Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

Re:Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40... by cynusx on Monday January 13, 2020 @07:14PM (#22040320)

The original article as I understood it is breaking a lance for more rigorous selection of experiments based on how much more information the experiments can yield. With increasing costs in experimentation it makes sense to prioritize for impact.

In a way it is a meta-science because you need to find a methodology to evaluate which theory, when proven or disproven has the most impact.

I would imagine that the current working method would be to look at how often theoretical physicists cite a specific theoretical result/paper and hence "popularity" is the prioritization mechanism.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40... by XorNot on Monday January 13, 2020 @10:00PM (#22041408)

Honestly why is popularity not a good mechanism to determine how we allocate experimental investment?

If a large cadre of highly educated people find a particular theoretical mechanism sufficiently compelling to dedicate their careers and time to it, then surely that's a good basis on which to develop experiments to try and confirm whether it's right? Because the benefit of proving it wrong means they'll reallocate their resources.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40... by cynusx on Tuesday January 14, 2020 @11:21AM (#22046229)

well, the author argues it is not optimal due to human fallacies such as group-think and institutional incentives

Presumably the economical cost of the experiments are higher at this point then the resource-allocation of that cadre of highly educated people.

It's worth thinking about, but not sure if there is a viable alternative methodology to be found

[ Parent | on HN ]