Is Science Hitting a Wall?

[Doc]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... all-part-1

Is Science Hitting a Wall?, Part 1

Economists show increased research efforts are yielding decreasing returns

[Typhoon]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... all-part-1

Is Science Hitting a Wall?, Part 1

Economists show increased research efforts are yielding decreasing returns

A bit rich considering the track record of economists in predicting the future.

[Doc]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... all-part-1

Is Science Hitting a Wall?, Part 1

Economists show increased research efforts are yielding decreasing returns

A bit rich considering the track record of economists in predicting the future.

Yeah. I was thinking that what their data could also mean is spending on basic science is up.

[Typhoon]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... all-part-1

Is Science Hitting a Wall?, Part 1

Economists show increased research efforts are yielding decreasing returns

A bit rich considering the track record of economists in predicting the future.

Yeah. I was thinking that what their data could also mean is spending on basic science is up.

The bit about the "replication crisis" makes a valid point. This is a known current problem especially in the biomedical fields.

[Doc]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... all-part-1

Is Science Hitting a Wall?, Part 1

Economists show increased research efforts are yielding decreasing returns

A bit rich considering the track record of economists in predicting the future.

Yeah. I was thinking that what their data could also mean is spending on basic science is up.

The bit about the "replication crisis" makes a valid point. This is a known current problem especially in the biomedical fields.

I saw a program the other day that scientists willing to do replication experiments are getting hard to find. Not much grant money in it I suppose.

I just watched a Theoretical Physicist make this very point on YouTube:


"And since Darwin we have known that we were designed to reproduce, not to understand neural coding or quantum field theory."

HIs words were more or less: pre-civilized humans that sat around and considered Quantum physics did not survive for long.

[Nonc Hilaire]

What is the probability of theoretical physicists reproducing?

[Mr. Perfect]

"And since Darwin we have known that we were designed to reproduce, not to understand neural coding or quantum field theory."

HIs words were more or less: pre-civilized humans that sat around and considered Quantum physics did not survive for long.

Bible readers have known this since Genesis.

[Typhoon]

I just watched a Theoretical Physicist make this very point on YouTube:


"And since Darwin we have known that we were designed to reproduce, not to understand neural coding or quantum field theory."

HIs words were more or less: pre-civilized humans that sat around and considered quantum physics did not survive for long.

Link?

[Doc]

I just watched a Theoretical Physicist make this very point on YouTube:


"And since Darwin we have known that we were designed to reproduce, not to understand neural coding or quantum field theory."

HIs words were more or less: pre-civilized humans that sat around and considered quantum physics did not survive for long.

Link?

I think this is the correct one. If so probably close to the end. Lawrence Krauss is who I believe said it. I watched two or three of these on Physics in the last week. So sorry not 100% sure which video or where in them. But they very much are worth watching just the same.

h9MS9i-CdfY

If not

BFrBr8oUVXU

Great demonstration at the end

Otherwise one of these:

https://www.youtube.com/user/worldsciencefestival

Oooops it was Brian Greene in the first minutes of the second video For some reason I was thinking it was later on in the video.

[noddy]

The main thing with "risky" research into new areas is that its actually risky.

Time and time again I see the modern world thinking it has quantified/organised away risk and the word barely means anything anymore.

New discoveries come in flurries as one breakthrough triggers a cascade (the bubble) but you cant throw money at it and get it on schedule.. who knows when the next big thing hits, we sometimes go centuries without such things.

the singularity folks would be spitting their coffee at the thought of that.

[Typhoon]

I just watched a Theoretical Physicist make this very point on YouTube:


"And since Darwin we have known that we were designed to reproduce, not to understand neural coding or quantum field theory."

HIs words were more or less: pre-civilized humans that sat around and considered quantum physics did not survive for long.

Link?

I think this is the correct one. If so probably close to the end. Lawrence Krauss is who I believe said it. I watched two or three of these on Physics in the last week. So sorry not 100% sure which video or where in them. But they very much are worth watching just the same.

h9MS9i-CdfY

If not

BFrBr8oUVXU

Great demonstration at the end

Otherwise one of these:

https://www.youtube.com/user/worldsciencefestival

Oooops it was Brian Greene in the first minutes of the second video For some reason I was thinking it was later on in the video.

Thank you for the links. He was jokingly referring to the time of our earliest ancestors when, to survive, we had to develop an intuitive understanding of classical mechanics operating on the everyday scale, such as throwing a spear. Most of our hunter-gatherer ancestors time was spent attempting to obtain enough food to survive, little if any time for inquisitive thought.

The rise of organized agriculture and the city-state along with skill specialization was the first steps in changing this situation.

Fortunately, enough intelligent and inquisitive people did ask questions throughout history
rather than believing that all answers were to be found in various pseudo-historical tomes.

With the advent of the industrial revolution, enough people had enough time to systemize the process of inquiry and validation into what we now know as science.

Today, in an industrialized society, one can do both: reproduce and think about quantum field theory. A remarkable achievement.

Anecdotally, almost all scientists I know have families with children.

Famous 20th century scientists also typically produced offspring: Einstein, Schrödinger, Landau, Feynman, and Weinberg, to name a few.

As an aside, the first three in the list were quite the ladies' men or in their day, mashers.

Of course, the internet is an application of electromagnetism [19th century], special and general relativity [20th century], and quantum mechanics/quantum field theory [20th century]. Ironic that it is now the favourite medium of crackpots.

[Typhoon]

The main thing with "risky" research into new areas is that its actually risky.

Time and time again I see the modern world thinking it has quantified/organised away risk and the word barely means anything anymore.

New discoveries come in flurries as one breakthrough triggers a cascade (the bubble) but you can't throw money at it and get it on schedule.. who knows when the next big thing hits, we sometimes go centuries without such things.

the singularity folks would be spitting their coffee at the thought of that.

Spot on.

[Doc]

I just watched a Theoretical Physicist make this very point on YouTube:


"And since Darwin we have known that we were designed to reproduce, not to understand neural coding or quantum field theory."

HIs words were more or less: pre-civilized humans that sat around and considered quantum physics did not survive for long.

Link?

I think this is the correct one. If so probably close to the end. Lawrence Krauss is who I believe said it. I watched two or three of these on Physics in the last week. So sorry not 100% sure which video or where in them. But they very much are worth watching just the same.

h9MS9i-CdfY

If not

BFrBr8oUVXU

Great demonstration at the end

Otherwise one of these:

https://www.youtube.com/user/worldsciencefestival

Oooops it was Brian Greene in the first minutes of the second video For some reason I was thinking it was later on in the video.

Thank you for the links. He was jokingly referring to the time of our earliest ancestors when, to survive, we had to develop an intuitive understanding of classical mechanics operating on the everyday scale, such as throwing a spear. Most of our hunter-gatherer ancestors time was spent attempting to obtain enough food to survive, little if any time for inquisitive thought.

The rise of organized agriculture and the city-state along with skill specialization was the first steps in changing this situation.

Fortunately, enough intelligent and inquisitive people did ask questions throughout history rather than believing that all answers were to be found in pseudo-historical tomes.

With the advent of the industrial revolution, enough people had enough time to systemize this process into what we know today as science.

Today, in an industrialized society, one can do both: reproduce and think about quantum field theory. A remarkable achievement.

Anecdotally, almost all scientists I know have families with children.

Famous 20th century scientists also typically produced offspring: Einstein, Schrödinger, Landau, Feynman, and Weinberg, to name a few.

As an aside, the first three in the list were quite the ladies' men or in their day, mashers.

Of course, the internet is an application of electromagnetism [19th century], special and general relativity [20th century], and quantum mechanics/quantum field theory [20th century].

I thought the caveman point was a good point. These are great videos There is another about LIGO that I watched as well. The accuracy of LIGO is incredible.

These can detect a change in the 4 km mirror spacing of less than a ten-thousandth the charge diameter of a proton, equivalent to measuring the distance from Earth to Proxima Centauri (4.0208x10^13km)[2] with an accuracy smaller than the width of a human hair.[3]

acheived partly by multiple pendulums to filter out any non gravitational movements. They even have to filter out movement from ocean waves ~ 50 miles away !!

xj6vV3T4ok8

[Typhoon]

. . .
These are great videos There is another about LIGO that I watched as well. The accuracy of LIGO is incredible.

These can detect a change in the 4 km mirror spacing of less than a ten-thousandth the charge diameter of a proton, equivalent to measuring the distance from Earth to Proxima Centauri (4.0208x10^13km)[2] with an accuracy smaller than the width of a human hair.[3]

acheived partly by multiple pendulums to filter out any non gravitational movements. They even have to filter out movement from ocean waves ~ 50 miles away !!

xj6vV3T4ok8

LIGO is a phenomenal physics + engineering achievement.

The LHC at CERN is large enough that the periodic tidal effects of the moon have to be taken into account to keep the particle beams centred and circulating.

[Doc]

. . .
These are great videos There is another about LIGO that I watched as well. The accuracy of LIGO is incredible.

These can detect a change in the 4 km mirror spacing of less than a ten-thousandth the charge diameter of a proton, equivalent to measuring the distance from Earth to Proxima Centauri (4.0208x10^13km)[2] with an accuracy smaller than the width of a human hair.[3]

acheived partly by multiple pendulums to filter out any non gravitational movements. They even have to filter out movement from ocean waves ~ 50 miles away !!

xj6vV3T4ok8

LIGO is a phenomenal physics + engineering achievement.

The LHC at CERN is large enough that the periodic tidal effects of the moon have to be taken into account to keep the particle beams centered and circulating.

SO how much would you guess that the cost of such precision effects the return on investment of money spent on science?

The last time i checked the cost of a Semiconductor fab was $10 billion. Fairchild semiconductor's entire funding to get up and producing transistors was $1 million in the late 1950's to produce 2N697 at a $150 each. THeir first sale was 100 to IBM for guidance systems for nuclear missiles. . Fairchild went from $0 to $130 million in revenue and 12 to 12,000 employees in two years. In the long run the science created 10's to 100's of trillions of dollars in wealth. A return on investment that is pretty hard to beat.

However the next generation of semifab is estimated to cost $100 billion. No one wants to build it lest a new technology comes along to make it an immediately obsolete white elephant.

So how much is the return on investment of a ruler that can measure 1/10,000th the size of a proton?

It depends on what you can make with that technology.

For example if you could *only* measure and manipulate something on a scale of 1/100th of a carbon atom you could make nearly perfect graphene. Which is likely to be the next semiconductor industry. But as Noddy said you can't predict when it will all come together into something useful in ways no one thought of before.

On the other hand, the synopsis of John Nash's Nobel acceptance speech:

He was not inclined to give speeches, he said, but he had three things to say. First, he hoped that getting the Nobel would improve his credit rating because he really wanted a credit card. Second, he said that one is supposed to say that one is glad he is sharing the prize, but he wished he had won the whole thing because he really needed the money badly. Third, Nash said that he had won for game theory and that he felt that game theory was like string theory, a subject of great intrinsic intellectual interest that the world wishes to imagine can be of some utility. He said it with enough skepticism in his voice to make it funny.

[Typhoon]

The main thing with "risky" research into new areas is that its actually risky.

Time and time again I see the modern world thinking it has quantified/organised away risk and the word barely means anything anymore.

New discoveries come in flurries as one breakthrough triggers a cascade (the bubble) but you cant throw money at it and get it on schedule.. who knows when the next big thing hits, we sometimes go centuries without such things.

the singularity folks would be spitting their coffee at the thought of that.

Quite. The current management fad of applying numbers to quantify anything and everything is a general societal problem beyond the mangement of science.

Aeon | Against metrics: how measuring performance by numbers backfires

[Simple Minded]

The main thing with "risky" research into new areas is that its actually risky.

Time and time again I see the modern world thinking it has quantified/organised away risk and the word barely means anything anymore.

New discoveries come in flurries as one breakthrough triggers a cascade (the bubble) but you cant throw money at it and get it on schedule.. who knows when the next big thing hits, we sometimes go centuries without such things.

the singularity folks would be spitting their coffee at the thought of that.

Quite. The current management fad of applying numbers to quantify anything and everything is a general societal problem beyond the mangement of science.

Aeon | Against metrics: how measuring performance by numbers backfires

Well said. Very interestink how assigning a hard number with a few decimal places can "impose validity," imply expertise, and influence an observer into thinking the presenter is an expert/scientist. The more decimal places, the more convincing of expertise.

The difference between calculations and measurements come to mind. Calculating the temperature of the Earth to a tenth of a degree versus actual measurement. Calculating the distance from the Earth to the Moon within inches versus actual measurement.

Cool calculations, now prove it! Flat Earther! Science denier!

Example:

https://www.wunderground.com/weather/us/ny/amsterdam

Local temperatrue measurements to a tenth of a degree. Windchill temperature calculations to a tenth of a degree. Rainfall predictions to within 0.01". What's not to like or believe?

[noddy]

The current management fad of applying numbers to quantify anything and everything is a general societal problem beyond the mangement of science.

FIRE Economy is the number one example, science is but a subset of the "F"

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate are all overblown sense of of risk control in most countries - I concede that post crash some might have a slighter more sane view of real estates risks (not australia however, full steam ahead!)

[Typhoon]

. . .
These are great videos There is another about LIGO that I watched as well. The accuracy of LIGO is incredible.

These can detect a change in the 4 km mirror spacing of less than a ten-thousandth the charge diameter of a proton, equivalent to measuring the distance from Earth to Proxima Centauri (4.0208x10^13km)[2] with an accuracy smaller than the width of a human hair.[3]

acheived partly by multiple pendulums to filter out any non gravitational movements. They even have to filter out movement from ocean waves ~ 50 miles away !!

xj6vV3T4ok8

LIGO is a phenomenal physics + engineering achievement.

The LHC at CERN is large enough that the periodic tidal effects of the moon have to be taken into account to keep the particle beams centered and circulating.

SO how much would you guess that the cost of such precision effects the return on investment of money spent on science?

The last time i checked the cost of a Semiconductor fab was $10 billion. Fairchild semiconductor's entire funding to get up and producing transistors was $1 million in the late 1950's to produce 2N697 at a $150 each. THeir first sale was 100 to IBM for guidance systems for nuclear missiles. . Fairchild went from $0 to $130 million in revenue and 12 to 12,000 employees in two years. In the long run the science created 10's to 100's of trillions of dollars in wealth. A return on investment that is pretty hard to beat.

However the next generation of semifab is estimated to cost $100 billion. No one wants to build it lest a new technology comes along to make it an immediately obsolete white elephant.

So how much is the return on investment of a ruler that can measure 1/10,000th the size of a proton?

It depends on what you can make with that technology.

For example if you could *only* measure and manipulate something on a scale of 1/100th of a carbon atom you could make nearly perfect graphene. Which is likely to be the next semiconductor industry. But as Noddy said you can't predict when it will all come together into something useful in ways no one thought of before.

On the other hand, the synopsis of John Nash's Nobel acceptance speech:

He was not inclined to give speeches, he said, but he had three things to say. First, he hoped that getting the Nobel would improve his credit rating because he really wanted a credit card. Second, he said that one is supposed to say that one is glad he is sharing the prize, but he wished he had won the whole thing because he really needed the money badly. Third, Nash said that he had won for game theory and that he felt that game theory was like string theory, a subject of great intrinsic intellectual interest that the world wishes to imagine can be of some utility. He said it with enough skepticism in his voice to make it funny.

I don't know. It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

I would argue that Faraday gave the best reply to such questions.

In 1821, while working at the Royal Institution in London, Michael Faraday followed up the work of the Dane Hans Christian Ørsted, who, alerted by a twitching compass needle, deduced that electricity and magnetism were linked together. Faraday developed the electric motor and then, a decade later, found that a magnet moving in a wire coil induced a current. In 1845, he formulated that cornerstone of modern physics, the field theory of electromagnetism.

As the story is told, the prime minister or some other senior politician was given a demonstration of induction by Faraday.
When asked “What good is it?” Faraday replied: “What good is a newborn baby?”

Another story has Faraday replying to another skeptical politician, "I don't know, but I'm sure that you will find a way to tax it."

Nash equilibrium today are a key aspect of GANs [Generative Adversarial Networks] in machine learning.
These are the models that, for example, produce realistic faces of people who do not exist from a data set of real images.
GANs have potential wide application beyond such clever demos.

[Doc]

. . .
These are great videos There is another about LIGO that I watched as well. The accuracy of LIGO is incredible.

These can detect a change in the 4 km mirror spacing of less than a ten-thousandth the charge diameter of a proton, equivalent to measuring the distance from Earth to Proxima Centauri (4.0208x10^13km)[2] with an accuracy smaller than the width of a human hair.[3]

acheived partly by multiple pendulums to filter out any non gravitational movements. They even have to filter out movement from ocean waves ~ 50 miles away !!

xj6vV3T4ok8

LIGO is a phenomenal physics + engineering achievement.

The LHC at CERN is large enough that the periodic tidal effects of the moon have to be taken into account to keep the particle beams centered and circulating.

SO how much would you guess that the cost of such precision effects the return on investment of money spent on science?

The last time i checked the cost of a Semiconductor fab was $10 billion. Fairchild semiconductor's entire funding to get up and producing transistors was $1 million in the late 1950's to produce 2N697 at a $150 each. THeir first sale was 100 to IBM for guidance systems for nuclear missiles. . Fairchild went from $0 to $130 million in revenue and 12 to 12,000 employees in two years. In the long run the science created 10's to 100's of trillions of dollars in wealth. A return on investment that is pretty hard to beat.

However the next generation of semifab is estimated to cost $100 billion. No one wants to build it lest a new technology comes along to make it an immediately obsolete white elephant.

So how much is the return on investment of a ruler that can measure 1/10,000th the size of a proton?

It depends on what you can make with that technology.

For example if you could *only* measure and manipulate something on a scale of 1/100th of a carbon atom you could make nearly perfect graphene. Which is likely to be the next semiconductor industry. But as Noddy said you can't predict when it will all come together into something useful in ways no one thought of before.

On the other hand, the synopsis of John Nash's Nobel acceptance speech:

He was not inclined to give speeches, he said, but he had three things to say. First, he hoped that getting the Nobel would improve his credit rating because he really wanted a credit card. Second, he said that one is supposed to say that one is glad he is sharing the prize, but he wished he had won the whole thing because he really needed the money badly. Third, Nash said that he had won for game theory and that he felt that game theory was like string theory, a subject of great intrinsic intellectual interest that the world wishes to imagine can be of some utility. He said it with enough skepticism in his voice to make it funny.

I don't know. It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

I would argue that Faraday gave the best reply to such questions.

In 1821, while working at the Royal Institution in London, Michael Faraday followed up the work of the Dane Hans Christian Ørsted, who, alerted by a twitching compass needle, deduced that electricity and magnetism were linked together. Faraday developed the electric motor and then, a decade later, found that a magnet moving in a wire coil induced a current. In 1845, he formulated that cornerstone of modern physics, the field theory of electromagnetism.

As the story is told, the prime minister or some other senior politician was given a demonstration of induction by Faraday.
When asked “What good is it?” Faraday replied: “What good is a newborn baby?”

Another story has Faraday replying to another skeptical politician, "I don't know, but I'm sure that you will find a way to tax it."

Nash equilibrium today are a key aspect of GANs [Generative Adversarial Networks] in machine learning.
These are the models that, for example, produce realistic faces of people who do not exist from a data set of real images.
GANs have potential wide application beyond such clever demos.

I look at scientific discovery as the building blocks of the future. You can't predict what clever people will make with those blocks but without them they will in almost certainty build less. I think I already posted this but look what they are actually doing here taking blocks from Semiconductor fab technology and Chemistry Then gluing them together with software.

O2thSsQrZUM

So I presume a general principle of the more blocks the the greater the possibilities for innovation. Science is where those blocks come from.