Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

What time frame are you talking about here? Starting in 01950, 01995, 02010?

If we're talking about 01995, it's conceivable that, say, the US and CERN could coordinate to suppress research into hafnium bombs, AVLIS, antigravity, or whatever. If we're talking about research much prior to that point, though, you'd have to include the Russians in the conspiracy. Probably not just any Russians, either; probably Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Tsar-Bomba-era Sakharov, and his successors. And, on the other side, people like J. Edgar Hoover, JFK, McNamara, Kissinger, Johnny von Neumann, and Teller.

I don't want to say it's literally impossible for Brezhnev or his underlings to have made a secret agreement with Kissinger and Teller to suppress the development of theoretical physics in order to keep the world predictable. But I do think it's pretty implausible, and there would have been an enormous incentive to cheat on any such secret agreement.

In the 01990s, though, it could have become plausible. But, remember that that's also when Pakistan became a nuclear weapons state, shortly followed by North Korea in 02006. And the People's Republic of China has had nuclear weapons since 01964, so they evidently had significant physics capabilities that they were willing to use for warfare (which was a huge priority; Mao reorganized the country's economy to resist an anticipated US invasion), and they dominated the TOP500 supercomputer list until this year, when they withdrew from it in apparent protest against the efforts of the USA to reverse their technological progress with a worldwide system of export controls.

So I think there's maybe a ten-year window when this could have happened somewhat, about 01992 to 02002. Both before and after that, there are too many countries with strong physics communities that are too bitterly opposed to make such cooperation plausible.

My understanding as a layman:

1. Copernicus figured out that if you put the sun at the center, then epicycles weren't necessary, and the math got easier --- because epicycles were based on a mis-understanding of the actual state of the universe --- I don't believe that anyone has identified such a non-alignment of fact and reasoning and observation for contemporary physics.

2. The problem is, modern physics is arguably getting boxed into a corner by approaching an end game state where the fundamental particles are getting identified, but are so small and difficult to separate out, that measurements are challenging to the point that while one can speculate and do math, actually proving out the speculations experimentally and taking actual measurements is expensive or so difficult to reason about that there doesn't seem an obvious path to an experiment, e.g., it looks as if the electron may be a fundamental particle, which is a sufficiently difficult concept to parse that it led to "The one-electron universe"/"The single electron hypothesis" and if that is the case, it walls off a not insignificant portion of particle physics at a size/state which can't be gotten smaller than.

> Since people on the internet frequently seem to operate on the silly theory that someone pointing out a problem has some sort of obligation to propose a solution

The issue with Sabine is she tends to yell about anyone proposing any solution. CERN would like to build a bigger particle accelerator, but since it's not her favored variant of accelerator they are obviously lying to the public and wasting your tax payer dollars which could be spent instead on the (implied) guaranteed discoveries if people would just listen to her.

(note also that this is a false dichotomy: any realistic analysis any set of potentially competing projects would generally conclude they're unlikely to be in competition if they are in fact viable - we usually have plenty of money to do both things provided they're likely to pay off. But the under-developed, under-timelined thing is a lot easier to promise the world with, yet far more likely to wind up just as "clearly blown out it's budget!" as the project being built).

The kind of supersymmetry you’re referring to (global spacetime supersymmetry) is not required by string theory; this is a common misconception. Looking for super partners in a collider is actually only telling you about global supersymmetry, which unlike local supersymmetry is not a universal feature of string theory at low energy, in fact the opposite, it is probably non-generic. It so happens that a class of appealingly simple vacua do have this property, which led to some inappropriate optimism among string theorists that has entirely abated with more experiments. Unfortunately this has been widely misunderstood to rule out the whole enterprise of string theory, which is unreasonable for the reason stated above, it is much more likely to not see SUSY below the Planck scale. [0] (Unless you just like to mock string theorists for hoping that the universe would be kind to them.)

Also global supersymmetry has not been experimentally disproved (how would you do this, even?) but it is true that current or even near-term experiments are not nearly sensitive enough to get close enough to answering this definitively, which is obviously upsetting.

[0] https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/string+theory+FAQ#DoesSTPredic...

There are some good comments here, thanks! There has been an international component to physics research cooperation. It seems not inconceivable that physicists in many countries, meeting at paper conventions and such might have agreed and recruited each other to try to prevent the next atomic bomb type invention. So while competition between countries is certainly real, competition between scientists might be somewhat different. You'd think there would be some people who would pursue it regardless, but they'd probably have to work with a team, and not everyone on the team may have supported the goals. It's just a theory, but it has some plausibility. Perhaps there are people everywhere who have decided not to be part of endeavors that could be disruptive and they've done us all a favor or have kept us from discovering the secrets of the universe. Who knows? The ethics of science has been mostly left to chance and individual decisions.