By Luca Moratinos
From the perspective of the general public, research in the field of Physics does seem to have stagnated, with fewer groundbreaking and sensational achievements for the media to cover (Koswatta et al.). It seems like all the scientists of previous generations were far more successful and made many more advancements in Physics. The idea the author will be unpacking in this paper is whether even though many have suggested the idea that the rate of scientific progress seems to have started plateauing in the field of physics points to a failure of science to self-correct (Hossenfelder). It rather highlights the way scientific research takes place now and how it has changed over time. Due to technological challenges and the amount of research behind modern ideas, the rate at which scientific models can be iterated over has contributed to the idea of the general public that scientific progress in Physics has plateaued. This makes it seem to the general public that Physics appears stuck on the surface when what is happening is just part of the natural evolution of science. To unpack this the author will use the Kuhn Cycle to consider the way scientific research unfolds, proposing the addition of a concept of resistance to the cycle determined by a few key factors. The Kuhn Cycle is an insight into the nature of scientific discovery on how paradigm shifts happen over time in scientific revolutions (“In retrospect: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”). Considering whether scientific progress is slowing down in the field of physics could be the crucial key to expanding our very knowledge of the nature of scientific research. Additionally, this paper aims to create a more robust public understanding of the field of physics and what is going on in it as well as how scientific research can be expected to progress into the future.
The amount of researchers in the research space seems to have quadrupled in size since the start of the 20th century and yet the quality or disruptiveness of physics research has been declining yearly (Hossenfelder). This was determined by having a group of unbiased independent experts when asked to rank different Nobel Prize-winning achievements (Collison and Nielsen). In the case of Physics, it is evident that from the 1920s onwards the relative importance of Nobel-winning achievements decreased, even though a partial revival did occur in the 1960s with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background and the Standard Model (Collison and Nielsen). When it comes to other fields of science there doesn’t seem to be a decline in disruptive research, rather the relative importance of research as judged by a group of independent experts increases incrementally.
Sabine Hossenfelder, a science communicator on Youtube and author of the book “Lost in Math”, argues one of the main reasons for the lack of significant progress in the field of physics is because of no advancements in theory development (Hossenfelder). She proposes physicists are still using the same models and trying to tackle the same problems as they were 50 years ago (Hossenfelder) (Collison and Nielsen). Moreover, she claims that some of the biggest discoveries in recent physics stem from work done in the past as well (Collison and Nielsen) (Hossenfelder). For instance, the Higgs particle was predicted by Peter Higgs in 1964 yet it was only detected by the 27-kilometer-long Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Switzerland in July 2012, yet nobody doubted the existence of such a particle (Collison and Nielsen) (Hossenfelder) (Moskowitz). The collider first became operational in 2008, due to the extensive technical challenges of keeping a 27-kilometer tube under Geneva, Switzerland at ultra-high vacuum and ‑271.3°C (“The Large Hadron Collider”). It took a year of work to get funding for such a large project because of the extensive physical challenge of building a supercollider.
Another idea why the reason for this lack of theory development in physics is because of the very way that scientific progress comes, it has just become harder to come up with new ideas in physics since models used have made it through a year of scientific testing and refinement (Collison and Nielsen). In 1962 physicist Thomas Kuhn proposed the Kuhn Cycle in his book “ The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, the Kuhn Cycle models and explains scientific progress, it shows how models evolve in a particular field(Kuhn) (“In retrospect: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”) (Kuhn and Bird) (“The Kuhn Cycle - Thomas Kuhn's Brilliant Model of How Scientific Fields Progress”). Considering Fig.1 (displayed at the top of the page) visually showing the cycle, at first when a field is in the area called “Pre-science” there is an idea of what problem the field is solving, then a scientific field slips into Normal science at which point a model has been created and its limits are being extended (“The Kuhn Cycle - Thomas Kuhn's Brilliant Model of How Scientific Fields Progress”). Next, two stages happen, “Model Drift” and “Model Crisis” in these two stages issues with the present model are identified (“The Kuhn Cycle - Thomas Kuhn's Brilliant Model of How Scientific Fields Progress”). Finally, in the final two stages of the Kuhn Cycle “Model Revolution” and “Paradigm Change” solutions a looked through until one is found that solves the problem encountered during “Model Drift”, this cycle keeps going forever (“The Kuhn Cycle - Thomas Kuhn's Brilliant Model of How Scientific Fields Progress”). The idea is that the more research is done the harder it is to come up with new ideas instead of just small ideas added to a model that fit in nicely with the Kuhn Cycle since the cycle highlights how scientific progress stacks on itself.
Scientific progress isn’t slowing down; it is merely in a period of Model Crisis as per the Kuhn Cycle. Some of the most important models used to describe the universe have been rigorously tested over decades by scientists using them yet some elements of nature still make the best theories fall apart. In astrophysics one of the biggest questions is about the nature of what is called “Dark Matter”, it is like any other matter being able to take up space and hold mass, and yet it doesn’t interact with light at all or at least not to an extent to which we can measure (NASA). Yet by observing its effect on its surroundings, scientists have predicted that 27% of the universe is made of it; it exists, yet nobody has any idea what it is made of (NASA). There is clear evidence that this extra invisible mass exists in the universe yet 54 years later detectors for different proposed particles which hypothetically make up the dark matter (Brubaker). Yet perhaps the reason we haven’t found anything yet is due to the fact that the sensors available aren’t precise enough to be able to detect dark matter. Another area in Physics that still doesn’t have an answer. Similarly, in the field of Particle Physics each time more energy is needed to collide particles and come up with new particles and observations (CERN).
Another explanation for this could be what the Kuhn Cycle proposes about “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants” where all work is fundamentally built on a paradigm that has already been refined, the longer a specific field has been around the harder it is to build on top of the paradigm. An example of this is Quantum Gravity, the attempt to unify the idea of Quantum Mechanics with that of General Relativity or Gravity, yet it seems as if to an extent the micro scale is governed by a completely different set of laws compared to the macro scale (Fernandez). This is the missing key to finding out what happens in a black hole and understanding quantum entanglement (Fernandez). Both of these fields have come a long way in their own right and the only way to unify them is to come up with an elegant way that works with both fields and the centuries of research backing them.
So Physics hasn’t plateaued; it has merely slowed down due to the difficulty of the problems left by the previous century and because of the vast technical challenges needed to prove ideas and research ideas.
But, perhaps the idea of the Kuhn Cycle and technical difficulties, all the ideas discussed above support the idea that the speed at which the Kuhn Cycle is cycled through or the “Resistance” is determined by a variety of factors. Some of these include:
- Time
- Technical Capabilities
The time in the field would affect the resistance of the Kuhn cycle since the more research there is the harder it is to come up with a flaw in the original paradigm. Furthermore, even if one is discovered it becomes much harder to modify the paradigm in a way that will support the research already done on the exciting paradigm and the probing that will be done on the modified one. Technical capabilities also change the resistance of the Kuhn Cycle since the more technical capabilities are available to solve a problem the faster research can be done. This one also goes hand in hand with another aspect of the time determinant since technological capabilities shift over time like with the Higgs particle, as time passes technical capability goes up. These are two of the biggest determinants for resistance in a Kuhn Cycle since they can be observed by looking back at the past and present state of science. Other determinants could be added to this list like the number of scientists working in a field, however it's outside of the scope of this paper.
It appears that even though the general public might have a perception that scientific progress in physics is plateauing, I argue that while it is true that progress in physics has decelerated when it comes to disruptive papers. This deceleration has happened because of more resistance in the Kuhn Cycle, leading to a cycle taking longer. This is just an effect of the nature of scientific research, something this paper aims to educate the general public about.
Works Cited
Brooks, Harvey. “The relationship between science and technology.” The relationship between science and technology, p. 10. Belfer Center, https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/pantheon_files/files/publication/sciencetechnology.pdf. Accessed 10 11 2024.
Brubaker, Benjamin. “The search for dark matter gets a boost from quantum technology.” Astronomy, 18 May 2023, https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-search-for-dark-matter-gets-a-boost-from-quantum-technology/.
CERN. “The Future Circular Collider.” CERN, https://home.cern/science/accelerators/future-circular-collider. Accessed 10 November 2024.
Collison, Patrick, and Michael Nielsen. “Is Science Stagnant?” The Atlantic, 16 November 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/diminishing-returns-science/575665/. Accessed 8 November 2024.
Fernandez, Elizabeth. “What is quantum gravity?” Space.com, 10 July 2024, https://www.space.com/quantum-gravity.html. Accessed 10 November 2024.
Hossenfelder, Sabine. “The crisis in physics is real: Science is failing.” Youtube, 5 11 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQVF0Yu7X24&ab_channel=SabineHossenfelder. Accessed 9 11 2024.
Hossenfelder, Sabine. Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. Basic Books, 2018.
Image of the Kuhn Cycle. Image of the Kuhn Cycle. thwing.org, https://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/KuhnCycle.htm. Accessed 10 11 2024.
“In retrospect: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” In retrospect: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, vol. 484, no. 164–166, 2012, p. 5. MIT Open Access Articles, https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/106157/Kaiser.Kuhn%28Nature2012%29.pdf.
Koswatta, Taniya Jayani, et al. “"Factors Influencing Public Perception of Science" by Taniya Jayani Koswatta, Gary Wingenbach et al.” New Prairie Press, 2023, https://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol106/iss4/7/. Accessed 10 November 2024.
Kuhn, Thomas, and Alexander Bird. “Thomas Kuhn (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 13 August 2004, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/#HistScie. Accessed 9 November 2024.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, 1970.
“The Kuhn Cycle - Thomas Kuhn's Brilliant Model of How Scientific Fields Progress.” Thwink.org, https://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/KuhnCycle.htm. Accessed 9 November 2024.
“The Large Hadron Collider.” CERN, https://home.cern/science/accelerators/large-hadron-collider. Accessed 9 November 2024.
Moskowitz, Clara. “How the Higgs Boson Ruined Peter Higgs's Life.” Scientific American, 24 June 2022, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-higgs-boson-ruined-peter-higgss-life/. Accessed 9 November 2024.
NASA. “The Universe's Building Blocks.” NASA Science, https://science.nasa.gov/universe/overview/building-blocks/#dark-matter. Accessed 10 November 2024.
