It depends on what you consider to be fundamental physics. More efficient extraction of solar energy, or the construction of practical nuclear fusion reactors, certainly requires further developments of physics and physics based technology. But I belive this will be physics where the fundamental properties and equations already exists. At least for the developments occurring in this millennium.

It seems to me that the current development in our ways of living is not solely based on increased use of energy, but equally much on the new means of communication and information processing. Enter any bus or train anywhere in the world, and look at your fellow travellers: It becomes very clear that we are currently living in the smartphone era. This has become possible due to the physics of electromagnetism (as described by Maxwell's equations from 1864) and quantum mechanics (whose fundamental equations and principles were formulated during the last half of the 1920's).

The question is very interesting and it isn't premature because in actuality the gap between the fundamental physics and applicative physical and technological processes becomes always greater. It is due to the inability of the present fundamental physics to follow and to forestall exigencies of the human being. The present techonological development seems fastest but it is based only on the development of techniques and not on the progress of the fundamental physics that is still since more than one century. Maxwell's equations, like Newton's laws, are still the fundamental basis for applications of electromagnetism and mechanics but did the so-called (post)modern theories give an useful contribution to the cultural and scientific development? While classical theories opened new perspectives, I see postmodern theories impose only limits. SR and GR impose the speed of light cannot be exceeded, QM imposes, through the indeterminacy principle, the nature is indeterministic and it is impossible to consider smaller distances than Planck's length, etcc. . Experimental present physicists delight with fusions of phantom gravitational black holes and of neutron stars and they aim to listen to the echo of the bigbang. At the technological level the quantum computer is the last object of wishes but their real meaning is rather nebulous. It seems to me a further real progress of our theoretical knowledges and of our technological abilities depends instead on a necessary development of the fundamental physics. My effort in research goes this way.

By revealing new effects in materials and how to make new materials. But this isn't going to come to order, but by trying to understand all possible effects. That's what ``fundamental physics'' is about: trying to set up a frramework of controlled approximations, that can lead to new experiments.

Fundamental Physics will take it's own course. We can, however, discuss applications of known Physics. There is already a wealth of existing knowledge.

One of the most important areas of application is the energy supply for industrial and domestic consumption. Physical processes should have no adverse effects for environment. Interesting emerging areas are 1) Engineering of enzymes and photoautotrophic micro-organisms for microbial biofuel 2) Biohydrogen production from sunlight. There are other known areas such as solar cells, hydroelectric power, wind power, nuclear power to name a few.

It is manifest that in the order of the known physics there is still a wealth of possible future applications. These fields of applications nevertheless are expertise of specialist physicists and engineers.

The first part of the question raises the problem in general of the fundamental physics and then it is evident that for enlarging our existing knowledge the fundamental physics has to do advances in order to produce advances of our knowledge. The existing fundamental physics is obsolete now and it has produced already the best in terms of physical knowledges and techological applications.

The second part of the question regards processes of energy conversion and effectively the problem concerns above all the production of energy and I think here we all agree that it needs to make use of methods of production that have the smallest impact with environment. It is manifest that here there is also a problem of choices besides of knowledges that regard politics and important international organizations.

When we talk about the fundamental physics, we would have to specify about which fundamental physics we are talking: the classical physics from Galileo-Newton to Maxwell or the postomodern physics from Lorentz-Einstein to present days or a new contemporary fundamental physics that derives from a critical view towards the two preceding fundamental physics. Like techonological products become obsolete, similarly the history teachs us also concepts of the fundamental physics become obsolete in the light of new serious discoveries and of new basic views.

Very interesting question .

But what do we really know about the nature of energy ?

Kurt Wraae

Dear S.G.V.

As alway, fundamental research reveals new energy sources when axiomatic pronouncements made when less experimental data was available are set aside so that the now larger pool of data can be re-analized without impediment.

A telling case is the absolute axiomatic decree of energy conservation, established centuries ago when nothing was known about elementary particles and axial atomic structures, which goes against the very existence of adiabatic induction of energy in charged particles in these atomic structures, or any other axiomatic barriers to fundamental research.

Here is an example of what perspectives would open up if the Principle of conservation of energy was downsized to its actual more limited physical reach:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf