Disruptive science dying?

Announcements and items of immediate importance.
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15071
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Disruptive science dying?

Post by Richard Hull »

Disruptive, in this sense, means truly new science that changes the very course of science forcing it along new and revolutionary paths, often crushing long held positions.

Engineering can take such disruptive advances and change the world, but that is just how it impacts the common man over time.

Take a listen to Sabine's latest and perhaps her 4th take on this subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBT9vFrV6yQ

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Frank Sanns »

It is dying because it’s too easy to get money for common things. It’s much more difficult to get money for things that are really abstract and out of the norm.

Give me a $100 million budget and let me work on gravity propulsion and quantum tunneling and all kinds of fundamental things. big money better spent with an equal or or a higher probability of success than fusion.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3229
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Dennis P Brown »

First, my hat's off to Richard, he does bring up really good and fun topics!

Now on to the topic:

I conclude that science isn't disruptive any more simply because all that is to be discovered has already been done. A very loose and highly paraphrased version of something a patient clerk* in the US was alleged to have said, just before the 20th century started - i.e. before QM or GR was discovered.

Of course, they had a 'Dark Energy' issue then, too (the famous black body problem slightly modified.) Also, relativity (special) had already been worked out in detail (thanks' to Lorentz) yet was misunderstood. Maxwell's equations even showed that 'C' was a constant but that was ignored (even by him.)

Are we in a similar situation?

I believe in some aspects, yes. We know gravity isn't a force but what it really is, well, is a bit nebulous. Called space curvature but that is a word with little real meaning outside of 'time slowing'. Nuclear tunneling is 'simple' but requires using imaginary 'math' yet gives real answers and ultimately, leads to QED. QED is a theory that gives the most accurate calculation for g-2 (and a vast host of atomic spectra and parameters) but misses the mass of the observed universe by something like 114 orders of magnitude; kind of a bad theory there when applied to bulk issues.

So, is there a real solution to all these physic problems: that is to gravity and dark matter and of course, why space expands; further, how to get its measured mass correctly, and why time emerges and even has a direction. These are all deeply interrelated and solving one might very well solve all.

Some here know I believe there is and certainly aim to achieve that solution. In approaching some abstract and difficult issues people do often fall into the trap of self delusion in these matters. Hope I'm not one of those - lol. If so, it has been a fun learning experience so far. Field Theory is a trip and just getting through the basics is a learning experience that I find, frankly ... painful!

Certainly these answers will be found sooner or later and science will make great gains as a consequence. Still, as we are discovering with fake fusion claims and other topics that lies, and misinformation by people who profit off these things can reverse progress and damage us all (cough, lets not forget the news media like fox and the NY Times; both are the worse offenders.) Then there are the very scientist who are profiteer's and charlatans that create fake data and so publish false papers (but at least many, if not most, are caught thanks to peer review and honest people in the fields.) For instance, how long was Hawken's first major paper on Black Holes around (over 30 years) before it was shown to have a false conclusion (BH singularities do not form) - ok, not really the same issue but certainly even peer review can have problems.

But on the whole, science does move forward and we all benefit tremendously.

* Apparently a joke in Punch Magazine in 1899 that has been misquoted -and as a result, believed to have been serious. And frankly, really didn't want to do that deep of a dive into that quote ;)
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15071
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Richard Hull »

Oddly, the 1890's was the last totally disruptive science. The discovery of unit charge as a particle (electron) and radioactivity. These discoveries ended classical physics, mechanistic physics and brought in nuclear physics with all its revelations including, electronics and quantum physics. Since the 1890's there has been a nearly infinite refinement and theoretical machinations based on that one last 19th century decade. We have engineered the hell out of the physics which sprang from 1900 to 1970 nuclear realities. The twentieth century was busy one, a destructive one and lifted many out of poverty and repetitive back breaking work.

We now stand at a new precipice awaiting another new age in understanding. We have mostly wrung out all we can from the 1890s disruption. Will another lucky donkey like Roentgen and Becquerel to turn over the stone of the new age?

Too bad part of the last new age gave us the ability to destroy ourselves overnight. However, we must take the good with the bad as always.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3229
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Dennis P Brown »

That period - 1890's - was a turning point because it was finally the time when classical was breaking down due to better instruments (those pesty engineer's and applied scientist.) Finally, the quantum mechanics (QM) realm was showing itself more fully and couldn't be ignored any longer. Not that in the past QM affects didn't appear - the heat capacity of most substances can't be explained by classical physics and was a mystery; ditto the Sun. However, as I mentioned, it was the black body issue that finally 'broke' classical in a manner that required addressing that problem. There entered Planck. E&M had already pointed the way to relativity with the fact 'c' was a constant in the equations but this 'little' bug was ignored; that is, till someone made that singular connection (lucky ducky.)

We face a very different corundum - neither QM nor General Relativity (GR) really breakdown in any obvious manner*. Both agree extremely closely with all measurements that can be made. Its only when you enter the grey region between them - i.e. force them to overlap via mathematical manipulation - that issues arise. Through - and here's the problem with that method - one is really only making philosophical arguments, not direct measurements that one can point at and say - see, here there be dragons. In the 1890's there was such an obvious issue and it lead to the revolution we call QM.

Bottom-line: for those that speculate that a 'new' physics is needed (i.e. revolution), well, they are frankly making a fundamental error. Without experimental data that conflicts directly with the current theories, there simply is no proof that either theory is wrong or needs a radical change. Rather, what is most likely (like in the days of Maxwell when the obvious answer was simply sitting there in the open but ignored) is that the solution already exists in the current theories. So, the most likely solution is already incorporated in existing physics but due to failure to accept the obvious, has been ignored. Otherwise, there would be direct experimental data showing the problem area to tackle (like the black body paradox in the 1890's.)


* Since there is no proof - either mathematically nor physically - that singularities form in black holes that so-called problem is simply a none-issue. Dark matter is an observational Band-Aid and again, not proof that GR has issues; rather, only that either gravity does not necessarily act as we believe or magic matter exists (my money is on the former.) As for QM, there really are no measurement failures to point at either; again, scaling it up leads to issues but that isn't a measurement issue but simply a math problem that like Hawken's blunder on singularities, isn't really applicable.
User avatar
Cassio_Alvarenga
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2024 9:38 am
Real name: Cassio V Alvarenga
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Cassio_Alvarenga »

Sometimes I wonder if humanity has reached its intellectual peak, given that recent articles point out that for the first time in history this new generation has a lower IQ than the previous generation, but the question is why?

I have a theory for this, I think that entertainment these days is much more accessible than a few decades ago, children spend the whole day with their faces glued to the screens, when I was a child I spent a lot of time simply being bored, and you Start thinking about ways to not get bored anymore, my friends and I invented games to have fun, this forced creativity, nowadays the game is ready on children's screens, they don't train their creativity like we did. They have less ability to think of a new solution to any issue, because they simply didn't need it, and consequently, they didn't train.

Today social networks and the internet in general are VERY STRONG entertainment, everyone craves a smartphone, here in Brazil most poor people have one, regardless of whether they live in areas without basic sanitation in shacks.

Some time ago, let's say in the pre-internet years, it was extremely common for a worker to come home and sit on the sofa to watch TV until bedtime. Now get back in time, when disruptive science was at its peak, what were the entertainment options at that time compared to today? Boredom made people think, ABISTRAIRE, create, imagine new things and test them. In addition science has the most interesting thing available to some, today, the pleasure that scientific knowledge provides for an individual cannot compete with things like Netflix, Youtube, etc.. etc..

Ancient Greek philosophy says that slavery is necessary for philosophy, because if you are busy plowing the land you don't have much free time to think, technology has freed us from this hard work, allowing us to have free time to think, but technology today is doing the oposite taking up this free time.

Of course it's not the technology's fault, the state of the art is wonderful, the problem is that people have to become aware of this, it's becoming a "digital drug" that is corroding the "creation of the new" and even the civilization in a certain way.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15071
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Richard Hull »

Cassio states what is a real issue today. The youth are engaged in the wrong thing. The old boredom of unengaged youth is replaced with unending digital circus. The friendship we once sought, in our youth, with real people is now replaced with people that have never met. The only exploration is to be found in the non-hands-on digital zoo. So much to see and like gluttons, the youth gobble it up without physical engagement. Any curiosity is found and satiated mentally with a quick lookup on the smartphone without real engagement.

Why learn anything? It is all at your fingertips! Whatsmore, you don't have to sully your hands or actually deal with human foibles so common with real people. If you suddenly don't like your once digital pals, you can unfriend them and even trash them in front of millions of onlookers. You have the power in your hands. Power is a drug and the digital world gives it to you. You become totally engaged and absorbed being drunk with your power at the digital zoo. You are and become somebody of note and wield power at the zoo.

Living for and within the digital zoo is like masterbation, it makes you feel great, but you can't and shouldn't turn you life over to it. You must leave the self-centered world and get out into the real world to actively engage, explore, do and accomplish.

So sad.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3229
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Dennis P Brown »

As Richard correctly points out the entertainment problem and that there are too many sites to socialize are taking teens (and other age groups) into a world that can be both dangerous and distracting. So, like any drug (sugar being the worse - lol) control is paramount. Certainly that is one area where teens fall very short and is the danger/trap that can lead to issues. Here both parents and society have roles to play. Like all new access media (video games in the 90's, for instance), it will take time to workout the problems and develop useful controls/methods/counter measures to deal with these issues. Yet I say teens but the older set - which I am a proud member - is also infamous for their addiction to 'hate' based news & radio and that is also every bit a video/entertainment 'drug addiction' that has trapped huge segments of my and older age groups. This is proving every bit as destructive to society. In this later case, I'd say no solution exists :(

As for the main topic - science hitting a 'brick wall' - I do not see that issue being so obviously true to convince me that science is in trouble, yet. I still feel that the science has appeared to hit more of a 'speed bump' and one that is more of its own making - we have exceeded our instruments in our theories. Also, the very fact that nature requires us to investigate levels never before dreamed possible in order to see where the conflicts/issues occur has created this current reduction in breakthroughs - IMO.

For instance, a gravity wave detector see's differences in movement of its mirror system that is ten thousand times smaller then a proton! Talk about beyond belief to do! Yet this has opened up a new window that will enable science to advance - it certainly gave direct proof that neutron star collisions create many of the heavy elements. Ditto on large telescopes in space stressing our theories and pointing to new ideas. So, now that science is getting the ultra sensitive instruments that can push science to areas that were, previously, closed to us I expect progress. Times are a changing and in this case, finally (!), for the better. :)

In any case, this is a fun topic.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15071
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Richard Hull »

This begs the question, are their any disruptive things to "trip over or stumble into"?"
Radiation, x-rays and the electron in the 1890's changed the world rather completely by 1950. Then, practical physics and engineering technology went crazy feeding off the results.

No General or Special relativity, no gravity theories. No simple electronics or optical/photonics advance, no laser. No nanosecond electronics, no optical lever, results in no gravitational wave detector. All from the results of the 1890's lucky donkey's discoveries and others figuring out "the why" after the initial, "WTF!"

Like fusion, the great disruption is a wait and seen game with no hint of what is to happen or when.

As I remember my childhood with what few remaining friends of that time, I tell them, " Do you guys remember when we made that dugout fort in that old field behind the playground? Tim Jones use to bring his dad's Playboy magazines to our tree house, we were so cool then"

Likewise, so those will remember in 2078, "Do your remember that time on facebook when George Wyatt got kicked off for using the wrong pronouns? I often wondered where he lived. I think he was a software guy or an IT manager. I do remember he was a meat eater and folks poked fun at him for that."

Times change.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3229
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Dennis P Brown »

In many ways I feel that as a society we are spoiled by our rate of technological advance. We see our gadgets advance by lightyears compared to what we had thirty years ago and this has been a norm going back to that turn of a century. Yet, the basic scientific frame work has remained mostly unchanged in all theoretical aspects since the 1960's. Further, like all people we are use to a given level of social conditions as well as collective sense of place, and as a consequence, many people expect scientific knowledge to advanced/change to occur faster than social. It is disturbing when this progress has been reversed of late.

The main issue is and remains whether our current theoretical understanding of the Universe stalled leading us to hit a barrier in the physical world that requires a whole new approch? Or a more realistic idea - as I suggested - is it rather that our theoretical frame work is accurate but the reason for the disconnect between QM and GR is simply one that is being missed by the physics community? It happen once before at least for issues related to light and the existence of a either.

Again, I feel that the disagreements that are still outstanding (and they are really few) can be worked out w/o any radical change in our current models - like the fact that singularities do not really form in Black Holes after all. A few years ago this error was dogma and scientist felt something was fundamentally wrong with GR and/or QM. But now it was demonstrated to have been just a misunderstanding in an otherwise good GR theory. So the biggest problem between GR and QM has vanished. I feel this has removed the main driving force that previously called for a revolution in physics.

So, will the issue of galactic rotation speeds and our extremely ancient Newtonian understanding of gravity also fall due to a similar misunderstanding? Maybe - I certainly think it will. If so, then there really is no need for any revolution in physics because the topic is maturing due to being a valid theoretical approch for our understanding the world.
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3229
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Very appropriate to this discussion. Also, the creator adds (but need to see the original) that "Maybe these aren't all the particles."
Attachments
xkcd
xkcd
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15071
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Richard Hull »

So, where does all this harmony between GR and QM leave us? We cannot manipulate to any degree the sub-fleas that make up matter at the GEV level. We can only detect them at GEV energy levels in vacuo for sub-nanosecond time periods.

Relatively speaking, we are at a new impasse where we now know how stars work as opposed to being lord Kelvin's 1880's ball of glowing carbon of limited age. (best theory then).

We are effectively well advanced , but bumping against a new wall. A TEV wall. The universe just got too cold to do anything more than see a world where we see so deep that manipulation of the sub-fleas are a nothing burger in condensed matter. QM promises a world of probabilistic field interactions or random events where things average out in the end to condensed matter "goings on".

A new glowing ball of mystery is fully and scientifically seen as was the mystery of the stars in 1880. We muse against a new wall but now with lasers, computers, smartphones in hand, AI fully raging forward. Do we dare let AI become fully cogent and self aware? Then, put the mysteries yet to be solved to it? AI can already make best quesses to our next thoughts in science and writing. Right now, it is segmented, but to a very high level in specific areas, Science, Art, Literature and the humanities. Do we dare allow it to converge to a super, self-aware cognisance that is pure knowledge without human senses and armed with only sensibilities fed to it?

How many of us are just casually thankful that, as we write, the next word often appears from the aether? How many sense danger? Spell check is a mere lookup, but the next word appears as if a cognition and may still be a lookup as well, having checked all written language in microseconds. Whatsmore, we in the computer world know it is not a linear search via a computer, but by a fully formed neutral network that has left linear processing far behind it. This appears much like our own brains that cognize and assemble our thoughts when writing to express ourselves in a human manner.

Too far afield? Perhaps. However, merge the mysterious quantum computing with AI......

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3229
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Too far afield? Hardly - rather cutting edge of what the next steps available and hopefully accessible to us. We have reached a level in fundamental understanding of nature upon which we now can appreciate very deep levels of this hidden realm. But also what limits our models impose upon this understanding (for now.) Yes, we know now what a proton and neutron are, and that electrons are identical to quarks except in terms of spin. We realize that we cannot control these particles like we do atoms - that these elementary particles are black boxes beyond our manipulation (except that we can create some for time periods that are near meaningless.) These quantum realms and their actions are inaccessible to human control.

Human consciousness appears (in experiments) to be situated in the electric fields of the brain rather than buried and directly part of the vast array of neurons upon which it is built. Experiments that sample this field then recreate it in another person can control the body of that other person. That is, the person sampled moves their arm or given finger, then the other person, even a continent away, will then have that body part respond in that manner. A thought to do a specific action is created in the electric field and that is sampled by our nervous system. Then this is transmitted as an action to our body parts via nerves. Yes, the array of nerves and their ability to create electrical activity - hence a field - is the bases and existence of that field. But what we perceived as a thought and action, becomes a change in that field. This then appears in that electric field. This can be 'tapped' and used in another person to create the same response.

If this is so, than our consciousness is purely quantum based, non-physical and external to our direct physical being.

Certainly the array of nerves does the processing - as one writes using imprinted memory - i.e. neuron connections built via learning - but the actual awareness appears to be occurring in the electric field that permeates the brain.

Still, we have a long way to go. Yet we still have major frontiers to explore that are accessible to us using science. Yes, the very interesting concept of warping space is possible by GR and becoming better understood - no longer is negative energy required (no one even knew what that was, anyway.) Further, while allowed in our physics, it doesn't require any real motion of the 'space craft' to travel stellar distances faster than light; hence no violation of that principle. This is, of course, not necessarily something we can really build but our physics says its all possible. That means that unlike traveling at the speed of light or faster in the universe - both of which are impossible - matter can travel across stellar distances by never even moving (so, again, no violation of GR) but by warping space the craft does get to the other star and in a time far faster than what light can achieve. And no, this does not violate causality - that would be a subject for another day.

So, if we can survive as a species and not fall into fascism or nuclear war, the future for the elite looks very promising. Though, for the vast majority of the world's population, however, they will not survive the coming storm of climate change over the next few decades. That currently unfolding disaster likely holds the real key to our future. That is, getting pass this 'filter' is the ultimate challenge for our species. Unfortunately, this may very well be the answer to Fermi's paradox - that this is the final major great filter making stellar travel so difficult to achieve in the Universe by intelligent life.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15071
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Richard Hull »

So death faces the unwashed masses as the climate swallows them as the natural elite and informed survive in a world gone hot. Then it naturally follows, it will be the ultra elites against the mere elites. Sounds wonderful. Survival of the elites replaces the fittest. Poor ignorant preppers with high school or lesser education. Alas, all their prepping for nothing. They didn't sufficiently prep their brains to survive a hot world.

If one is not of the elite, one must accept, nay welcome death by any number of methodologies as yet unfathomed, should global warming prove ineffective at the task of of finally riding the informed of those not so blessed.

Sounds like 1984 or the other book, Mein Kampf. A world populated by the truly informed as they determine who is informed.

Maybe I need to print up a bunch of signs saying, "the end is near" Prefixing it will be tricky. "Repent" is too religious and so yesterday. "Prepare" is a loser's game. "Stand up and fight" is far too combative. "Get your degree" is a bit elitist. Wait! That is too right on! We must not create too many of the elite.

We change our boogey man as needed.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3229
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Dennis P Brown »

If only this was the 'disaster' film where the flavor of destruction could be selected.

The issue of the fact that global warming is occurring and certainly going to continue, the bottom-line is this will negatively impact world wide food production.

Without access to food, and the vast majority of the human population exist in a very tight equilibrium between availability and cost, the equation becomes bleak once temperatures rise above the 1.5 C average. This has a lot to do with crops that did not* evolved for higher temperatures. This will impact yields. Between third world farmers and third world masses in third world cities needing a cost acceptable source it isn't a question of how but what factors combined end up being the net cause of the disaster - or as Yeats said "... the center will not hold".

The Earth's average temperature will increase by 2 C and possibly 3 C over the next forty years to at most fifty years - Dr. Hossenfelder states this rather bad news (yes, climate scientist admit they have purposely understated the rise they do really expect.) This means that equatorial temperature extremes will exceed human tolerance for both the day and nighttime for a number of days straight at times (the night issue is the real killer.) This will likely start to be a more serious issue come the 2030's.

Yet heat deaths will not be the main killer. As I mentioned, our food crops can not handle such extreme's in temperature and yields will suffer in most of the world - mostly where the population runs at its largest. That ignores issues due to increased droughts and extreme rain fall events - both that will further reduce yields. These are starting to become more a reality as these temperature extremes are starting to be seen in the world. The fact is, even for us in the US, weather events are starting to get worse. Yet we haven't even reached the 1.5 C mark.

These factors ignore decreased fertilizers in the near future (both because of reduced phosphate production - due to exhaustion - and resulting cost increases putting it out of reach for marginal farmers.) This specific additive drove the "Green Revolution" that is currently feeding much of the world today.

Pandemics will occur (and we are seeing indications of this - both covid and that bird flu is beginning to spread into mammals.)

Will these conditions force people to flee? Well, we are seeing this too, already but in more limited numbers (for now.)

The real fact of the matter is that currently, things are still very stable for most of the world but we are also seeing the beginning of changes that spell trouble. Following the science leads to very poor likely outcomes. Will nuclear (power, not war) finally be taken seriously? Apparently not - oil and gas (natural) are far too cheap to risk that investment.

So, while I feel science isn't reaching a brick wall, I do worry that the future of growth and stability in the world is facing worse.

* post edit error; sorry
Last edited by Dennis P Brown on Fri May 17, 2024 8:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15071
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Richard Hull »

Fusion and many dreams have just been pushed farther off as stability and massive investment over the entire world demand some degree of smooth sailing for all the planet. Perhaps the descent has begun. Too bad, just as we were starting to have a whole bunch of fun, the boogeyman shows up.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3229
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Fusion energy is like many things in life - very alluring, certainly fascinating, and beyond reach. Perfect for the layperson to read about, argue, and dream of its uses. Also, very easy for the scientist in the field to wax on about knowing its allure. Yet meanwhile, bean counters do matter far more because reality matters. Getting the correct priorities settled matters because funding is finite and important to get right as time for critical solutions become of real concern.

This raises an important point - we absolutely depend on science but like any subject, understanding vs. reading about its highlights is much like professional sports; anyone can read about it, even enjoy aspects - heck, even have hero's in the field - but few can actually do it. That can create friction in society. In fact, this can be harmful for society. Like AI, a subject that has potential to both aid us but also endanger us on some level this poses a dilemma. That when some of the so-called experts claim they don't understand the bases of their own field - ok, right - this leads to the layperson wondering who they can really trust to handle this new application responsibly?

This is not unlike genetic engineering or climate science. In a democracy that requires its citizens to vote intelligently, so leaders are selected that understand enough to create laws/regulations to either protect the public or control any possible issues, not having accessible information about a field is harmful. So, if the experts fail in getting information across to the public, then we are flying blind. That leads to people becoming hostile to the subject area (and rightfully so.) Of course, some have motives that run contrary to a given subject and are happy to muddy the waters further just to profit from the confusion.

This in a strange manner leads us back to the primary subject of this thread: physics is, to some experts, apparently either reaching a brick wall or simply no longer predictive, and that should worry the public.

So, is this an opportunity for science to make a breakthroughs like the 1890's or has reality become so abstract that even the experts no longer can comprehend its depths? This, I feel, is the real issue and I think that matters.

Richard has brought to the attention of this forum an apparently straight forward question - why when physics, applied to its extreme limits, is not giving valid solutions? Looks simple - is it or isn't it? Yet this question strikes far deeper - rather we are seeing that this is also an issue in many areas of science and engineering, as well. All these subjects are getting far too complex and raising problems for everyone - is it safe to bio-engineer? Are climate scientist models really correct? Does AI threaten us on too many levels and has - via profit seekers - the ability to corrupt our knowledge! Can any 'expert' be trusted now that no one can really get enough accurate information to make informed judgements? So, besides all the problems we normally face we get a bonus problem - one that could create even more serious issues for us as a species.

So, it is not just physics which is in trouble - so is society as the chickens come home to roast. We have had over a hundreds years of massive technological progress that the human species has never before experienced - making every one's lives vastly better.

Yet, strangely, this has also created massive problems for society, too. Some we have tackled rather successfully but some are still very threating - nuclear weapons are certainly in this category. Now we face the most extremely serious issues facing the world - ones that will impact our species in a manner that no one can foresee. One where questions of what now to do are in critical need of answering but knowledge required for these decisions is beyond any expert leaving the layperson in doubt (and rightfully so now that so much miss-information is out there too). So, what then will the layperson do (and every single person is one since no one is a master of all knowledge) in order to help address these issues in a responsible manner as a citizen when discussing these subjects or when voting?

As Shakespeare would say - there's the rub - and why this entire thread touches on so many issues besides what's implied by its title.
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3229
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Disruptive science dying?

Post by Dennis P Brown »

For those interested, here is a vid on the consequences of a warming planet on photosynthesis in plants. As temperatures rise, the process of photosynthesis becomes less efficient - this includes food plants which are of major importance to our species.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beROF-QJwoI

A quick 'spoiler' is that a critical enzyme begins to create errors interrupting the process as temperatures get higher.
There is nothing good about increasing the world's average temperature - even for all plants.

Growing food is even more fundamental to a civilization than oil. In fact, it was agriculture that kicked off all civilization as we understand it.
Post Reply

Return to “Announcements and Site Administration Topics”