Comment Re:Atomic Structure (Score 3, Interesting) 20
"OK, but what are gluons?" has been derided as "crank science"
I mean that's a harsh way of describing "string theory" but if the shoe fits...
Structures like DeLay-Bendebury Fibers and other models of what's going on behind the math are happening outside of Academia where Physics PhD's are discarded and PhysEd BA's are celebrated.
I have no idea what you're referring to, but people have been beating on string theory, quantum field theory and loop quantum gravity in an attempt to find something more fundamental from which the current maths can be described. It's not like people are not trying and publishing.
One could argue that string theory has become way too dominant despite having zero physical results but that's a different discussion.
Whichever model comes next will likely happen adjacent to the podcaster sphere and be reduced to useful engineering before Academics take a look at it.
No it will not. It's hard to describe how much it won't. Quantum mechanics and relativity have been tested to the absolute limits of engineering. The only thing observed that didn't fit was neutrino oscillation. For everything else what we have works 100%. That's the problem and why it's so hard to figure out what's underneath because there are no hints at what it might be due to deviations from the models. There are no deviations we are technologically capable of observing.
That also means it won't suddenly crop up and get engineered before academia "notices".
There are plenty of good researchers working in institutions but for fundamental revisions at this point they all seem to need to leave Academia and go out on their own seeking private investment.
Not this kind of fundamental research.
We don't get much from a jobs program for Mathematicians playing Physicists and it's very expensive.
This is arguably true! We have not got much physics out of string theory. New maths though, and one never knows when that starts to matter. Number theory was presumed to have zero possibility of practical use. We can see how well that worked out.
It's quite strange that most people find the status quo completely acceptable and are willing to throw another $100B at a higher energy collider but are unwilling to grant base-layer investigations that are nearly free in comparison.
There's a debate here to be had. Particle accelerators aren't great value for money, but (and here's the big but), it's the only way we know of looking for something that doesn't fit all of our theories so far. How do you trade that off?
If we believe the former head of Skunkworks they've recruited the best and brightest since the 1970's and had made breakthroughs by the early 90's in at least topological physics. So we get to pay for that but aren't allowed to use it which is intolerable
This sounds like bunkum.
