←back to thread

334 points mackopes | 7 comments | | HN request time: 1.152s | source | bottom
1. nimish ◴[] No.43546572[source]
Why can't they find out why no one has done anything interesting in theoretical physics in 50 years?

This stuff is lame in 2025.

replies(2): >>43547073 #>>43548982 #
2. robin_reala ◴[] No.43547073[source]
Maybe review the last 25 years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_fundamental_physic...
replies(2): >>43547447 #>>43553350 #
3. jcranmer ◴[] No.43547447[source]
That's all experimental physics, not theoretical physics.
replies(1): >>43547828 #
4. Calwestjobs ◴[] No.43547828{3}[source]
Well topological order sound like april first to me. Emergent gravity looks to me million times more plausible then that mess :)
5. seabass-labrax ◴[] No.43548982[source]
If you want mind-expandingly interesting theoretical physics, give the Wolfram Physics Project[1] a look. It is a refreshingly different look at fundamental physics, and one that is perhaps more familiar to a computer scientist's perspective than, say, quantum mechanics.

[1]: https://www.wolframphysics.org/index.php.en

replies(1): >>43551264 #
6. nimish ◴[] No.43551264[source]
I have done enough mathematics and have spoken to wolfram personally, it's interesting but not connected enough to existing theory despite his personal genius at QCD
7. nimish ◴[] No.43553350[source]
no experimental verification even possible in most of those, and/or the theory had been more or less fixed before ~1990

Many such cases. Very boring stuff now, not worth spending the money.