Former high energy theorist here: things are not looking so good for high energy physics (both theoretical and experimental) which loosely speaking accounted for maybe 1/3-1/2 of Nobel Prizes in the 20th century. That’s part of the reason I got out. I’m inclined to say astrophysics and cosmology, another pillar of the fundamental understanding of the universe, isn’t doing that well either, probably in the okayish but not as exciting as it used to be territory. I’m not qualified to talk about other fields.
I think saying they're not looking good might be a bit of an exaggeration. Technological developments in both high energy physics and astrophysics stuff are in-between generations of technology right now, which is why things are a bit slower than usual.
With astrophysics, we're probably going to need the more sensitive gravitational wave detectors that are in development to become operational for new big breakthroughs. With high energy physics, many particle colliders and synchrotron light sources seem to be undergoing major upgrades these days. While particle colliders tend to get the spotlight in the public eye and are in a weird spot regarding the expected research outcomes, light sources are still doing pretty well afaik.
This Nobel I think is mainly because AI has overwhelmingly dominated the public's perception of scientific/technological progress this year.
> With high energy physics, many particle colliders and synchrotron light sources seem to be undergoing major upgrades these days.
AFAIK synchrotron light sources are tools for materials science and other applied fields, not high energy physics. Did I miss something?
I am also puzzled by the "many particle colliders". There is currently only one capable of operating at the high energy frontier. It's getting a luminosity upgrade [1] which will increase the number of events, but those will still be the 14 TeV proton-proton collisions it's been producing for years. There is some hope that collecting more statistics will reveal something currently hidden in the background noise, but I wouldn't bet on it.
>AFAIK synchrotron light sources are tools for materials science and other applied fields, not high energy physics. Did I miss something?
When you put it like that, yeah, I was kinda being stupid. During my stint doing research at a synchrotron light source I was constantly told to focus on thinking like a physicist (rather than as a computer engineer) and most of the work of everyone who wasn't a beamline scientist was primarily physics focused, which is what led me to think that way. But you're right in that it might not make much sense for me to say that makes them high energy physics research tools first.
>I am also puzzled by the "many particle colliders". There is currently only one capable of operating at the high energy frontier. It's getting a luminosity upgrade [1] which will increase the number of events, but those will still be the 14 TeV proton-proton collisions it's been producing for years. There is some hope that collecting more statistics will reveal something currently hidden in the background noise, but I wouldn't bet on it.
The RHIC is also in the process of being upgraded to the EIC. But overall, yes, that's why I said they were in a 'weird' spot. I too am not convinced that the upgrades will offer Nobel-tier breakthroughs.
What are you considering "high energy physics"? "1/3-1/2 of Nobel Prizes in the 20th century" is a significant overestimation unless you are including topics not traditionally included in high energy physics. For example, there were many Nobel prizes in nuclear physics, which shares various parallels with high energy physics in terms of historical origins, experimental techniques, and theoretical foundations. But nuclear physics is in a very exciting era of experimental and theoretical developments, so your "not looking so good" description does not apply.
Much of nuclear physics was effectively “high energy physics” (or more appropriately named elementary particle physics) back in the day. They ceased to be elementary or high energy at some point. My very loose categorization is everything on the microscopic path towards the fundamental theories; and there’s another macroscopic path, cosmology.
Agreed on that. My disagreement is with the statement that everything that was once referred to as high energy physics is "not looking so good". Nuclear physics in particular does not feel stuck in the way I've heard some high energy physicists talk about their field.
As a layman, the visualization of black holes, the superstructure above and below the Milky Way, JWST’s distant galaxy discoveries, gravitational wave detectors as mentioned, and some of the Kuiper Belt observations all seem to be interesting and exciting.
"theoretical physics" is such a big and ambiguous concept that physicists tend not to use the word in discussions. Thereotical work often involves a lot of numerical simulation on super computers these days which are kind of their own "experiments". And it is usually more productive to just mention the specific field, e.g. astronomy, condensed matter, AMO etc, and you can be sure there is always a lot of discoveries in each area.
Physics is not stuck in string theory as physics is not just high energy theoretical particle physics. There's also more going on in high energy theoretical particle physics than just "string theory".
Much of the experimental action in recent decades has been in low energy theoretical particle physics. Down near absolute zero, where quantum effects dominate and many of the stranger predictions of quantum mechanics can be observed directly. The Nobel Prizes in physics for 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, and 2003 were all based on experimental work down near absolute zero.
Please bro just one more collider. Just one more collider bro. I swear bro we're gonna fix physics forever. Just one more collider bro. We could go up or even underground. Please bro just one more collider.
