Marcoen,
This is physics! Ask yourself; how, where and when does change usually happen? It happens in the breaks, the phase transitions. As the old saying goes, "Change happens one funeral at a time."
So then ask yourself; How do we know when such a break is going to happen and what should we do to prepare for it? As I've been saying, you know you are at the top of the wave when it's mostly foam and bubbles and no more upward momentum. I think that about describes the state of physics today. So the question then is to figure out how to prepare for what happens when this structure really does start to crumble and that would be to have another model that answers the issues more effectively. Now that may seem obvious, but it would seem that if there were such a model, this being science, everyone would quickly be talking about it anyway, but that would only be true if it in some way fit into any of the various schools of thought currently accepted. If it is outside that range, it would be like stepping out a window for anyone trained within the schools to consider it. Not only would no one follow them, and they would not only lose the support of the community, but also the value of what they had been taught.
If, on the other hand, the real problem is so fundamental to the model, eventually these structures will crumble to the ground and they will have to start from the ground up anyway. Given that, there is a strong political impulse to keep supporting and fixing old models.
Now obviously I am leading up to the issue I keep raising, but only because it really is foundational, not only to physics models, but to the rational thought process. It was the topic of my last years entry in the Questioning the Foundations contest
We experience time as a sequence of events, from past to future and physics reduces this to a measure of duration, but the simple physical reality is that it is action creating change that turns potential into actual, ie. future becoming past. For example, the earth isn't moving/existing along a vector from yesterday to tomorrow, rather tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.
Duration doesn't transcend the present, but is the activity occurring between events, like the wave cycling between peaks.
In my this years entry I'm arguing it further. That reality is a dichotomy of energy and information, in which energy manifests information and information defines energy. Since energy is conserved, in order to create new information, old information has to be erased, thus giving rise to the "arrow of time."
Now can you see how much of a problem this poses, not only for many complex physics models, but to our very notion of reality? Consider that both narrative and cause and effect, linear logic are based on this sequential perspective of time and they are the main pillars of what creates human civilization, so while it seems normal to me, having thought about it for years, I find it really throws a monkey wrench into most people's ways of thinking and they react negatively to it, even if they don't have an argument against it. It would be like telling the average person of 500 years ago that the earth is just a small planet circling its local star. Consider we still, today, see the sun as moving across the sky.
Now I can go on about this idea, but it may have tripped some circuit breakers in your thinking, so the point I'm making to you, is that it is this sort of paradigm breaking that is required and sitting around a physics classroom discussing the various models of black holes, or multiverses, or string theories, is not going to lead to that sort of outside the box thinking.
So it is a matter of waiting until the ideas emanating from the physics community become so outrageous that the larger society begins to question whether they are worth the cost. Then really new ideas will have an opportunity.
Regards,
John Merryman
PS, I'm always willing to discuss it further, in fact, recently posted a thumbnail sketch at the bottom of Carlos Rovelli's thread.