Contemplate the next major revolution in science

[Michaelangelica]

Look at the volume of results, try expecting each one to be checked by everyone else...

yes it would be impossible woudn't it?

 

I had a wonderful Social Psy teacher who said on day that

1)Psychologists only believe what can be proved scientifically (in experiments etc)

2) Something called, for argument sake, "extra-sensory perception has been shown scientifically to exist

3) 98% of Psychologists do not believe in extra-sensory perception

4) Why?

[hallenrm]

It's a matter of practicality, in a sense, and it forces researchers to be careful not to ruin their reputation, which means that the whole volume of everyday contributions doesn't need to be so systematically re-checked; even when the name isn't famous others take their word for it in lack of contrary reason. Look at the volume of results, try expecting each one to be checked by everyone else...

 

not always QfwfQ, most often the reputed scientist form a clique, " you scratch my back, I yours" members of this clique most often do not tend to review the work of a fellow clique member, just as they would do that of a new entrant. Also many aspiring 'reputed workers" feel very insecure, what if a youngster achieve more fame then themselves; what if the theories they have nurtured for so long are proved to be second rate.

 

Let's face it, scientists are human beings and hence suffer from the same limitations as other less gifted persons!!

[Qfwfq]

Michael, if you scrutinize points 1 to 3 according to formal logic, there is no contradiction at all.

 

:hyper: Don't take me too seriously, it would be enough to replace two of the words in point 1, but you're not part of the clique that Hallen mentions and I'm allowed to correct you. :eek:

 

not always QfwfQ, most often the reputed scientist form a clique, " you scratch my back, I yours" members of this clique most often do not tend to review the work of a fellow clique member, just as they would do that of a new entrant.

Yep, it's a Massonic Lodge.

 

Let's face it, scientists are human beings and hence suffer from the same limitations as other less gifted persons!!

Obviously! None of us are perfect...

 

One of my buddies at physics, since the first year, is a highly talented guy that was able to walk through the most discombobulating courses and pass the exams, even while playing ping-pong or the fiddle at the same time. If he chose so, that is. Somewhat an idealist, he did not like the practice of citing references to previous work without checking it fully, and he believed in doing so recursively, down to the trivial case or the tangible experimental results, and he wanted to study his courses this way. OK for those of the first two years, these are (or were, in those days) themselves based on the doctrine of basing everything on solid grounds and a first or second year course, especially in calculus or algebra, tends to be so anyway. It's a bit different when you get to the third and fourth year ones. He didn't do ones that he could easily have, with top marks, and instead concentrated mainly on one advanced math course, following references exhaustively. He spent about five years on it, although also doing a few other things, before finally taking the test which he passed *** laude, he could have got the same result much sooner.

 

I'm not saying that publications should never be checked! There can be mistakes in the literature and sometimes they emerge, they inescapably will if it makes a real difference. Even I, when I was just studying GR, found something mistaken in the original publication of a well known thing (Kruskal coordinates) but I didn't consider it so important to point it out, just that the final expression should have been left in integral form; the derivative of the result given isn't the integrand. Another guy I know is incredible at calculation of all sorts, both numeric and formal. Quite early in his graduate career (I think he hadn't finished his Ph. D. yet) he repeated a complicated calculation that few people undertake, something called anomalous magnetic moment, and found a slightly different value than the one long published and well known. Checking and re-checking, he even managed to find an explanation of the discrepancy that suggested his value was right and the previous authors had got a sign wrong. After discussing it with some colleagues, including reputed ones who are part of the clique, they agreed with him and encouraged him to publish and he did. He mentions the dicrepancy in the abstract and locates the cause of it at the end of section 3. It's a numerically small discrepancy and will not be distinguishable by measurement for a while yet.

 

Of course, there have been scandals about deliberate manipulations of experimental data, usually just to publish sooner, before rival groups working on the same thing. When it is something of importance, usually further measurements are eventually made.

[jack buck]

Dear hallenrm,

 

In my humble opinion, complete understanding of the reflection of logic seen as life will result in a stabilization of logic. This stabilization will provide keen direction to the sciences by peeling off the extraneous and redundant. This focusing is a revolution.

 

"Logic is a frequency.

 

Logic frequents between two extremes: the submissive and the dominant.

 

Every human’s logic directs the individual via x magnitude of the two extremes.

 

Within the magnitudes, there are boundaries. The maximum thought is absolute dominance and the minimum thought is total submission.

 

As with other mathematical frequencies, in order to find why the two extremes exist, you must first derive what the extremes are frequenting about.

 

The root cause of the frequency is balanced between two extremes and describes a perfect orbit. This describes the dual nature of logic, the relationship between two logical extremes and love.

 

If you logically navigate between your dominant side and your submissive side you will find that the center ground is described by love. Love must be the center, because it is the only form of logic that can equalize the two extremes.

 

Furthermore, since Love is the most stable logic and since it forms the basis of existence as the balance between existence and pure energy, an energetic give and take in accordance with the boundaries of existence, then Love must be the center of logical existence.

 

Dual nature means that the two extremes cannot exist without love and that love cannot exist without the two extremes. This is the meaning of love.

A perfect orbit is maintained by its minimum and maximum radii.

 

Exceeding these radii, the logic’s orbit becomes unloving and existence is threatened.

 

Actions have consequences.

 

Existence logic states that it is logic’s tie with love that sustains existence between the submissive and dominant extremes.

 

Is that beyond logic or is it pure logic?

 

Beyond-Pure: logic that attracts by sustaining life.

 

Unloving: logic that endangers life.

 

Love cannot be described singularly. Love is a pure logic that must be coupled with action. The action may consist of both Thinking about love and Acting via love. Meaning that love must be described by its action."

 

in my newly humbled opinion something has merit here. it would be easy to say "love? come on man give me a break!" however, given that no human in existence can separate their logical faculities from their existence and survive for very long, the focusing concept of a balanced line of logic that leads to open and accessible thinking such as love does, goes way beyond the mushy and pedantic. The concept of love driving your every underlying desire is so subtle that it has the capacity to be true and should not be underestimated.

 

 

looking for that revolution,

 

jack buck

[InfiniteNow]

SPAM alert. Same link in two posts in a row... Human Spamancy.com

[HydrogenBond]

The next major revolution in science will combine physics, chemistry and biology; the biophysical chemistry of life using a single global variable called hydrogen proton potential. This single variable is everywhere in the cell and is what integrates the cell via the cell's water. The existing state of the art is based on the parallel biochemical integration of the cell. Both potentials work together, but it is much easier for modelling purposes to use only one variable instead of thousands. This is possible because one implies the other. The result will be a drastic simplification that will allow accurate cellular modelling, accurate enough to back calculate chemical structures needed to do any task.

 

For example, if one has an ion dissolved in water, one can model in term of the ion or in terms of the water that surrounds the ion, since the ion will impart potential into its hydration sphere. The advantage of using just the water is that any ion can be modelled in terms of the only water that surrounds it, requiring only one variable with variable potential. The current alternative has to treat dozen of ions as separate entities.

 

If we add all the biochems floating around the cell, these too are surrounded by water and will impart a fancier potential structure within the water. Again rather than worry about thousands of bio-chems, we only have to worry about the variable hydrogen proton potential structure induced in the water to get the same result. If a single variable simulation implies a particular water shroud in a particular area, we should be able to predict the types of bio-chems that would produce that swater hroud, allowing medicine simulation and design at a much faster rate.

 

The current alternative is try and see what happens, If something happens, pertubate it and see what happens. This long and cumbersome approach works, that has to rely heavily on statistics, due to the complexity of an approach that has thousands of variables many of which are unknown especially is secondary and tertiary pertubations occur.

 

The only holdback with this revolution is not the needed science, but rather the politics created by there not being enough patriots of science and too many mercenaries of science. Mercenary style self interest is willing to fight only for money and not principles of truth. The patriot can see the truth and is willing to fight even it means sacrificing the easy and cushy mercenary lifestyle. The mercenary fights for self interest and is even willing to compromise the truth to protect their ease and comfort. It is hard to recruit mercenaries unless they can see bigger dollar signs. That is where mercenary entrepreneurs gamble.

[HIENVN]

Thomas Kuhn, a famous philisopher of science, authored a very famous book The structure of scientific revolutions.

 

Indeed significant developments in the realm of science are marked by periodic revolutions. Most of us would be aware of such revolutions: Relativity, quantum physics, genetic code, elecromagnetic radiations, semiconductors are a few that have marked the past century.

 

New developments in science are reported almost every other day, but are they leading towards a revolution of scientific thought?

 

What would be the next major revolution in science? Will it be in the realm of physics, biology or chemistry?

 

Can we venture out some thoughts? :) :lightbulb :cup: :beer:

What do you mind “Revolution of Science?” And who will create the next major revolution in science?

I still remember (about 35 years ago) that I read a book “Science and Life” of a French scientist, and a lecture of a Vice-President of the U.S.A. These person accorded the last scientist who created the last revolution were Pasteur, Louis (1822-1895). According to these persons, amateur scientists who interest with the truth of science always created revolutions of science. Therefore, Quantum Theory, Relativity Theory, etc… should not are revolutions that you confirmed in your quote.

However, in your intention, I would like to choose Unified Field Theory is the next major revolution in science of physics that will effect to both of biology and chemistry later.

What do you think?

[hallenrm]

What do you mind “Revolution of Science?” And who will create the next major revolution in science?

I still remember (about 35 years ago) that I read a book “Science and Life” of a French scientist, and a lecture of a Vice-President of the U.S.A. These person accorded the last scientist who created the last revolution were Pasteur, Louis (1822-1895). According to these persons, amateur scientists who interest with the truth of science always created revolutions of science. Therefore, Quantum Theory, Relativity Theory, etc… should not are revolutions that you confirmed in your quote.

However, in your intention, I would like to choose Unified Field Theory is the next major revolution in science of physics that will effect to both of biology and chemistry later.

What do you think?

 

Well “Revolutions of Science” are not objects that are created they are events that occur as a result of several developments, in case of science they are observations. It occurs when there is a paradigm shift in the thought of the scientists.

For example, Quantum Theory is said to be a revolution in science because before its invention it was thought that classical mechanics is sufficient to explain all observations. But classical mechanics could not explain the atomic spectra, Similar is the case with thr Theory of Relativity. :)

[HIENVN]

Well “Revolutions of Science” are not objects that are created they are events that occur as a result of several developments, in case of science they are observations. It occurs when there is a paradigm shift in the thought of the scientists.

For example, Quantum Theory is said to be a revolution in science because before its invention it was thought that classical mechanics is sufficient to explain all observations. But classical mechanics could not explain the atomic spectra, Similar is the case with thr Theory of Relativity. :)

I just read “The structure of scientific revolutions” of Thomas Kuhn in the website of your quote, this website may be summarize the contents of this book with some ideas of somebody. However, I could not see any word of The Quantum Theory or The Relativity Theory to prove these theories are revolutions in science! I think Quantum physics, relativity, genetic code, electromagnetic radiations; semiconductors just are revolutions of technology better than revolutions in science. I would like to submit ideas in your original quote (dated 05-19-2006, 07:36 PM) that you should display relativity theory behind Quantum theory, because Quantum theory was established in 1900 by Max Planck and relativity was established in 1905 by Albert Einstein. We should respect the progress of scientific history.

In my quote dated 09-02-2006, I voted for Unified Field Theory because I saw some disadvantages of Quantum Theory that Einstein recognized in his last life, but he could not explain to scientists of his time.

Almost scientists think Quantum Theory defeated classic mechanics with its exclusive term “Quanta,” when Planck observes the radiation that emitted from a hot object. Einstein rejected the idea “Quanta” of Quantum Mechanics in his last life because he believed the interaction of nature is continuous, this interaction is not discontinuous such as Planck thought! That means Einstein came back to the classic mechanics of Newton and he may wan to perfect classic mechanics in his proposed Unified Field Theory since 1921.

I almost agree with the idea of Einstein when he rejects Quantum Theory. In my opinion, the best way is use Quantum Theory in the realm of atoms and Unified Field Theory in the realm of universe.

[hallenrm]

I almost agree with the idea of Einstein when he rejects Quantum Theory. In my opinion, the best way is use Quantum Theory in the realm of atoms and Unified Field Theory in the realm of universe.

 

Although I have great admiration and respect for Einstein, I refuse to treat his opinions as the last word in science! :D

[Tarantism]

Although I have great admiration and respect for Einstein, I refuse to treat his opinions as the last word in science! :D

on that note...will there ever be a last word in science?? i think that there will always be more to explore and study...

[HIENVN]

Although I have great admiration and respect for Einstein, I refuse to treat his opinions as the last word in science! :)

Welcome, hallenrm.

I agree with your post, because this post displays a simple truth that I treated the truth as the last word in science. You should review my post-dated 09-02-2006 to know which treatment that I treated!

-I not completely agree to Einstein's opinions when I wrote, "I almost agree with the idea of Einstein when he rejects Quantum Theory." If I treat Einstein opinion as the last world in science (as you claimed, not my claim), I would write "I agree with the idea of Einstein when he rejects Quantum Theory."

-I have a tendency of reconcilement between Quantum and Unified Field Theory when I wrote:"In my opinion, the best way is use Quantum Theory in the realm of atoms and Unified Field Theory in the realm of universe." If I reject Quantum Theory as Einstein did, I would write "The best way is use Unified Field Theory on both of the atoms and universe."

You should be careful when you write your post, because the readers can mistake my ideas in your forum, such as Tarantism claimed on his/her post-dated 09-02-2006.

History proves human always rejects revolution in its initial step, because revolution is very strange and versus to the normal ideas of human; therefore, human just accept a revolution when this revolution explode all its power. Although the scientists of twentieth century rejected Unified Field Theory in its initial step that proposed by Einstein in 1921, but recent scientists have began to study for Unified Field Theory to solve some problem that Quantum and Relativity Theory could not solve. This is why I told you Unified Field Theory might be the next major revolution in science.

You do not understand the sensitivity of Unified Field Theory, and then you reject my vote -or my contemplation- on your forum when I suggest Unified Field Theory as the next major revolution in science!

Although the progress of science is unlimited as Tarantism claimed on his/her post-dated 09-02-2006 and the science should have not the last world, but Unified Field Theory can show the last word in science as the idea of “The Final Theory.” Einstein spent 25 years to find a single secret of the phenomena that he believed this secret has governed all nature of the universe. The failure of Einstein in his proposed Unified Field Theory cannot be understood this secret cannot be exist, scientists of beyond Einstein may find out this secret if it is exist.

Why don’t we work together for well being of the human race?

[HIENVN]

on that note...will there ever be a last word in science?? i think that there will always be more to explore and study...

Hi, Tarantism.

You should read my answer to hallenrm dated 09-08-2006 for my right ideas.

All the best.

 

HIENVN

[hallenrm]

Although the progress of science is unlimited as Tarantism claimed on his/her post-dated 09-02-2006 and the science should have not the last world, but Unified Field Theory can show the last word in science as the idea of “The Final Theory.” Einstein spent 25 years to find a single secret of the phenomena that he believed this secret has governed all nature of the universe. The failure of Einstein in his proposed Unified Field Theory cannot be understood this secret cannot be exist, scientists of beyond Einstein may find out this secret if

 

That is a fond dream of many scientists not an established theory even!!!:hihi:

[Tarantism]

M Theory is pretty exciting i think.

[Michaelangelica]

Discovering Carbon nanotubes and figuring out how to use them, figuring out

 

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.

 

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

How about a nano-leaf?

What an amazing discovery- to be able to reproduce the energy conversion power of a humble leaf!

GREEN LEAVES INSPIRE SOLAR CELLS (Innovation & Technology News, 4/9/06) Synthetic molecules that mimic chlorophyll in plants may one day form the basis of highly efficient solar cells, say Australian researchers.

http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1729572.htm?tech

[IDMclean]

I think I am going to hold my breath until the progrom (not a misspelling) is finished.

 

I mean think about it. We have been accumilating data for the last 2000-3000 years. In the last 100 years we developed the capability to store, sort, and process that data. I think it's the main cause of our progress spur.

 

Once we work our way through the main bodies of easily computable, and testable data we will have better questions and a better idea of what to do next. I'm betting on a major advance in either one of two things.

A) Communication/Computation

:) Transportation

 

It's these two things which have repeatedly change our world and brought about unimagined advances in the whole of humankind, but like I said I am going to wait till the machines are done tallying the results.