Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

About the meta questions 1193 and 2609, I've heard parallelly, that the complete branch theoretical physics is already done and that there isn't any thing else to do in this field, how true is it?

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by Manishearth, David Z Dec 1 '12 at 22:31

Questions on Physics Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

6  
Uh, it's the stackexchange site that was closed, just because it got low traffic. It doesn't mean theoretical phsyics is done! –  Javier Badia Dec 1 '12 at 18:02
    
Of course!, that's why I'm just asking about something simil... –  paritto6 Dec 1 '12 at 18:13
    
@paritto i already have done new theorical physics at my research institute –  Neo Dec 1 '12 at 18:39
1  
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/1453/2451 –  Qmechanic Dec 1 '12 at 22:33
1  
This is either off topic or nonsense, or perhaps both. As always, perhaps it can be rewritten to make it okay. I'm a little disappointed that more people didn't vote to close it though. –  David Z Dec 1 '12 at 22:33
show 2 more comments

2 Answers 2

We still don't know how high-Tc superconductivity works. We don't know what dark matter is, or why dark energy exists. We don't completely understand the mechanics of supernovas. We can't go from the parameters of the Hubbard model to the physics of the materials it models. we can't predict the half-life of radioactive nuclei from the standard model. All of these are theoretical physics questions. And there are lots, lots, lots more.

What might be dead is some of the theories in a small subarea of theoretical physics speculating on what lies beyond the standard model, since no evidence supporting any of them has been found by the LHC. But even if all of these theories were ruled out, there would still be lots and lots of interesting open questions that fall under the umbrella of theoretical physics.

share|improve this answer
3  
This is plain wrong:-1 Everybody knows that the searches for deviations from the SM are still going on. Neither are all data acquiered up to now fully analized, nor has the LHC run at the full targetted energy. And even if physicists do not find deviations from the SM behind the corner soon, this does NOT mean that all beyond the SM speculations as you call them are fals. The LHC allone can NOT falsify all these theories. –  Dilaton Dec 1 '12 at 18:49
2  
@ColinMcFaul the whole last sentence in this answer is wrong and very misleading. What is ruled out are certain classes of models that "implement" certain variants of beyond the standard models theoretical ideas. But the whole theoretical ideas themself are certainly far from dead. What Peter Shor says gives a wrong picture about the perspective of theoretical physics and his answer should NOT be upvoted until he corrects his last sentence. Again, Prof. Strassler explains why what Peter Shor says is wrong here. –  Dilaton Dec 2 '12 at 19:14
2  
@Dilaton, I have read your comment, the link you provided, and the last sentence of the answer a few times. They say the same thing. If you are going to start arguments with people, then please have the decency to read and understand what they are saying. –  Colin McFaul Dec 2 '12 at 20:41
2  
I have revised the last sentence of my answer to try to make what I was saying less subject to misinterpretation. But let me further comment that while I agree with most of what Prof. Strassler says, I think his assertions that the fact that the LHC does not find any evidence supporting a theory doesn't make it less likely is completely contrary to the scientific method. –  Peter Shor Dec 2 '12 at 20:49
3  
@Dilaton: The scientific method is: you set up an experiment to test your theory. If the experiment confirms it, your theory is now more likely. If the experiment does not confirm it, your theory is less likely. Now, it's possible that your theory isn't that much less likely if you've only ruled out a small parameter space of the experiment (I assume this is his point). But Prof. Strassler going around saying these kinds of things is only providing free ammunition to creationists, global-warming deniers, pro-DDT-pollution chemical companies, and similar people, and he shouldn't say them. –  Peter Shor Dec 2 '12 at 21:54
show 25 more comments

You completely misunderstood this. That the theoretical physics SE site was not successful in the SE network (it did not fail, it was a nice high quality but too small site) has nothing to do with the amount of research that can still be done in theoretical physics as a research field.

And as a research field, theoretical physics is not dead at all ;-).

So wherever you have heard or read from that there is nothing left to do in theoretical physics, this is plain wrong.

Edit to adress comments

The standard model is only an effective theory that describes physics very good at the low energy scales we can access with the current colliders up to now. So even though the newly found higgs was the last stone in the puzzle that was missing, the standard model itself is incomplete. There are many questions it does not answer as you can read for example here. So there is still plenty of work to do and things to discover for theoretical physicists and my answer to the question if nothing new can be done in theoretical physics is a resounding NO.

The LHC allone will never be able to rule out everything beyond the standard model, as certain bloggers, media, etc wrongly claim. Why this is can be read for example in Prof. Strassler article here and in his related recent posts about SUSY for example.

share|improve this answer
    
That is not true, I'm telling that I've heard about that supposed uncertainty of the end of TP, thereafter: why it is not closed at all? –  paritto6 Dec 1 '12 at 18:14
    
@paritto What do you mean by supposed uncertainty of the end of TP and what should be closed? I there a new TP proposal at Area51? I dont understand what you mean. –  Dilaton Dec 1 '12 at 18:23
    
It's quite clear! The Higgs has been found this year and according to already known, it is the last stone of the building to complete our undestanding of the universe of particles and fields, ¿isn't it? –  paritto6 Dec 1 '12 at 18:33
    
@Dilaton in particle physics, a dilaton is a hypothetical particle. It also appears in Kaluza-Klein theory's compactifications of extra dimensions when the volume of the compactified dimensions vary. –  Neo Dec 1 '12 at 18:43
1  
Haha @Neo thanks, I know who I am :-D –  Dilaton Dec 1 '12 at 18:54
show 7 more comments

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.