There isn't a drought of new theoretical discoveries, quantum mechanics is progressing at a more rapid pace than ever. Just because one section of theoretical particle physics is having some problem doesn't mean that theoretical physics in general is. Look at the rapid developments in entanglement, quantum correlations, macroscopic quantum systems, and quantum measurement. This is why the public can't be trusted when discussing physics in any sense, because the uneducated layman like yourself has almost zero idea about what is going on inside physics today
Is this a general principle that you cleave to? Would you also say that the uneducated layman can’t be trusted when discussing the Ukraine conflict as well? Perhaps I should only trust Russians on the subject of Russia, since they’re clearly the experts. Or is your position limited to areas adjacent to your paycheck?
I only think it's the case in terms of medicine or science, especially disciplines that are so granular that even someone from one subfield can't fully understand a paper in the next. Most areas of physics are so specialised that they take at least a decade or two to become competent in. I don't think politics or war are as specialised. Also, those things are within the realms of daily experience, while most physics is not. You already demonstrated your ignorance on the current state of physics by asserting that theoretical physics has a drought.
I think you are just being contrarian really. You know well why a lay person's opinion on politics is more relevant than a lay person's opinion on physics.
> I only think it's the case in terms of medicine or science, especially disciplines that are so granular that even someone from one subfield can't fully understand a paper in the next.
Paycheck adjacent it is then.
> I don't think politics or war are as specialised. Also, those things are within the realms of daily experience, while most physics is not.
Evidently we all have our areas of ignorance. It’s silly that you say leading armies and countries is a matter of everyday experience, but physics isn’t. Suffice to say modern warfare is a deep field and politics is basically intractable for any formal approach.
And doubtless experts at defense contractors will use similar arguments to yours for why their funding shouldn’t be cut either.
> You know well why a lay person's opinion on politics is more relevant than a lay person's opinion on physics.
I do not know that. I know that the both the layman’s and the physicist’s opinions on politics and physics are equally irrelevant to the people who control spending and policy. I may not be up to date on the latest epicycles added to quantum chromodynamics, but I’ve had enough experience to know that the grants are not allotted on the basis of actual scientific merit.
I do think naked self-interest is leading you into cognitive dissonance. You know full well that science funding is more a political matter than a scientific one. Thus you either contradict yourself or agree that the opinions of the layman ought to be relevant to funding physics experimentation.
