers of science, than just theoretical particle physics. Maybe some other topics would deserve a bit more resources now?

[GeorgeTirebiter]

This implies, I believe, that further progress refining physics will result in similar great societal advances. This can only be based on belief. Maybe. And perhaps a spectacular future awaits us, due to some present-day discovery that now seems insignificant. Yes, one can point to many such instances in the past; but what gives us confidence this will continue into the future?

[pfdietz]

When we're studying physical phenomena that require machines the size of a small country to test, it's difficult to see how there can be any practical application. The practical application would have to be much smaller, in which case it would be a much smaller test.

[pa7x1]

I think, at a minimum, we should update our Bayesian priors based on past evidence.

[jackcosgrove]

I think her name is Sabine Hossenfelder.

[alangibson]

Correct. My bad working from memory.

[sampo]

> The Standard Model has some issues but it's, in principle, a valid effective description of all the fundamental forces minus gravity.

Yes. Theoretical particle physics has done a wonderfully good job in explaining everything it can. But now the job is done. Should move on and do something else. But because the institutions are too established, and past glory is too good, they don't know how.

[blululu]

Sure blame the experimentalists. If the theorists are so smart maybe they can use their immense brilliance to draw on their chalkboards with femtoscale precision. All joking aside, while you are correct that we don't really have the technological ability to advance on a better theory of Quantum Gravity. But theorists need a rich experimental backdrop for their work to be meaningful. Since this is lacking, theoretical physics has produced a glut of plausible models that all arrive at similar answers from very different first principles. This leads to the sense that none of them are decisively right or wrong and the pursuit of yet more models is a meaningless project. Yes the root problem is with the experimentalists, but the theorists suffer the consequences.

[Rury]

I wouldn't even go so far as to say it's either the theorists or experimentalists fault. The problem might just be that it becomes physically impractical to the point of practical impossibility to observe the nature of things beyond a certain scale to us. And that's just, you know, the nature of things.

[pyinstallwoes]

At what point do you separate that which is only of imagination and that which exists bridging the physical and imagination?

[paganel]

> follow our advances in physics.

I'd say physics without the related "technological/engineering prowess" (i.e. the experiments to back said physics up) is just wishy-washy fancy-sounding maths.

[makerdiety]

Beautifully put together conception of the current state of technology and science.