> I hear people say something happened in the 1970’s that threw everyone off the scent. <
You might be referring to String Theory, a proposed theory that would connect Schrödinger’s Quantum Mechanics with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. String Theory was very popular in the 1970’s. It is still a big deal today.
String Theory was once so popular that if you did not buy into it, you couldn’t obtain a physics position at a major university. You had to be a believer.
I never had much interest in String Theory for two reasons. One, my goal was never a university position. And two, I’m a lab kind of guy. There is no hard experimental evidence for String Theory. None. And one school of thought is that there can never be such evidence.
I found that to be odd, to say the least. But maybe I just don’t have the right mind for theoretical work.
You might be referring to String Theory, a proposed theory that would connect Schrödinger’s Quantum Mechanics with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. String Theory was very popular in the 1970’s. It is still a big deal today.
///////
Yeah. String Theory. It appears that the string theory age is coming to an end. But I don’t hear any clear replacement—assuming that advance is possible or that a pardigmn shift is needed. Only that AI has eaten coding and its in the process of eating math and not too far behind will be physics and the other sciences. That order at the supper table is necessary because recursive self-improving coding enables the ai to rapidly improve to where it can solve unsolved problems. new math then gives the tools that enable new physics and so on. Is this view in accord with your view of the present state of math/physics or do you see something else?