Why Has Physics Come to a Standstill?

The Case of Microwave Absorption Theory and the State of Scientific Progress

yueliusd

Jul 29, 2025

Why Has Physics Come to a Standstill? The Case of Microwave Absorption Theory and the State of Scientific Progress

Yue Liu

College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang, P. R. China,110034,

yueliusd@163.com

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5924-9730

Physics, once the vanguard of human knowledge advancement, appears to have entered a period of unprecedented stagnation. This decline is not merely a matter of slowing discovery rates, but represents a fundamental breakdown in the scientific process itself—a phenomenon that Richard Feynman presciently warned against in his famous 1974 Caltech address on "Cargo Cult Science" [1-3]. The current crisis extends far beyond the well-documented struggles in theoretical physics and manifests even in applied research areas, where basic physical principles should guide straightforward engineering applications.

The Stagnation Crisis in Modern Physics

A Forty-Year Plateau

The foundations of physics have remained essentially unchanged since the completion of the Standard Model in the 1970s [4, 5]. Despite exponential growth in the number of physicists—increasing by a factor of roughly 100 between 1900 and 2000 [6] — and an explosion in published papers, fundamental progress has ground to a halt. This stagnation represents an unprecedented situation in the history of science [5, 7].

Sabine Hossenfelder, a research fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, characterizes the current situation bluntly: "Nothing is moving in the foundations of physics. One experiment after the other is returning null results: No new particles, no new dimensions, no new symmetries" [7]. The problem is not a lack of data or experimental capability, but rather "loads of wrong predictions from theoretical physicists" [5].

The Mathematics of Stagnation

The scale of this stagnation becomes clear when we examine the actual working time invested. If we account for the hundred-fold increase in physicists since 1900, the equivalent of 40 years of work from a century ago can now be accomplished in just 14 months [6]. Yet despite this massive increase in research capacity, fundamental physics has made virtually no progress on the major open questions that have persisted since the 1930s: the quantization of gravity, the nature of dark matter, and the quantum measurement problem [5].

The Institutional Pathology

The Failure of Peer Review

The peer review system, supposedly the guardian of scientific quality, has become part of the problem. Funding agencies rely on peer review, and peer reviewers will approve work that fits into their mindset, which is, to put it briefly "more of the same" [8]. This creates a "rich-get-richer" trend where established paradigms become increasingly entrenched, regardless of their empirical success.

Cargo Cult Science in Practice: The Microwave Absorption Case

The dysfunction in theoretical physics might be dismissed as an isolated problem in an esoteric field, but the pathology extends to applied research areas where the stakes are more immediate and the physics should be more straightforward.

The Impedance Matching Theory Controversy

A particularly striking example emerges from microwave absorption research, where a fundamental theoretical error has dominated the field for decades. The mainstream impedance matching theory for microwave absorption materials can allegedly be disproven using basic wave superposition principles taught at the undergraduate level [9, 10]. Yet this theory continues to dominate research and publication despite the availability of what proponents claim is a correct wave mechanics theory.

The persistence of this allegedly flawed theory demonstrates several concerning trends: materials scientists who may lack deep physics knowledge continue using incorrect frameworks, physics journals continue publishing papers based on the disputed theory while systematically rejecting opposing viewpoints [9], and the scientific community shows little inclination toward self-correction even when fundamental errors are pointed out [10].

Publication Bias and Canonization of Error

This situation exemplifies how publication bias can canonize false claims as facts [11]. Research has shown that "unless a sufficient fraction of negative results are published, false claims frequently can become canonized as fact" [11]. In microwave absorption research, the continued publication of papers supporting impedance matching theory, while excluding critical perspectives, creates an artificial consensus that may be entirely wrong.

The problem is exacerbated by what researchers call "outcome reporting bias," where authors systematically avoid writing up negative results [11], and editorial preferences for positive findings that appear more impactful [12]. This creates a feedback loop where false theories become increasingly entrenched through repeated citation rather than empirical validation.

The Psychology of Scientific Stagnation

Cargo Cult Methodology

Feynman's concept of "cargo cult science" perfectly captures the current situation. Just as South Pacific islanders built replica airstrips hoping to attract cargo planes, modern scientists follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential [1, 3]. They publish papers, attend conferences, and engage in peer review, but the underlying scientific integrity—the commitment to honest self-examination and rigorous testing of ideas—has been lost.

The missing element, Feynman identified, is "a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards" [3]. This includes reporting everything that might invalidate your results, acknowledging alternative explanations, and ensuring that your theory explains more than just the observations that inspired it.

The Incentive Problem

The root cause of scientific stagnation lies in changes in scientist incentives [13]. Over the past five decades, citations have become the dominant metric for evaluating scientific contributions, shifting scientist rewards and behavior toward incremental science and away from exploratory projects [13]. This creates a system where researchers are incentivized to produce papers that will be cited rather than papers that advance fundamental understanding.

As attention given to new ideas decreased, science became trapped in existing paradigms [13]. The pressure to publish frequently and accumulate citations encourages researchers to work within established frameworks rather than risk pursuing genuinely novel approaches that might fail.

The Scale Problem in Modern Science

Too Many Papers, Too Little Progress

Recent research reveals that when the number of papers published per year in a scientific field grows large, citations flow disproportionately to already well-cited papers; the list of most-cited papers ossifies [14]. This creates a situation where new papers are unlikely to ever become highly cited, and newly published papers become unlikely to disrupt existing work [14].

The deluge of publications may actually deprive reviewers and readers the cognitive slack required to fully recognize and understand novel ideas [14]. Competition among many new ideas prevents the gradual accumulation of focused attention on promising innovations, leading to what researchers term "canonical ossification."

The Burden of Knowledge

As scientific knowledge accumulates, each new generation of researchers faces an ever-growing burden of knowledge—the amount of existing work that must be mastered before one can contribute at the frontier [15] This burden grows inherently as science advances, and unless total research capacity grows at a faster rate, it will eventually consume all available research effort.

The Path Forward: Breaking Free from Stagnation

Institutional Reform

Changing scientist incentives by broadening how scientific productivity is measured and evaluated could encourage more exploration and scientific innovation [13]. This means moving beyond simple citation counts and publication numbers to reward both scientific impact and genuine novelty.

Specific reforms might include:

Reward systems that value fewer, deeper, more novel contributions [14]
Clear journal hierarchies where prestigious outlets devote space to less canonically rooted work [14]
Graduate training that pushes future researchers to appreciate the uncomfortable novelty of ideas less rooted in established canon [14]
Measures of novelty relative to existing work to guide evaluation of papers and grant applications [14]

Scientific Integrity

Most fundamentally, the scientific community must return to Feynman's principle of scientific integrity: the commitment to honest self-examination and the willingness to report everything that might invalidate one's conclusions [3]. This means:

Publishing negative results to prevent the canonization of false theories [11]
Acknowledging the limitations and potential errors in one's work
Focusing on mathematically well-defined problems rather than speculative frameworks [16]
Stopping the practice of solving problems that don't exist [16]

The Microwave Absorption Test Case

The microwave absorption controversy provides a perfect test case for these reforms. If the impedance matching theory is indeed flawed and can be disproven using basic physics principles, then the scientific community's response to this challenge will indicate whether meaningful reform is possible. The continued dominance of allegedly incorrect theory, despite the availability of opposing evidence, suggests that the cargo cult mentality has become deeply entrenched.

Conclusion: The Stakes of Scientific Stagnation

The stagnation in physics represents more than an academic problem—it threatens the entire enterprise of scientific progress that has driven human advancement for centuries. When basic physical theories can remain unchallenged for decades despite fundamental flaws, when peer review systems systematically exclude dissenting views, and when career incentives reward conformity over discovery, we risk entering a dark age of scientific understanding.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool [3]. Modern science has forgotten this fundamental truth, becoming trapped in its own elaborate rituals and metrics while losing sight of its core mission: the honest pursuit of natural truth.

Breaking free from this stagnation will require more than incremental reforms—it demands a fundamental recommitment to the scientific integrity that Feynman described. Only by acknowledging the depth of our current crisis and actively working to restore genuine scientific discourse can we hope to resume the march of human knowledge. The planes will not land until we build more than replica airstrips; we must restore the substance behind the scientific form.

References

[1] Cargo Cult Science: When You Follow The Instructions But Don’t Understand The Process, https://coffeeandjunk.com/cargo-cult-science/

[2] Cargo Cult Science: Richard Feynman’s 1974 Caltech Graduation Address on Integrity, https://www.themarginalian.org/2012/06/08/richard-feynman-caltech-cargo-cult-science/

[3] Cargo Cult Science (Caltech’s 1974 Commencement Address) by Richard Feynman, Cargo Cult Science (Caltech’s 1974 Commencement Address) by Richard Feynman – thejqcorner

[4] Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years, Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years | Not Even Wrong

[5] Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years, https://iai.tv/articles/why-physics-has-made-no-progress-in-50-years-auid-1292

[6] Hossenfelder Stagnation Problem, https://josmfs.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Hossenfelder-Stagnation-Problem-181123.pdf

[7] The Present Phase of Stagnation in the Foundations of Physics Is Not Normal, https://nautil.us/the-present-phase-of-stagnation-in-the-foundations-of-physics-is-not-normal-237258/

[8] Physicists still perplexed I ask for reasons to finance their research, https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/07/physicists-still-perplexed-i-ask-for.html

[9] Theoretical Insights Manifested by Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption—Part 2: A Perspective Based on the Responses from DeepSeek, https://sciety-labs.elifesciences.org/articles/by?article_doi=10.20944%2Fpreprints202504.0447.v2

[10] Theoretical Insights Manifested by Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption—Part 1: A Theoretical Perspective, https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202503.0314/v4

[11] Research: Publication bias and the canonization of false facts, https://elifesciences.org/articles/21451

[12] What Is Publication Bias? | Definition & Examples, https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/publication-bias/

[13] STAGNATION AND SCIENTIFIC INCENTIVES, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26752/w26752.pdf

[14] Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2021636118

[15] It seems hard to avoid scientific stagnation due to the burden of knowledge in the long run, https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/4ydEMHyiidvJfqb2u/it-seems-hard-to-avoid-scientific-stagnation-due-to-the

[16] Modern Physics is Stagnating, Not in Crisis, https://scienceandnonduality.com/article/modern-physics-is-stagnating-not-in-crisis/

Is There a Stagnation in Physics?