"U SHOULD PROBABLY LISTEN TO WHAT SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING HURRRRRRR"
(media.patriots.win)
🐂 Bullshit 💩
Comments (184)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
I know people working on using reflected light to replace blood tests on some things and give realtime information on things like blood sugar in noninvasive ways as well. Both are still applying existing theories in new areas. Neither are advancements of physics. They’re what I outlined in what I said.
Haha, I know what Quantum Mechanics is, which is why I gave it special mention. I also know many in the field. I’m happy to agree to disagree, but I have personally seen nothing promising or impressive come from it, and everybody I know knee deep in it at high levels all basically tell me we’re still decades out from even potentially breaking ground on functional applications.
I still think physics is plenty valuable when it’s applied, but at this point we’re mostly in a stage of applying existing theories with new instruments at finer levels, not really developing anything new or ground breaking in the Einstein level senses that made the field the gold standard for all sciences. Which is fine. I think the eagerness to break new ground has lead to a lot of BS though that has lowered some portions of the field to the level of pseudoscience theorizing.
You’re lumping in a wide variety of things now and seemingly misunderstanding my point. You can go back and read what I said. I very, very specifically was referring to the fields themselves in instances like physics in reference to things like dark matter and string theory and the general lack of groundbreaking theory within that realm, and a strong financial incentive to break said ground or claim you’re about to. If ‘technology’ is the academic discipline of physics then so’s flipping burgers at that point. Was Steve Jobs a physicist now too?
Applying existing theories in physics to new and productive things isn’t breaking theoretical ground at the level of theory in the field. I think you’ve misunderstood the criticisms of this comment thread.