>>11967573>I’m not arguing but if I were I would point out that either (a) the models are wildly wrongexample? i think most of the models that are currently being pursued in the theoretical physics community are "plausible". if you think they are wrong, then the burden of proof is on you to tell them why they are wrong.
> or (b) nothing new will be revealed for at least decades but more likely longer given the energy levels required to go further.two thoughts here. one) sure, maybe new physics is at very high energies we can't do without new technologies or a budget that is through the roof. but it IS CLEAR that new physics is out there, and models for those things are good. you shouldn't shit on people who are making up models for future shit just because it is in the future/distant future. they're just trying to say their part on how they think "it" really is.
>Space telescopes might help with relativity. But specifically at the quantum level shit is stuck. You won’t see a falsifiable unification of gravity and QM in your lifetime.but maybe you will. trying to say that physics is stuck because of some technological constraint has been proved wrong over and over. for example maybe we make a super powerful muon collider. right? or maybe we invent some quantum gravity experiment you can do on a lab bench. some very respected physicists have proposed as much. take for example Bekenstein or Unruh.
being a negative nancy on this stuff is not only lame but it is also proved wrong historically. like brainlet hossenfelder. the better approach is to admit you don't know everything and probably somebody really clever will come up with something you didn't expect but actually pushes the envelope in ways that are new and innovative. the latter will probably happen, and shills who like to push the "physics is over, stop funding them" narrative are either retarded or bad-faith
