# The Stagnation of Scientific Progress: A Critical Analysis
Written on
Understanding the Decline of Basic Science
The narrative in the book and series Three Body Problem illustrates a scenario where extraterrestrial beings hinder Earth's scientific development while preparing for an invasion. This fictional premise, however, mirrors a troubling reality: scientific advancement has been at a standstill for over a century.
As one scientist in the story remarks:
"Ding acknowledged, 'While I lack direct ties to the Frontiers of Science, its reputation in academia is well-known. Its primary objective revolves around the following: since the latter half of the 20th century, physics has lost the clarity and elegance characteristic of classical theories. Modern theoretical models have become increasingly intricate, ambiguous, and uncertain. Experimental validation has also become more challenging. This indicates that the cutting edge of physics research appears to be encountering a barrier.'"
The scientist continues, "Members of the Frontiers of Science aim to explore a novel perspective. Essentially, they seek to utilize scientific methodologies to ascertain the limitations of science itself — to investigate whether there exists a boundary beyond which scientific inquiry cannot penetrate. The evolution of contemporary physics seems to suggest that we may have brushed against such a threshold."
This observation, though fictional, rings true. Major breakthroughs like General Relativity and DNA were significant, yet they were not entirely unprecedented. When considering groundbreaking ideas such as the periodic table, radioactivity, or electricity, we find ourselves treading the same ground as a century ago.
The Frontiers of Scientific Inquiry
Physics has evolved from a field where even a postal clerk could contribute insights to one that demands billions in funding and numerous PhDs. Yet, the core principles of basic science remain unchanged. This stagnation isn’t confined to physics; fundamental concepts like electromagnetism (identified in 1873), DNA (discovered in 1878), and general relativity (introduced in 1915) have not progressed significantly. Even early concepts of computing and AI trace back to the 1800s.
While the technologies that emerge from this foundational knowledge have advanced rapidly, the underlying principles have not evolved. The relentless commercialization of science misleads us into believing that basic science is progressing, when in reality, it is not. Innovations in aviation, communication, weaponry, medicine, and smartphones are simply applications of scientific principles that have existed for over a century. The iPhone 14, for instance, is no more revolutionary in terms of physics than the millionth obsidian arrowhead.
We have created numerous products, but our conceptualization of what is possible has not expanded. Our inability to envision new possibilities has hindered innovation since the last century.
Even contemporary technology lacks true innovation. Electric vehicles and solar panels have been in existence since the 1800s, and modern rocketry has roots dating back to the 1920s. Platforms like Twitter can be seen as a poor imitation of the telegraph, while aviation peaked with the Concorde and has since declined. A visitor from a century ago would understand our technology but likely feel disappointed by its lack of novelty.
Everything we possess today could have been conceived a century ago, and indeed, past predictions were often more ambitious. The absence of flying cars and lunar colonies exemplifies a fundamental shortcoming. The stagnation of scientific advancement is evident in our science fiction; films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Back to the Future II envision futures that remain unfulfilled.
Science has come to a standstill, imposing strict physical limits on the technology we can develop. This is a straightforward matter of physics. Consider light: our understanding of its principles has resulted in increasingly efficient (albeit often less aesthetically pleasing) applications. However, this understanding imposes constraints on the extent of that efficiency. We are nearing the limits now, with technologies like solar panels already approaching their physical efficiency thresholds. Future innovations, such as artificial photosynthesis, will inevitably face similar limitations.
In the Three Body Problem, aliens possess advanced physics that enables them to manipulate protons and create a supercomputer within them, sending this diminutive AI to disrupt Earth. The aliens mock humanity, referring to them as 'bugs.' As Ding Yi, the scientist, observes:
"I want to emphasize this: a crucial indicator of a civilization's technological progression is its capacity to manage and harness micro dimensions. Utilizing fundamental particles without engaging with micro dimensions is something our primitive ancestors began when they first ignited bonfires in caves. Manipulating chemical reactions is merely the control of micro particles without consideration for micro dimensions. Of course, this control has evolved from rudimentary methods to sophisticated techniques: from bonfires to steam engines, and ultimately to generators. Presently, humanity's capability to manipulate micro particles at a macro level has peaked with computers and nanomaterials. However, all of this has been achieved without unlocking the myriad micro dimensions. From the viewpoint of a more advanced civilization, bonfires and computers are fundamentally equivalent, and that is why they regard humans as mere bugs. Regrettably, I believe they are correct."
In another scene, Shen Yufei observes a bug on a window:
"Look at it. It perseveres, climbing over bricks, steel, and glass. Through the glass, it perceives us. It believes it cannot enter because it has yet to discover a crack in the glass. It assumes a crack must exist. I could show it the crack, yet it remains without options."
The constraints imposed by physics (especially the speed of light) act as a hard barrier, confining us within the universe's limitations, thermodynamics, and time. We may glimpse beyond these boundaries and believe a crack must exist somewhere, yet we are fundamentally trapped, akin to a bug on a windowpane — equally vulnerable to being squashed.
The Limits of Scientific Expansion
I have previously discussed the physical, financial, and mathematical constraints on Earth's growth, often referred to as the impending collapse of industrial civilization. While I could elaborate further, I recommend consulting Murphy's textbook, which systematically examines the math, physics, and established technologies.
However, what if we were to uncover new physics? Or acquire it from an extraterrestrial source? What if we were to access other dimensions and uncover powers that surpass nuclear energy? Could we harness this energy to remove waste from our planet and colonize the solar system? While we may acknowledge today's physical constraints as fixed, can we disregard the potential for new physics in the future?
The answer is no, as we lack knowledge of what those new physics might entail. Historically, humanity's first impulse has often been to weaponize new technologies, which is hardly promising. Theoretically, however, a new scientific paradigm could ignite a resurgence in basic science, fundamentally altering our worldview and enabling us to exacerbate existing problems further. As Murphy warns, "if energy were to become virtually limitless through some technology, I shudder to consider the repercussions for our planet."
Despite my assertions that the doors to infinite growth are firmly shut, there remains one door that must be left ajar — the possibility of a miraculous discovery that rekindles our scientific curiosity after the "magic rocks" of electromagnetism and radioactivity cease to yield results. I do not claim that basic science has definitively halted (it has), but I acknowledge that a restart is conceivable, albeit unlikely.
Murphy articulates this sentiment well: "Having witnessed numerous 'rabbits' emerge from the hat in lighting technology, we are conditioned to expect more will follow. This belief will persist until it no longer does. One way to phrase it is that six rabbits do not guarantee an infinite supply. We should welcome each new rabbit, but we must not base our future on an endless stream of new ones."
For me, it feels statistically and spiritually misguided to place faith in infinite growth fueled by an infinite supply of rabbits. Yet, the potential for new physics exists, and it may one day be within our grasp.
I conclude this section not on a hopeful note; the prospect of new scientific discoveries is daunting. Science is neither inherently 'good' nor 'bad' — it is a tool. One can use a hammer to build or destroy, and we often wield new scientific advancements for violent ends. The notion that those who have previously unleashed nuclear devastation on civilian populations should be entrusted with even greater power is terrifying, not reassuring. The idea that we should perpetuate growth at the expense of all other species is equally unsettling. As you may gather, I would likely join the Frontiers of Science, excluding the alien worship. To hell with the aliens and whatever science they might bring.
While I concede the possibility of new scientific breakthroughs, I must question who will be responsible for these discoveries. I suspect shareholders will continue to push the development of AI, even if its waste heat suffocates us, relentlessly pursuing growth. But for whom will they solve the problem? Addressing the growth issue for corporations vastly differs from solving it for living beings (including ourselves). If corporate AI 'solves' the growth dilemma, the vast majority of humanity may find themselves nothing more than bugs on a windshield.
Ironically, the corporate AI paradigm is also centuries old, predating the slowdown in scientific progress. But that is a different story altogether.
The first video, "Is Science Dying?" explores the stagnation of scientific inquiry and its implications for the future.
The second video, "Science is Dead - The Big Bang Theory," discusses the limitations of current scientific understanding and the future potential of physics.