I don't have a PhD in physics, but I do have a degree in history, and I know that larger, "higher resolution," cameras were once ditched by almost everybody (in the 1940s and 50s) for 35mm machines because the smaller ones were faster, cheaper, lighter and "good enough."
After it was established, 35 held on because it had a huge base of both users and equipment, to the point that some digital shooters now demand "full frame" as though the 35mm frame size were annointed by God as the only right one; that's the power of an installed base.
The point being that much larger sensors may indeed be possible, but who will take the risk of creating a new camera system around them -- especially when, in terms of quality, you could get in any high-end magazine with nothing more than a Canon, Nikon or Leica? Big sensors (after a point) mean bigger lenses, bigger files, more weight, more processing power...for what? So your photograph will look better in People, which is printed on toilet paper? They'd be like that huge (24-inch perhaps?) Polaroid camera that used to tour around the US; or maybe there were two of them. Sure, you could do it, but why?
The above note, by the way, applies to "life time" developments. I don't doubt that a hundred and fifty years from now, things will be different -- but I wouldn't be surprised if the technology 50 years from now is more or less a refinement of what we are already using...say the difference between 40s film and 90s film.