Thread: finding the the next big thing

I'm not sure what the "next big thing" in physics will be, but my question is relevant to how we would get there.

I'm asking if the "next big thing" will be discovered by chance, or will it be deliberately theorised and then proven?

For instance, "artificial gravity"<for want of a better term> (gravity that can be reproduced in the laboratory, by whatever means, not naturally occuring), what is more likely: stumbling upon it by chance through experiment, or actually developing a theory of it first to then prove in a laboratory?


Although we seem to be spending more money on hit and miss research with particle physics in the hope to get results to either confirm or deny sub-atomic modelling, would this not indicate that any next big thing in physics will be found through hit and miss research? Is anything else going against the grain, such as pure theoretical physics?

The next big thing,
is a privatization of the space view.

Where for study the space,
it must to create laser screens capable to block the external lights of space.

To surround the planet and to expand....
able to picture and map everything giving the planet location.
Whats next is another curse for the life wasted by money activity...

Propaganda displayed at the space television commercials,
no more stars but trademarks at the sky.
Living inside a television itself,the planet doomed to act as a private spaceship.

When a movie comes from my idea,i must to get paid credits about half a 3x billion.
When the project starts,i must to get paid credits about millions of these current activity.

Every point you made is why it will never work.

Every point you made represents a type of privitisation that stands above all other human beings for self-interest, a privitisation that betrays itself in being "known" with it's fruits of success.

Any other ideas that are consistent with each sentence held in the same answer?

Originally Posted by WDHellS

The next big thing,
is a privatization of the space view.

Where for study the space,
it must to create laser screens capable to block the external lights of space.

To surround the planet and to expand....
able to picture and map everything giving the planet location.
Whats next is another curse for the life wasted by money activity...

Propaganda displayed at the space television commercials,
no more stars but trademarks at the sky.
Living inside a television itself,the planet doomed to act as a private spaceship.

When a movie comes from my idea,i must to get paid credits about half a 3x billion.
When the project starts,i must to get paid credits about millions of these current activity.

Posts of garbage like this don't belong in the Physics forum.

What about the question?

I think to clarify my question, for the purpose of explaining why the question may be relevant to physics, I am looking for cornerstones of policy in the physics community, and in this case here I am trying to highlight a case of what is more noble for physics, namely the idea of realising something from pure theory alone which is then confirmed by experiment, or the idea of coming across a phenomena that is then related as a physics via experiment?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

What about the question?

I think to clarify my question, for the purpose of explaining why the question may be relevant to physics, I am looking for cornerstones of policy in the physics community, and in this case here I am trying to highlight a case of what is more noble for physics, namely the idea of realising something from pure theory alone which is then confirmed by experiment, or the idea of coming across a phenomena that is then related as a physics via experiment?

Both starting points are perfectly valid, but I suppose finding evidence for something that has so far been purely theoritical is sort of the holy grail of physics :-D

I think the next really big thing in physics would be a consistent quantum theory of gravity...

How light bends around mass, and making that consistent with all other strains of physics. Interesting.

Imagine if light bent away from mass. No. Forget that.

Strange thing: "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness overcomes it not".

So as not to disturb the faithful: light shines in a vacuum, the vacuum interferes not.......the vacuum succumbs to light.

Next biggest thing maybe would be an "electro" version of gravity, I agree, but one where space is submissive, one where space bends according to the light. What therefore does "mass" have to do with "space" in a way of succumbing to light?

Maybe the answer is there? An electro version of mass? That's almost like magnetism. But, of course, we are trying to overcome gravity, mass, to penetrate it, control it. So it must be more than magnetism, right?


I think the most exciting thing to expect, yearn for, on the horizon, is a force that can act independently of all other force fields, transcend all that currently determines the shape of our natural world. Or of course light could be sucked into any electro-gravity technology rendering it completely invisible, right? But that's no fun. We need a new strain of formula that transcends all else, stands above, while using an electro-quantum principal that doesn't hide itself. And this is why maybe we should consider the real possibility of a new independent strain of physics transcending what we already know, without offending the faithful of course........why cause a religious war......;>?

The problem has to be approached from all sides. Bits and pieces of knowledge coupled with experimentation and mathematical and statistical prediction will produce the next big thing.

Artifical mass. But that is an engineering development. Directional gravity? A " can opener" for black holes? All speculation on the "next big thing" in physics, all essentially useless.