[beckthompson]

haha I remember taking my quantum mechanics class. I thought I finally had "finished" old physics and was finally doing "newer" stuff.

In the library there were some old physics books, looked at one that was like 70 years old and it was covering the stuff we learned that quarter... Guess I have a LONG way to go until I learn "new" things xD

[sampo]

There is no new foundational physics. The standard model of particle physics is from the 1970s, and the lambda-cmd model of cosmology is from late 1990s.

Of course there is lots of new speculative ideas being produced, but it's really difficult to get anything confirmed.

[adastra22]

Quantum mechanics is not the standard model. Quantum mechanics is the stuff developed in the 20’s and 30’s. It is really useful for solving real world problems, and for that reason is what is taught to undergraduates in a “modern physics” class. It is not a correct or complete description of reality, however, and is about 50ish years out of date.

[volemo]

I think "new foundational [science]" is a bit of an oxymoron: theories need time to become established as foundational. There may well be ideas (currently hypotheses) that will someday be considered foundational, but we lack the hindsight and experimental validation to claim that status now.

And if you try to present your theory as foundational from the outset — like S. Wolfram does — you’ll be laughed at, much like he is.

[GoblinSlayer]

Is standard model confirmed? Then what is dark matter?

[pantalaimon]

the late 1990s is actually fairly recent

[HPsquared]

I remember thinking calculus was this modern high-tech thing in high school.

[jebarker]

I also remember excitedly telling my friends about derivatives when I first learned of them thinking that this really was cutting edge math