Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on March 22, 2008, 10:10:59 pm
-
I was recently listening to an interesting podcast (http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=A4A0FB94-EC47-CC46-775B8D65B47CA5AE) on scientific american's website talking about this issue and I thought it was pretty informative. Any thoughts on it?
It seemed to me that this whole thing came about partly as a responce to the massive budget cuts in the US science budget, especially going after basic research into physics and high energy physics. American funding for the ITER project: GONE. The guy who gave this speech is the director of Argonne Laboratory. He talks about the benefits of science, why it is important, and why American's don't seem to have much interest in it.
-
I predict that this thread will die a very painful death.
-
There's a pretty good article at Ars Technica about the same subject. Probably a domino effect of this topic popping up...probably made it on to Slashdot too.
-
Who has control of the science budget? What do they say?
-
Congress. The Omnibus Bill of 2007 cut tens of millions of dollars out of it.
-
Reason is the enemy of faith, my friend
A head that's filled with knowledge
soon is too bloated with its own weight
to fit through heaven's gate
So think with your heart
It's the only organ for salvation
Think with your heart
Don't deduce yourself to eternal damnation
Think with your heart
'Cause you know that the Almighty sees us
Think only with your heart
Whoever heard of the bleeding brain of Jesus?
Think only with your heart!
/thread death imminent
-
While I find it difficult to believe that the budget cut would have happened because of faith, I have to acknowledge that it could be possible. Otherwise, with link that was first posted I can agree fully.
But I also see the cutbacks as a society's way of telling that the researchers have gone too far. Instead of serving the society's needs, they are aiming for 300 years ahead, where the science and innovations based on it could (hopefully) help the society. Needless to say, this approach will not please the general population and there will not be funding for it.
I would say that the problem is caused both by the scientists and recent trend in the markets, maximizing profits in shortest possible time. Interestingly, that the trend originated from some well-established economically sound universities from England and US!
Mika
-
i encourage every american to go out and burn down at least one church :D
-
Van Helsing would disagree.
I don't think science outside of computers and established industries has made much progress to be honest. Nothing really life changing i mean compared to the last thirty years.
-
It's a slow and tedious process.
People are too used to instant gratification these days. =/
-
Not at all. :)
I just think compared to the middle of last century the tempo has dropped a tad.
-
Progress is made faster when you're given the allowance to make mistakes. With private industries, that's strongly discouraged - nobody likes losing thousands or millions of dollars because some chemical process didn't work like you expected.
When people start dying, when you have some form of danger or competition, then people are more tolerant because they can see that there's some tangible greater goal that needs to be accomplished.
That's my theory, anyway.
-
Roger and copy.
Political correctness is the root of the problem :nod: like a spoilt child, society has started to stagnate and just ness about.
That's a bit deep i know but i haven't been out in a week and i'm going a bit "wrong"
With all due respect and no ill intent what does the us offer that other nations can't in the field of science?
-
Damnit! Where is my flying car!
-
I've seen videos of a UFO-like thing. I think the flying car idea was contingent on finding a way of buoyancy that didn't require exerting the weight of the car on the objects below, though...
-
Flying car concepts of today still hinge on the advancement of autopilot systems and an advanced FAA flight control system to get off the ground. People can barely drive in 2D. I would actually prefer an automated driving linked with a smart highway system where our cars communicate and drive themselves, assuring the maximum efficiency for traffic control and flow. Plus, i wouldnt mind safely driving over 100mph, while not having to drive at all..
-
But I also see the cutbacks as a society's way of telling that the researchers have gone too far. Instead of serving the society's needs, they are aiming for 300 years ahead, where the science and innovations based on it could (hopefully) help the society.
Is that so? I find it absolutely incredible that people are more than happy to use technology that is based on the basic research done at these labs, but are unwilling to support the actual research that goes into it. Not everything is "instant" with things like this. Example: The transistor was actually invented in 1947, but didn't come into widespread use (maybe except for radios) until the electronics revolution in the 70's.
-
Not at all. :)
I just think compared to the middle of last century the tempo has dropped a tad.
I'd agree...just looking at the advancements in aerospace. At the beginning of World War II almost every major nation had either a bi-plane or a fixed gear undercarriage fighter either in frontline or secondline units. These were fabric covered and produced maybe 700 to 1000hp and could do maybe 250mph or a bit more. By the end of World War II there were Me262 and Meteor jet fighters and prop fighters doing well above 450mph sporting 2000hp+ engines or jets...or rocket interceptors. Lots of risks taken and quite a few rewards. In the 60s and 70s projects like Apollo and the SR-71 blackbird were really incredible leaps forward.
Today...I guess its small stuff. Faster and faster computers and electronic gadgets. But right now it feels like we regressed somewhat over the 80s and 90s. The new US efforts to get to the moon have the new researchers figuring out just how the guys in the 60s managed it.
-
We just don't want to do anything small.
"What would the point of going to the moon be if we didn't bring a frikkin colony with us?" Seems to be the general idea
-
Personally, I think its the lack of 'taking a risk' attitude. Everybody wants a sure thing these days and overcautiously goes about getting there. Thus when something goes wrong in a project and somebody dies, they decide its not worth it and cancel it. People forget how many pioneers of technology died to see their experiments succeed.
-
aka the last shuttle disaster shutting down the American space program for years.
Yeah... I'd have to agree with you that America is getting too obsessed with safety.
EDIT:
Not really safety... but overprotection
-
Personally, I think its the lack of 'taking a risk' attitude. Everybody wants a sure thing these days and overcautiously goes about getting there.
I think that sums up one of the biggest problems with our space program, that combined with a total lack of political will to really do anything more than send a few select people to low earth orbit has caused it to stagnate for at least the last two decades.
-
Personally, I think its the lack of 'taking a risk' attitude. Everybody wants a sure thing these days and overcautiously goes about getting there. Thus when something goes wrong in a project and somebody dies, they decide its not worth it and cancel it. People forget how many pioneers of technology died to see their experiments succeed.
Yeah, but an important thing to note is that it's not the pioneers that you'd have dying; they'd be the last people you'd want to die, because they'd be the only ones who understood how the person died or how to fix it. So what are you going to do to get that person, who doesn't have any personal stake in the project, to be willing to die for the project to succeed? How do you do it while still respecting life (since that is one of the general ideals of big countries today.)
If nothing else, making human lives disposable would have an adverse effect on experimentation; researchers would get sloppy. This being in response to the argument that an individual life is not worth more than everyone else's, so sacrificing them for the good of humanity is justified if the project/experiment has that kind of impact.
But in the end, isn't a lot of technology based on paranoia or fear or unhappiness? Even space exploration - people don't want to do it just because they want to see something cool. At some point we'll have the technology to do all that and take pictures and not have to go anywhere. We can already do that with interplanetary distances, although it's a massive undertaking each time.
There's overpopulation, darwinism, adventure, etc. But all of it comes down to taking some effort to expand or strengthen the human race, which goes back to evolutionary roots (any organism that betters itself is more likely to overpower an organism that doesn't). If we really wanted to just be happy or live in pleasure, we'd just make electrodes to stick in our brain and live in bliss for the rest of our lives through direct stimulation of the neural centers of the brain and have all our bodily needs get taken care of by IV tubes.
No real point here, just thinking 'aloud' as it were...it's ironic to thing that unhappiness might be advantageous to drive progress.
-
I think the problem is more one of corporate-flavored capitalism infiltrating every facet of what used to be services. R&D at universities and national labs was never supposed to be a profit-generating industry. The research was supposed to increase our knowledge and capabilities in such a way as to improve our quality of life and military and security etc. Research, science, engineering... by themselves, they consume resources. They do not earn any capital by themselves. You need manufacturing for that. The benefit they yield is knowledge.
Yet these institutions today are increasingly being run by a bunch of yahoos with their MBA's a-flappin' in the breeze who are under the ridiculous notion that research can and should be run the same way as a large business. The administrations refuse to fund anything that doesn't look like a sure-thing. They'd rather have slow and steady incremental improvements than take a risk on something that might actually result in a paradigm-shift. The reason electronics and computers have continued to advance as fast as they have is largely because the cost-to-manufacture has gotten so small and the market absolutely huge.
In summmary, universities and national labs are NOT businesses, and they should NOT be run like businesses.
-
In summmary, universities and national labs are NOT businesses, and they should NOT be run like businesses.
This concludes it quite well.
Is that so? I find it absolutely incredible that people are more than happy to use technology that is based on the basic research done at these labs, but are unwilling to support the actual research that goes into it. Not everything is "instant" with things like this. Example: The transistor was actually invented in 1947, but didn't come into widespread use (maybe except for radios) until the electronics revolution in the 70's.
For me it is more of a question where do you draw a line between useful basic research and wishful thinking. String theories, supersymmetries, wrapped up dimensions while the basic premise on which they are based on is untested! Hopefully we will get information about that before summer - cross your fingers that the bastard boson exists, otherwise large amount of recent work in that region of Physics will end up in the scrapyard!
I cannot blame the capitalistic system wholly about the current state of affairs, I ask a little accountability from the scientists themselves. Before, more of the research work was based on actual problems of people, and some of the more wild theories were done at researcher's own time. If people cannot understand the context of the above stuff and for that reason will not fund it, the problem is not only in the people. There was a letter from UK government which asked scientists why UK should pay for the LHC. Which, for me, at least, is a pretty good question.
Also, a little bit of healthy competition helps, note how quickly things were figured out in WWII, the development of nuclear weapons (again since researcher could feel that his personal survivalability depends on it), space systems, electronics
Mika
-
Also, a little bit of healthy competition helps, note how quickly things were figured out in WWII, the development of nuclear weapons (again since researcher could feel that his personal survivalability depends on it), space systems, electronics
One could argue that wars and warmaking have been the single most important factor in the advancement of science, period.
-
There was a letter from UK government which asked scientists why UK should pay for the LHC. Which, for me, at least, is a pretty good question.
Then here's a good answer: Even if they don't find the Boson particle it wouldn't be a waste because it proves whether or not the current understanding of such things is correct. In addition to that you never know what you might find. The future of the human race is inside the atom, and only by learning its secrets can we invent amazing technology that can take advantage of them.
-
Apparently Randall reads HLP, or coincidences just got that much more likely -
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/large_hadron_collider.png)
Better watch out for micro black holes.
-
One could argue that wars and warmaking have been the single most important factor in the advancement of science, period.
This is surprisingly true. It is a part of the history of science which should be understood by the scientists, a darker side of science if you may. Human experimentation gave a boost for medical sciences, fear of nuclear annihilation produced nuclear weapons (and later nuclear power), fear of being second in space caused the moonflights and so on. Even though it would be ideal, Science can never be objective, since it is the society that is directing it also! However, this doesn't mean that the individual scientist should give up on his integrity and honesty.
The future of the human race is inside the atom, and only by learning its secrets can we invent amazing technology that can take advantage of them.
For what I understand of quantum mechanics, that sounds like a pretty bold statement.
An affordable superconductor at room temperatures for example would be something to talk about. Then the mass experimentation with superconductivity could start. Or the fusion research, that would be quite interesting also. Why? Because it is partly a technical problem, and technical problems tend to be solvable (says Physicist). I'm actually a little bit on news blackout on that part of Fusion physics, what has been going on there? But for me it seems that things like LHC are more important.
I have to send that cartoon to a certain friend of mine working in CERN... What is the original link for it?
Mika
-
http://www.xkcd.com
-
Not at all. :)
I just think compared to the middle of last century the tempo has dropped a tad.
I'd agree...just looking at the advancements in aerospace. At the beginning of World War II almost every major nation had either a bi-plane or a fixed gear undercarriage fighter either in frontline or secondline units. These were fabric covered and produced maybe 700 to 1000hp and could do maybe 250mph or a bit more. By the end of World War II there were Me262 and Meteor jet fighters and prop fighters doing well above 450mph sporting 2000hp+ engines or jets...or rocket interceptors. Lots of risks taken and quite a few rewards. In the 60s and 70s projects like Apollo and the SR-71 blackbird were really incredible leaps forward.
Today...I guess its small stuff. Faster and faster computers and electronic gadgets. But right now it feels like we regressed somewhat over the 80s and 90s. The new US efforts to get to the moon have the new researchers figuring out just how the guys in the 60s managed it.
That...or simply things are becoming more complicated.. Veichles are more and more complex and require more parts...new scientific theories get more and more out there, getting harder and harder to grasp...nope, not surprised.
-
Which would mean that the pace of scientific advancement would slow down due to the extra overhead required to just get up to par, which would mean the tempo would drop a bit.
So why are you acting like you disagree with Colonel Dekker and IceFire?
-
For what I understand of quantum mechanics, that sounds like a pretty bold statement.
Not really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Applications), although all of that stuff owes its existence partly to previous experinments with "blue sky particle accelerators", it still should give an idea of how much our technology actually does depend on our understanding of quantum mechanics. Projects such as the LHC exist to expand our understanding of it.
EDIT: And here is one useful technology that never could have been invented (http://www.physlink.com/News/032303MuonsSecurity.cfm) if it wasn't for particle accelerators.
-
One could argue that wars and warmaking have been the single most important factor in the advancement of science, period.
I completely agree with this. However, do the resulting advancements in science justfy the death of thousands and therefore the war? If so, then it can only be concluded that the best way to make advancements in science is war.
-
WARNING: Mika is posting under influence (again)
However, do the resulting advancements in science justfy the death of thousands and therefore the war? If so, then it can only be concluded that the best way to make advancements in science is war.
Scientists usually have no say about things when the stuff really hits the fan. It is simply something which has to be done.
The best way to advance war science is to have continous wars. Other science will suffer because of the lack of funding, which will stop the development of all science in the end. Would this answer the question?
Mika