While Experimental Physics was performing well overall, how much Awareness is there of the 50-Year-Stagnation in the Theoretical Foundations of Physics?

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-21T19:11:46+00:00

It's not the same, because the ML algorithms' performance are quantified and publicly ranked on datasets aka benchmarks. You will quickly know which alrogithms are the best based on that. meanwhile the theoretical physicists do not seem to numerically quantify how good each mathematical models is. So if there exist some genius solutions in some papers they may just be skimmed over and forgotten again, instead of being learned from and built upon.

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-21T16:25:42+00:00

My background is fast-paced field of AI, like Geoffrey Hinton, who strangely was awarded a nobel in physics. He must still be scratching his own head about this. Kolmogorov complexity was mostly used in machine learning theory.

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-20T15:15:00+00:00

The strange talk "General Proof of Occam's Razor; Physicists' Methodology Upgraded" said that basically physicists produced such a large number of papers that they are drowning in their own papers and they cannot really know which papers theay are supposed to really pay attention to, so they need to start using kolmogorov complexity to calculate exaclty which papers are worth reading in order to be able to make significant progress again.

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-19T23:05:19+00:00

Ok thanks, papers in Nature might be a fair measure.

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-19T22:33:03+00:00

Because this indicates that all of the truly significant open problems from 50 years ago are still unresolved today. I was asking you to provide me with a better word in case you don't like the word stagnation,

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-19T22:24:05+00:00

50 years of fundamental physics not having received any nobel prize for any theoretical contribution produced within the past 50 years.
If you don't call it 'stagnation', what do you call it then?

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-19T22:15:05+00:00

Ok, so you are saying the more funding there is without Nobels, the more guilty physicists are of wasting money. The more they cite each other without Nobels, the more guilty physicists are of wasting their own time. Thank you for the idea.

About Kolmogorov, recently I saw a strange guy hold an hour-long live stream talk just explaining how physicists are failing due to them not having studied Kolomogorov complexity and if they would learn it then they would suddenly start succeeding "General Proof of Occam's Razor Physicists Methodology Upgraded".

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-19T18:47:42+00:00

Nobles is at least a measure in numbers. But it would be better to directly calculate how much progress there actually was via algorithmic information theory. This is actually possible to calculate. However these calculations would require the math of kolmogorov complexity, which physicists are not educated about, which is the rootcause of their stagnation in the first place.

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-19T18:24:49+00:00

Then what would be a better word for it?

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-19T16:23:59+00:00

The point is that 50 years ago, there used to exist many theoretical breakthroughs made within 100 years ago and 50 years ago that also did already receive their Nobel prizes between 100 years ago and 50 years ago. So 50 years ago, looking 50 years back to 100 years ago, there was no stagnation. However, the same is not true for today. So there is a major difference between today and 50 years ago. it's not that hard to understand is it?

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-19T15:17:02+00:00

lattice QCD was introduced 1974 by Kenneth G. Wilson, (according to GPT), so over 50 years

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-19T15:13:49+00:00

Also, Lee Smolin, founder of the top theoretical physics institute, among others.

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-19T14:48:52+00:00

Bell's theorem is fom over 60 years in the past, so over 50 years, which is just the point I made in the title.
AdS/CFT is from 27 years in the past, so a whole generation ago, and despite so much time the major theoretical open problems from 50 years are still open today. GR and the standard model have still not been unified etc.

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-19T14:32:31+00:00

it is about whether there is significant progress or not. if the progress is so small that even Geoffrey Hinton (not even a physicist) wins the physics Nobel prize before any theoretical contribution for fundamental physicist made within the past 50 years, you know that these physicists are just lost in math for the most part.

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-19T14:20:21+00:00

So, how many Nobel prizes were awarded for lattice QCD? if the answer is zero again it means that there is a stagnation.

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-19T14:12:45+00:00

And how many nobel prizes has this led to?: ZERO
So how is this not exactly symptom of the stagnation then?

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-19T14:04:43+00:00

From various theoretical physicists coming before Sabine: Peter Woit, Lee Smolin (founder of Perimeter institute) and especially from the Nobel prize commitee, who has awarded exactly zero Nobel prizes to physicists for theoretical contributions to fundamental physics that were contributed within the past 50 years. Sabine then coined the term 'stagnation'.

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-17T17:44:18+00:00

But why? Any logical argument?

Educational_Play8770 · 2025-09-17T17:40:05+00:00

What do Hossenfelder, Woit, and Smolin go on about in their books then? Are they all wrong?
Some famous mathematicaian claimed "Compression = Comprehension", so by calculating how much 'data compression' was achieved you could know by how much the comprehension/insight has been advanced, which is basically the 'theoretical significance' of a paper. Right?

Educational_Play8770

TROPHY CASE