Jump to content
Science Forums

Contemplate the next major revolution in science


hallenrm

Recommended Posts

That said, I think the next "big break through" is a break through in materials science, which will enable us to "engineer" these things that we thought were impossible.

 

-Fast acting shape metal alloys.

-Useful Carbon Nanotubes

-Super High energy density fuels.

 

TFS

 

I agree that materials science will see more breakthroughs and a range of absolutely amazing materials long before other changes mentioned.

A good question though is would those breakthroughs revolutionize science?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that materials science will see more breakthroughs and a range of absolutely amazing materials long before other changes mentioned.

A good question though is would those breakthroughs revolutionize science?

 

yes

I posted somewhere a link about an Australian Scientist (Sydney uni)who was making new materials, laying them down almost an atom at a time.

She felt her work could be applied in many fields -like cheap thin solar panels from expensive silicon.

 

What's the latest on ceramic (& other) no-resistance electricty conductors.?

If they could operate at room temperature it would, overnight, change the world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

n my opinion revolutionary developments in material science would be more appropriatly come under technological revolutions!

 

Well, I think it would certainly LEAD to technological revolutions, but I'm talking about the actual science of creating these things.

 

Discovering Carbon nanotubes and figuring out how to use them, figuring out boron or hydrogen/helium recombinant rocket fuel. That's atomic / nanotech science. Sure it will revolutionize industrial technology, but I think it has the potential to restructure the way we think about things scientifically.

 

Por ejemplo,

During the enlightenment, the most complex machine we encountered regularly was a watch or clock. We gave the universe the attributes of a clock - thus the phrase "clock work" universe.

 

NOW, the most complex equipment we encounter regularly is the computer, and we are busily giving the universe the attributes of a computer. We talk about DNA for instance being the "code" for human life, and the "code" for stars being H+H = He. (Simplified)

 

If the most complex "machines" we encounter regularly are nano-size machines, and atomically engineered molecules, will we begin to view the universe as being made of quintillions of little discreet units which combine to form a whole? This is already happening. See HydrogenBond's attempts to model the world through hydrogen bonding.

 

Of course, all of these "paradigms" for looking at the world are true. The universe in one sense IS a clock, the paths of the planets are predictable through orbital mechanics. In one sense it IS a program, H+H=He + C+H+O2 = Amino Acids * Time = Life And in one sense it IS a collection of more little bits than you can possibly imagine, all coming together to make one seriously mysterious whole.

 

That's why I think the revolution is in nano materials. It's the one I think that is already starting to inform the metaphor we use to describe our universe, which of course, seems like a lot more than just a technological revolution.

 

TFS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh...

I suspect that new materials (with a few exceptions like meta materials) will likely cause an evolution in science, not a revolution. Increasing our rate of knowledge, decreasing the time it takes to accomplish a task, changing system efficiencies at amazing rates.

 

Certainly a room temp super conductor, near perfect solar cell, or <insert your favorite new material here> would have widespread and profound effects on humanity, but would they be revolutionary?

 

Would they induce a radical change in how we view the universe, or even the methods that we use to probe it, or would they make us drastically more efficient at using our current methods inside of our current understanding?

 

One is revolutionary, and the other is evolutionary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on what the "revolution" is. If the revolution is a change in the way we look at materials, I think it could be as much a "revolution" as biology or plate tectonics. If it's just "this is a neat substance" then I think that's less important.

 

Silica aerogels, for instance are really neat, but they don't have the same kind of nanoscale engineering that goes into creating CNTs or Boron/Aluminum Rocket Fuel.

 

And it also depends on how ubiquitous they become. If CNTs are only used to make body-armor they won't be that cool. If they are used to make EVERYTHING, it could very well be revolutionary.

 

On the same level as an agricultural or industrial revolution? Maybe not, but certainly on the same level as Evolution or DNA.

 

My 2 cents is all.

 

TFS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand now.

 

I saw a revolution as a way of changing how we look at the world. Something that would change, in a fundamental way, how we approach the universe and understand it.

 

Most new materials or nuclear fusion, while changing our world, would not accomplish that.

 

Evolutionary Engineered Solutions would likely result in new materials and processes that, on the outset, would not make sense. The struggle to understand them is what I believe would change science. A revolutionary change like this would spawn vast evolutionary changes across the sciences.

 

AI would likely accomplish something quite similar.

 

Looks like I am in the minority ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revolutionary change in science would also mean a change in the status quo, which will not go away freely. Progressive change will keep things the same but add something new to the mix. This is more acceptable to the status quo and is more likely to happen faster.

 

Picture, hypothetically, it was proven that the center of the earth had a fusion core. That would be revolutionary. Almost all nuclear and particle physics would need to be revamped to explain something that the status quo theory says should not be possible. What would happen, is similar to when the automobile first appeared on the seen. This new discovery would come in direct conflict and competition with the horse, buggy and saddle mogels. The odds are the data would be discredited to try to prevent the change. Those with everything to lose would try to avoid losing anything. If one sees such a reaction, then the discovery is revolutionary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I interuppt a bit? I think the participant are straying away from the topic of the thread.

 

May I suggest, that they spend a few minutes reading the article on Thomas Kuhn and his thoughts about The structure of scientific revolutions;)

 

Wow hallenrm, excellent reference.

I did not think we were getting off topic though. We stated our thoughts on the next revolution, and were defending them ;)

 

I can see from most responses though (Especially yours), that the definition of what is revolutionary is what is throwing a wrench in things.

 

I especially liked the quote in the article you pointed at

 

Max Planck observed, and Kuhn quoted (SSR, p. 151):

"a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

 

While true throughout history, it is unlikely that this can continue, at least if the pace of scientific advancement is to continue at it's current rate. I would guess that is a topic for another thread though.

 

The sad part is, even if we properly define what is and what is not revolutionary, it is going to be pretty much impossible to prove irrefutably whatever viewpoint we take. :(

 

The debate certainly is interesting though :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read Thomas Kuhn's book, admittedly a while back, and while I think he has some excellent points, he also makes some claims which I don't think are true.

 

1)Paradigm shifts make talking to each other meaningless. I can't convince you of my correctness because we are incapable of talking about the same thing.

 

2)Normal Science is entirely concerned with preserving the status quo and finding "small answers" to "small questions." Or "puzzling" I think he calls it.

 

Now, if I remember correctly, Kuhn uses the difference between Newtonian mass and Einsteinian mass to illustrate his point on 1. Basically, in Newton mass is an absolute property of an object, and in Einstein it's a function of it's energy.

 

It's perfectly reasonable to say these two things are totally different, but they aren't so totally different that communication is impossible. Mass may be defined differently, but it still MEANS the same thing. (How much "matter" is in an object.)

 

The second of course, is that I don't think scientific revolutions work exactly the way he described them. There isn't a single point of "revolutionary science" or whatever that goes against "normal science." Rather, normal science builds up a list of "anomalies" and little half-explanations that make it possible for "revolutionary science" to occur. There isn't some huge crisis like Kuhn describes, where everyone looks down at their epicycle calculations and goes "Uh-oh guys, this is all bullshit..."

 

Rather, Copernicus makes a small increment, Galileo makes a small increment, Kepler makes a small increment, all WITHIN the paradigm of the previous world (or at least within it enough that communication is possible.) Eventually, without there even being a "revolution" everything is different.

 

I think that Max Planck may be on to something there. I don't think people within a revolution ever realize it's happening - it's only with the benefit of history that you can look back and go "Oh yeah.. Epicycles... didn't really work out..."

 

TFS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Max Planck may be on to something there. I don't think people within a revolution ever realize it's happening - it's only with the benefit of history that you can look back and go "Oh yeah.. Epicycles... didn't really work out..."

 

TFS

We are blessed (or cursed) with the repeated and accelerated opportunity to look back within our own lifetimes and see these revolutions. Something that likely occurred once (if lucky/unlucky enough) in a scientists life before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good discussion indeed!;) I am indeed enjoying it!

 

May I interuppt a bit? I think the participant are straying away from the topic of the thread.

 

May I suggest, that they spend a few minutes reading the article on Thomas Kuhn and his thoughts about The structure of scientific revolutions:hyper:

So you want us to focus on a total change of perception,

of seeing,

of viewing,

of understanding the nature of the world/reality/universe/humanity/science????

 

Big ask:omg:

 

How about just extrapolating technology we already know about and some nice wishful thinking instead?:lol:

 

Or maybe we should all just drop some DMT?:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still come back to the integration of cells via the hydrogen bonding. This allows one to express cells in terms of one variable. The current approach is able to differentiate all aspects of the cell and can logically explain how most things function. However, the dependancy on statistics for in vitro relationships shows that something unknown needs to factored to allow the phenomena to jive with existing rationale.

 

If one also includes the hydrogen bonding layer to the analysis, it adds a level of cellular integration that can rationally address the apparent statistical uncertainty within in vitro biology. The cell is not one (hydrogen bonding) or the other (traditional bio-chemistry), but both intimately working together. The hydrogen bonding angle benefits by its simplicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is of course difficult to predict things, especially the future. :Waldo:

 

Also, if we knew where the next scientific revolution takes us, we would already be there. :shrug:

 

As far as physics is concerned, I believe that the following posts in my blog koantum matters are topical. (Unfortunately I'm not yet allowed to post URLs.)

  1. "Aus!"
  2. Is there a quantum-mechanical world picture?
  3. A crisis in fundamental physics

Enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...