Does the Universe have a finite number of fundamentals to uncover?

[Maximum7]

Fire, Gravity, Electromagnetism, Atoms, DNA, Steam power, Nuclear, Quarks. All of these things have one thing in common. They are fundamental aspects of the universe that humans have uncovered and given names. However, all of these great discoveries occurred quite some time ago and as a science lover; it makes me upset. We don’t seem to be be making fundamental discoveries in science anymore. Sure technology is always progressing and many scientific advances are made all the time BUT it’s all built on pre-existing foundations and doesn’t really change our view of reality anymore. Why is this the case? Is the universe finite in its complexity and there is only so much fruit on the tree to pick? I believe the universe (while much of it we can never see) is infinite in size; therefore there should be an infinite amount of “stuff” for us to find. At least that’s how I see it.

But the universe doesn’t care what I think and science’s main goal has always been the means of classifying everything into neat categories. I understand that.

Yet, I am looking for something as different as red is to blue. Red is red and blue is blue. Could we find another “color” someday or open up a new field like if we discovered the existence of hypermatter that allowed for FTL like in Star Wars?

 

[Borek]

I think you will need to rethink what you mean by "fundamental". Fire nor DNA (nor steam and nuclear power) have nothing "fundamental" about them, technically these are just applications.

 

[Rive]

Fire, Gravity, Electromagnetism, Atoms, DNA, Steam power, Nuclear, Quarks

Are you looking for fundamental or hyped aspects?

I don't know whether the universe is finite or infinite about 'fundamentals', but regarding hypes, the human imagination is clearly infinite enough for weekly/monthly/yearly excitements.
You only need to look around carefully.

 

[Orodruin]

To add to what has already been said: Even if the universe was divided into fundamentals in the way you describe, how would you ever be able to conclude if its number was finite or not?

 

[Baluncore]

Maybe there are a minimum number of laws (equations) that describe our observations (data).

Are we handicapped by our haphazard approach to finding those laws and equations?

How can we know when we have discovered the last of those laws, or if they form a complete, or a minimum set?

Can we then stop making observations?

 

[pinball1970]

We don’t seem to be be making fundamental discoveries in science anymore

That type of thing, game changers, will happen less and less as the "easier" stuff has already been worked out.
Quantum computers and other tech could change that when available.

In terms of progress and approach to finding things out Richard Feynman always had a nice philosophy.

https://www.google.com/search?q=fyn...ate=ive&vld=cid:5a6b6d69,vid:QkhBcLk_8f0,st:0

 

[DaveC426913]

We don’t seem to be be making fundamental discoveries in science anymore.

That type of thing, game changers, will happen less and less as the "easier" stuff has already been worked out.

Cautionary tale from 19th century:
"... So profound were these and other developments that it was generally accepted that all the important laws of physics had been discovered and that, henceforth, research would be concerned with clearing up minor problems and particularly with improvements of method and measurement."It only appears like we're not making discoveries because we don't have the perspective of historical hindsight.

For all we know, our (relatively) recent discovery of, say, Dark Matter will revolutionize the world in a decade or two.
For all we know, a new fundamental force will be discovered tomorrow that will usher in a whole new era of scientific discovery.

 

[Hill]

I remember watching a seminar on issues in cosmology about 15 years ago on MIT OCW. The professor there predicted that in 10 years we will know what the Dark Matter is and also that in 10 years it will be concluded that the Dark Energy does not exist.

(Curiously, I can't find that seminar on the MIT site now.)

 

[BillTre]

We don’t seem to be be making fundamental discoveries in science anymore.

I would ague that being able to measure gravitational waves has been pretty important.
Although not a discovery of a "fundamental" force it has revealed things not previously observable.
A whole new observational world.

 

[pinball1970]

Cautionary tale from 19th century:
"... So profound were these and other developments that it was generally accepted that all the important laws of physics had been discovered and that, henceforth, research would be concerned with clearing up minor problems and particularly with improvements of method and measurement."It only appears like we're not making discoveries because we don't have the perspective of historical hindsight.

For all we know, our (relatively) recent discovery of, say, Dark Matter will revolutionize the world in a decade or two.
For all we know, a new fundamental force will be discovered tomorrow that will usher in a whole new era of scientific discovery

The science community have a few targets to aim at I am not saying physics is a done deal.
I also said that a big technological step like a working quantum computer could be key in a major shift.