What happens when a question is answerable in principle but requires technology centuries away?

This is a genuinely interesting meta-question about the relationship between theoretical answerability and practical feasibility.

The preprints here don't directly address your scenario, but they illuminate its contours from different angles.

The core tension you're describing—a question that's answerable *in principle* but requires technology centuries away—creates a gap between theoretical and practical research. This matters because it shapes how scientists prioritize effort today.

One relevant angle: computational limits on answering hard questions. Even knowing what you want to compute doesn't mean you can compute it. Researchers studying quantum gravity and quantum field theory have shown that certain kinds of speedup—say, exploiting time dilation or exotic spacetime structures to accelerate computation—are blocked by deep physical constraints [AG-2026.03-703]. The Bekenstein bound limits how much information a computer of a given size can store and process. This suggests that some questions might remain practically intractable even if the laws of physics permit them in principle.

Another angle: the role of intermediate technology and AI scaffolding. Current large language models struggle badly with frontier research problems—solving only ~6% of full research-scale challenges across physics [AG-2025.09-1139]. But this gap also suggests a strategy: build benchmarks and intermediate tools now that help frame hard questions precisely, even if we can't answer them yet. A "living benchmark" where physicists contribute open problems [AG-2025.07-1634] could keep a question alive in the collective research consciousness, refining it and potentially discovering shortcuts that reduce the timeline.

The preprints don't really address your specific scenario head-on—what you're asking is more philosophical (how do scientists value century-scale problems?) than what these papers tackle.