There are _plenty_ of areas in physics where investment is paying off. Condensed matter physics, optics, material research and so on.

We mostly question the fundamental subatomic particle physics that is not producing any returns on the investment. E.g. the galvanic effect was discovered in 1780, and there were long-distance telegraph lines by 1845 - so 65 years.

The last major theoretical advance in particle physics was around 1965 (Higgs mechanism). That's already 60 years ago.

▲

nobody9999 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

There's at least one actual physicist who will provide you with appropriate counterpoint. Here they are. And you're welcome.

a physicist responds: physics has done very little for like 70 years[0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_o4k0eLoMI

▲

nathan_compton 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

She is speaking about physics in a very narrow sense.

	▲	nobody9999 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		>She is speaking about physics in a very narrow sense. In what respect? Did you bother to actually watch the video or read a transcript or did you just watch the first minute and a half and assume that was the point? It wasn't. the ensuing thirty-two minutes serve to debunk the idea that there hasn't been progress in physics over the past seventy years. Which GP claimed was the case. GP is wrong. And she covers a wide array of physics areas -- she even mentions that she could have gone year by year starting in 1953 and cover at least one advancement per year, but she limited it to just her top ten which was pretty wide ranging.

▲

cyberax 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

She's confirming my point. There are plenty of advances in physics outside of the foundational subatomic physics.

And literally nothing in subatomic physics. The theories from 1960-s made predictions that were later confirmed: Higgs boson, neutrino oscillations, etc.

▲

bxsioshc 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]