This is an extract from the OPIP book, where Alice (A) and Bobby (B) discuss various factors that foster or hinder progress in physics.
A: I’m really looking forward to new fundamental discoveries. It will be so exciting.
B: I agree, although it may be like one of those magic tricks—quite sobering once you find out how it’s done. However, there will be all the new, yet-to-be-explored implications, as well as technological applications. And those will indeed be exciting.
A: When do you think the next breakthroughs will happen?
B: I have the feeling it will happen soon, in the next few years. Something is in the air.
A: Not sure about that. I don’t smell anything.
B: You know what’s funny? On the one hand, you say “50 years without fundamental progress. It’s astonishing. Why don’t we have progress by now?” But when I state that something will happen soon, you say “What? Already now? Cannot be.” Which one is it?
A: It just doesn’t feel like it.
B: Maybe our intuition isn’t the best guide here. Breakthroughs in physics often happen rather “unannounced.” Take relativity theory, for example.
A: Didn’t you say earlier that several insights happened shortly before relativity theory was published, logically culminating in it?
B: That’s all with hindsight. The new big theory will also connect a lot of existing dots. But the picture only becomes clear once it’s done, without much prewarning. If you had asked physicists in early 1905 if there would be a new theory soon that would overthrow classical mechanics, you’d have gotten a resounding “No.”[1]
A: So revolutions are always sudden and unexpected?
B: We need to distinguish between breakthroughs and revolutions. Breakthroughs are insights, discoveries or inventions that can happen from one day to the next—at least in the public eye. Revolutions, on the other hand, imply a broad impact on society, and those are rarely instantaneous. It often takes a while for breakthroughs to unleash their full potential and turn into a revolution, as we saw in the case of relativity theory and other discoveries in physics.
A: Sometimes revolutions do happen suddenly, at least in politics. For example, think about an overthrow in government or events like the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
B: That’s true for some, but most are gradual. The civil rights movement in the US, the ending of apartheid in South Africa, the fight for women’s suffrage and many other revolutions took quite some time to build up and bring change. Similarly, revolutions outside the field of politics, such as technological revolutions (e.g., internet) and cultural revolutions (e.g., sexual revolution) took longer than the term “revolution”—opposed to “evolution” which implies a gradual change—may suggest.
A: You still cannot rule out that a new insight in physics will have a quick impact on society.
B: Nothing can be ruled out. However, if history is any guide, it’s more likely that it will take some time.
A: But at least breakthroughs could happen overnight?
B: Yes, or maybe let’s say they can appear out of the blue from a public perspective. Breakthroughs must still have been caused by something. Typically, underlying, hidden developments create a fertile ground, and then a “freak accident” (or special moment, or whatever you want to call it) makes it come about.
A: Alright, so if we want to get an idea about the probability of breakthroughs, we must get an idea for the a) underlying, hidden developments and b) the likelihood for the final freak accident to happen.
B: Yes. Let’s start with latter one, which is much harder to predict. This is corroborated by the fact that even after breakthroughs happened, often we still don’t know what the final trigger was. What took place exactly that got “life” started? Or what were the specific reasons for “Black Tuesday,” the most impactful stock market crash in history on October 29, 1929? There were no dramatic happenings on that day that would explain it. The final occurrences that make things tip over, and trigger the change, often remain in the dark.
A: Okay, so the best we can do is getting a feel for the underlying developments.
B: I think so. Taking the example of Black Tuesday, we can see clearly now that there were several long-term developments that paved the way for the crash. Those included a widespread speculation with high leverages, a fragile banking system, and the Fed’s questionable monetary policy decisions. As those circumstances were already public at the time, they may have provided a chance to foresee a possible crash. Of course, that’s easily said with hindsight.
A: Alright, let’s get back to business… I mean physics. What are the underlying developments in physics that could point to breakthroughs happening—or not happening—soon?
B: We’ve broken down the creative process already, so let’s use that as framework. First, we’ll need brains, the more the better. The total number of new brains getting produced (also called births) is still increasing, so that’s a good trend from this perspective. Second, we said the brains mustn’t be dead. The worldwide rising life expectancy is also favorable from this angle.
A: Okay.
B: Next, the brains must work on problems in physics. The number of students is increasing globally—not only in line with overall population growth, but even faster due to increasing recognition of the importance of education and improved access to educational facilities.
A: So another favorable trend.
B: Right. In addition, the available leisure time to think about problems in physics is increasing too. It’s somewhat challenging to make a global statement about this, but in developed countries—a group that is steadily expanding—there has been a historical trend toward shorter working hours and longer weekends. This trend has mostly been driven by work-life balance initiatives, technological advances, and an overall increase in wealth, meaning fewer people need to work as hard. COVID-19 may have helped too.
A: You’re sardonic.
B: I’m not, reality is.[2]
A: Alright. So far, you argued that there is “more of the good stuff”—more brains, longer lifespans, more time, and more thinking about questions in physics. That’s all great, but that’s mostly about quantity. What about quality? You mentioned earlier that just throwing more resources at a problem won’t always lead to the solution.
B: There are positive trends for this too. Average IQ scores have been increasing at a rate of about 3 IQ points per decade, according to the “Flynn-Effect.”[3] Also, with more people thinking and talking about physics, the quality of the study material rises as well. Plus, if some questions remain, you can ask AI.
A: That all sounds promising, but there might be a flaw in your reasoning. Most trends you’ve mentioned have been ongoing for some time. So, why haven’t we seen significant fundamental progress in the past 50 years?
B: Maybe there’s something blocking it, like us being trapped in old thinking paradigms. Whatever it is, if the underlying trends are as favorable as I suggest, breakthroughs are bound to occur eventually. It’s like a dam that can block massive amounts of water, but at some point, it will break (through).
A: Do you have anything else to say about factors that could be positive precursors for breakthroughs in physics?
B: Maybe even our conversation could help to…
A: Please, no shameless self-promotion anymore.
B: Then I don’t have anything else to say.
A: Alright.
To read the full book, get your copy now.
—
[1] In this context, it’s tempting to mention the quote often attributed to Lord Kelvin from 1900, “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” However, this is most likely a false attribution. It’s probably a paraphrase of Albert Michelson’s statement, “…it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established… An eminent physicist remarked that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.” In any case, this view was held by many renowned physicists at the time.
[2] A notable example in this context is Isaac Newton’s highly productive phase in the mid-1660s, when Cambridge University closed due to the Black Death. In this period, today referred to as Newton’s “miracle year,” he made groundbreaking advancements in calculus, optics, and the laws of motion and gravitation while isolated at Woolsthorpe Manor. His absence from academia likely played a pivotal role, providing him the freedom to pursue intellectual paths less constrained by conventional academic norms and focus intensely on his studies. Although it’s too speculative to postulate that these discoveries would not have emerged without his enforced solitude, the combination of uninterrupted focus and the opportunity for deep reflection was undoubtedly crucial to his scientific achievements. See Opip.lol/miracle-year
[3] The Flynn Effect is named after intelligence researcher James R. Flynn, who observed increasing IQ levels throughout the 20th century. This phenomenon is attributed to various factors, including improved nutrition, education, and more stimulating environments. The exact causes, however, remain a subject of ongoing research and debate in the field of psychology. See Opip.lol/flynn
