Why does it take physicists so long to find the complete foundation of the universe? I want an answer in my lifetime.
1. One should be rather specific about what 'the complete foundation' might comprise. The depth of questions one can ask is infinite, but some questions are more important than others. The g-2 experiment is asking a specific question: "Does the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon open a door to discoveries that are inaccessible with modern colliders?"
It is tempting to regard fundamental physics as a study of "Why are we here?", but it is really a study of "How are we here?" The difference is subtle but substantial. If "Why?" is what you're seeking, you are more likely to find that answer within, rather than within the study of physics.
2. Physicists can do a lot more in these directions with greater institutional support. With great sadness, I recently departed a lab, where colleagues next-door were working on this very experiment, precisely because a collision between funding rules and administrative priorities made further progress within my specialty unsustainable. I was the third postdoc in a row to do the same; not for lack of scientific promise nor ability to attract grants.
I don't want to know why, I just want to know the complete set of rules at the lowest level.
To do so would be to have a convincing grasp of Planck-scale physics -- a detailed understanding of physics at and above energy-densities reached in the Big Bang. Some precision experiments and astrophysical measurements do constrain certain Planck-scale models, but a true test of whether or not we understand early-universe physics is likely to necessitate creating a few Big Bangs ourselves. Doing so, with known technology, seems impossible. If it were possible, doing so would seem fraught with actual risk.
(N.B. for the non-expert reader: there are cosmic rays that strike the Sun at least once every five minutes (and Earth, at least once a month) with energies 10,000,000 times greater than anything humans have ever achieved. Those collisions, over the last 4,500,000,000 years, have not yet resulted in the disruption of spacetime or the formation of a black hole. You are very, very, very safe from physicists breaking the universe as you know it. :).)
Edit to add: You, mseepgood, aren't alone in your desire for knowledge. One Stephen Hawking once stated, “My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.”
I can't pretend to be an expert here, but the quantum-fluctuations in a vacuum that we all experience at all times do, over longer times ("long" here is generally unfathomably short), need to satisfy energy-conservation. To do otherwise requires paying an overwhelming probabilistic cost (a much bigger nigh-infinity than your garden-variety nigh-infinity). If you're worried about unexpected instantaneous death from the universe, I would argue that one should be far more concerned with, say, a gamma-ray burst nearby from within the galaxy (or, far more likely yet, a nuclear war) than being overrun by a Big-Bang-like event.
For that same reason (energy conservation), perhaps the central question one might ask of the Big Bang theory is, "How did it come to pass that all of that energy wound up in such a tiny volume?" There are plenty of theories out there, the best of which attempt to confront inflation at the same time, but I am unaware of a clear leader.
I don't mean to entirely disregard the importance of quantum fluctuations in cosmology. Indeed, the large-scale structure of the cosmic-microwave background is very consistent with pure quantum fluctuation, as if the fluctuations of a tiny volume of space had been magnified to cosmic scale. It is simply this experimentalist's opinion that there is probably substantially more to the story than the universe having won the lottery of all lotteries in order to exist at all.
(I'm purposely being a bit provocative here because I haven't heard an explanation for fine-tuning that doesn't rely on multiverses or divine intervention.)
If you elect to believe in the anthropic principle, one might continue to delve into fundamental research in order to ask the question, "What configuration of all possible universes is required in order to win the lottery of all lotteries?" That is a pretty awesome question, too. It is the lottery of all lotteries, after all.
In either case, deeper research is likely to turn up new and deeply-interesting surprises. Those surprises are likely to be resolved with improved theories with greater predictive power regarding the universe in which we live.
It's hard to express how much progress we've made in such a small amount of time relative to the rest of history. It's a god damn miracle.
I feel like it’s incredibly elegant. All these low level rules are able to create such complex structures with beautiful order to it.
It’s so orderly, we can play things backwards billions of years. We can look back to how things were just a fraction of a second after this version of the universe began.
It’s astonishing.
I, personally, am partial to the idea that the anthropic principle has a pretty big role to play, at least in terms of the fundamental constants.
You should not be downvoted. Spare the world a little cruelty where we can.
Perhaps that is not how this person actually feels. If so, a little humility and empathy in their communication would go a long way to rectify that.
"I must know. Why do the mathematicians take so long to find out?"