Is it just me or has there been less development in physics during

itisjustu >>8212759

Its not true of course. Your popsci magazines are just too slow to catch up on things.

>>8212759
it's quite the opposite, my friend.

The last 50 years is the period 1966 - 2016

The previous 50 years were 1916-1966

The standard model was 1974 so I would say not true

>>8212759
Well, at least one thing that comes to mind is that we've a proof for the existence of black holes, a few months ago. We have been predicting them for like a century or so. And Einstein has been proven right, yet again.

>>8212835
>gravitational waves
ftfy

did a search and found this, which is pretty interesting too:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/best-evidence-yet-that-black-holes-really-exist-0505201523/

In any case, progress comes from 1) finding observations that *don't* fit the theory and then 2) coming up with a new theory to explain them. This kind of thing has slowed to a standstill in fundamental physics. Even fundamentally "new" observations of the theory's predictions (as opposed to measuring things with higher precision) like the Higgs and gravitational waves are the exception nowadays, not the rule.

>>8212867
>the Higgs and gravitational waves are the exception nowadays, not the rule.
Please tell when in history have these kind of experiments been the rule, not the exception.

>>8212878
My impression is that the late 19th - early 20th century was pretty much a clusterfuck of new observations and theories. It's sort of hard to quantify these things though.

>>8212880
>comparing 150 years with 10 years

>>8212880
I meant the scale of it. All the low hanging fruits have been plucked. There are no more lone scientists working in their labs experimenting with light and finding packets, or what ever. It's all become so much large-scale due to the fact that it has become increasingly difficult to climb higher up the tree.

I'm guessing OP's question can be answered two fold, depending on your definition of less development. If you define less development as in less discoveries, then the answer would be yes, there have been less development. But, the thing is, even though there is less, they are made in such a large scale that they dwarf every other incremental discovery.

See example:
http://www.nature.com/news/physics-paper-sets-record-with-more-than-5-000-authors-1.17567

>>8212890
>thinks the 20th century is the 2000s
Underage?

>>8212895
>http://www.nature.com/news/physics-paper-sets-record-with-more-than-5-000-authors-1.17567
>Only the first nine pages in the 33-page article, published on 14 May in Physical Review Letters1, describe the research itself — including references. The other 24 pages list the authors and their institutions.
lulz

>>8212900
1800-1950

>>8212895
>I meant the scale of it. All the low hanging fruits have been plucked. There are no more lone scientists working in their labs experimenting with light and finding packets, or what ever. It's all become so much large-scale due to the fact that it has become increasingly difficult to climb higher up the tree.

Fair point.

>I'm guessing OP's question can be answered two fold, depending on your definition of less development. If you define less development as in less discoveries, then the answer would be yes, there have been less development. But, the thing is, even though there is less, they are made in such a large scale that they dwarf every other incremental discovery.

The cost of the experiment doesn't define the quality of its results. We've gone up a lot in precision in many, many areas but have found basically nothing new for the most part. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just depends on how you look at it. I actually tend to think that energy conservation and the main symmetries we know of will always hold, we just need new conceptual foundations.

>>8212904
learn to read please

>>8212759
Tons of fundamental new math (vector calculus, linear algebra, functional analysis, abstract algebra, Riemann geometry) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries opening new doors.

Also computers made everyone stupid in the last 50 years.

>>8212946
>Also computers made everyone stupid in the last 50 years.
I hope you know that once it was said that paper was making everyone stupid.

mathematics and science as it's taught as a collective body of knowledge has only been around for maybe 2-3 generations. We're only beginning.

>>8212950
yeah, because it was said that people no longer needed to use their memory

>>8212959
not memorizing everything =/= being stupid
If anything when you're mind is less cluttered it makes thinking easier.

>>8212962
I just explained why people said that about paper, that was the rationale behind it

>>8212759
Physics are waiting for particle accelerator results - new particles or at least a tiny tiny black-hole to study it - mostly it's decay.

Unless that happens - I dunno really, maybe someone can tell me what then.

>>8213063
Let Harry Cliff tell you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWPFJgLAzu4

>>8212950
Paper did make us stupider too. People used to be able to memorize a lot. Just like before computers, people used to be able to analytically derive a lot more too.

Most of the important equations have been discovered. Now we're busy making technology. We've almost finished inventing everything. The rest is just luxury.

>>8212759
Probably, yes. Quantum mechanics, special and general relativity and quantum field theories (not all of them though I believe) made their first appearance in that first half of the century. Those are all very fundamental theories that determine our whole view on the world.

However, be careful: These things tend to look better when looking back at it. Right now there are many new theories around that nobody really knows about that are yet to be tested. Maybe in fifty years when we know about how good or bad those are, we will say the same thing.

File: 1468134387787.jpg (88KB, 488x719px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 488x719px

that's biology, not physics, especially in germany

>>8212759
You are living in real time. That's why you think there has been less development and theories in pshysics