What parts of a physics undergraduate curriculum have been discovered since 1966? What parts of an undergraduate curriculum in fundamental physics have been discovered since, say, 1966? (I'm choosing this because it's 50 years ago.) 
Physics textbooks have moved on since 1966 (though even quantum mechanics was already in textbooks in a form pretty close to the present, as e.g. Landau and Lifshitz was in its second edition in 1965). However, a strong case can be made that a large fraction of the material that has been included after 1966 was discovered before that - i.e. that the physics textbooks have simply been catching up to the state of research in the 60s. 
(As an example, the Standard Model of electroweak interactions took on its modern form in 1967, and QCD, which is rarely studied in detail in undergraduate courses, followed shortly afterwards.)
I would like to disallow applications. I'm much more interested in finding out what (if any) fundamental shifts there have been in physics at the undergraduate level.
One reason I am asking is my suspicion is that there is very little or nothing which physics undergraduates learn which has been discovered since the 1960s, or even possibly earlier. Am I wrong?
This question is based on a similar one on Math Stack Exchange.
 A: *

*I think the biggest theoretical discovery would be Jefimenko's equations (which just barely meet your cutoff) - the general solution to Maxwell's equations in terms of physically measurable quantities.  They're covered in Griffiths' E&M.


*The basic idea behind the experimental observation of gravitationally induced quantum interference (technically a "quantum gravity" effect!) is actually a rather nice simple exercise in basic QM and might well be sketched out in an undergrad course.


*Bell’s theorem and Aspect's Bell Test experiments ruling out the possibility of local hidden-variable explanations of QM (up to a few loopholes, most of which have now been ruled out).


*Any undergrad particle physics course would cover quarks, the gauge bosons other than the photon, the tau neutrino, and of course the Higgs boson, all of which were discovered experimentally after 1966. It would probably also mention neutrino masses, which were discovered in 1998-2001.


*Lots of stuff in astronomy, like exoplanets and dark matter (possibly even in a high school course!).  Any undergrad cosmology course would mention the 1998 discovery of dark energy and the acceleration of the universe's expansion.


*An undergrad course on general relativity would probably at least mention the Kerr and Kerr-Newman metrics describing rotating black holes, whose discoveries just barely lie outside your window.
A: Depends on the course, but certainly some of my undergraduate courses covered some modern things:


*

*My undergrad QM courses briefly touched on Berry's phase (it's a toss up whether you want to call this recent enough I guess)

*I had a computational physics course, which of course discussed algorithms invented since then. I guess you probably don't want to count this.

*My advanced classical mecahnics course discussed a bit about chaos, which I think narrowly meets your cutoff

*I had two undergrad condensed matter classes (one "traditional", one "soft"), which definitely discussed things more recent than your cutoff (for instance, polymer physics stuff worked out in the 70's) If you want to call this applied I will be disappointed.

*I had a biophysics class which definitely discussed more modern things, but all of the "physics" was older I guess, so I would totally understand not counting this.

*A little bit of cosmology in GR (again, would you call this applied? I guess maybe.)


And of course several courses, including the above ones, at least mentioned experimental techniques invented more recently than your cutoff, and experimental results from since your cutoff.
Of course, you're certainly right that most of the fundamentals which one discusses in undergrad courses are older than that.
Note also that this isn't necessarily only a modern phenomenon, it's just the case that it takes a while for more modern things to end up in curricula. I think I recall reading that even as a PhD student, Einstein did not have a course on Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism.
A: Maybe high-temperature superconductivity?
