Will there be any more "profound" revolutions in science?

[KipIngram]

I read that when Einstein first proposed in 1905 that light was quantized (i.e., that quanta were actually real, as opposed to the heuristic that Planck had considered them to be), the scientific community was "highly skeptical." Yet of course it turned out to be so and quantum theory "changed science." Relativity was a major change of outlook as well.

 

Do we think the remaining things we don't fully understand will require such radical "retooling," or is it likely that those two were the big ones and the rest will involved less thoroughgoing alterations? I read that obtaining a quantum theory of gravity is one of the major remaining difficulties - are there any other things that are that problematic, or is that the only major issue that remains?

[Delta1212]

Well, two of our best and most well-tested theories for describing the behavior of reality also seem to be fundamentally incompatible, so, yeah, probably.

 

Ultimately, though, we simply don't know what we don't know.

[koti]

As far as finding out how to "marry" GR & QM I think that there are far more things to discover than we can imagine. Our current models work great to describe the reality which is within our current reach but surely there has to be so much more. Despite having really accurate and beautiful models like GR we are still incapable of fully grasping the true nature of basinc things around us like gravity and time...which leads to exotic theories in physics like the multiverse or some really exotic theories in philosophy. I think that the existence of those exotic theories is kind of an indication that there has to be much more. String theory seems to be the best current contender for the theory of quantum gravity and it seems to be on the right track for discovering that "much more" which is there to discover. I just wish I will be still alive with a functional brain to witness new, powerful discoveries. I'd like to think that there are still new things/theories out there to discover which are of the magnitude of GR or greater.

[swansont]

I read that when Einstein first proposed in 1905 that light was quantized (i.e., that quanta were actually real, as opposed to the heuristic that Planck had considered them to be), the scientific community was "highly skeptical." Yet of course it turned out to be so and quantum theory "changed science." Relativity was a major change of outlook as well.

 

Do we think the remaining things we don't fully understand will require such radical "retooling," or is it likely that those two were the big ones and the rest will involved less thoroughgoing alterations? I read that obtaining a quantum theory of gravity is one of the major remaining difficulties - are there any other things that are that problematic, or is that the only major issue that remains?

 

Beyond QM+GR, we have the fact that we know the standard model is incomplete — there are details about neutrinos that don't fit

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/february-2013/neutrinos-the-standard-model-misfits

 

We have the nature of dark matter and dark energy to figure out.

 

For any other unanswered question in physics (e.g. matter/antimatter asymmetry), there might be a "revolution", i.e. "new physics" behind it.

 

One thing we can say, though, is that this new physics is going to emerge at the extreme end of the scale, beyond the range where we can readily investigate today. Energy and size either higher or lower than what we can currently easily investigate. That's the same pattern we've seen already. Relativity became noticeable at higher energy than we see every day, and QM at smaller sizes and energies. Any new physics is going to live in the "Here be dragons" part of the map.

[koti]

This is almost 30 years old but I find this talk very insightful and relevant to this thread:

[imatfaal]

Proper and recognizable artificial intelligence (a difficult term) - a machine based intellect which most reasonable humans would realise/believe is capable of having and deserving rights, self-determination, and cognitive freedom

[KipIngram]

Proper and recognizable artificial intelligence (a difficult term) - a machine based intellect which most reasonable humans would realise/believe is capable of having and deserving rights, self-determination, and cognitive freedom

 

Yes, that really would feel like a revolution to me. Good one. Transistor electronics and digital architectures are my profession, and I know quite a bit about software (though I don't have formal training in computer science), and I have no idea how we get from here to there.

[imatfaal]

 

Yes, that really would feel like a revolution to me. Good one. Transistor electronics and digital architectures are my profession, and I know quite a bit about software (though I don't have formal training in computer science), and I have no idea how we get from here to there.

 

I have listened to an hours debate between world experts and they didn't get beyond whether the term artificial intelligence was an oxymoron or a valid expression. It is a fascinating topic - but to an extent it is like trying to observe oneself falling asleep; very difficult, totally subjective / impossibly introspective, and any results could be just a dream. The idea of Artificial intelligence and its discussion winds up telling us more about ourselves than about the subject - and the practice is dangerously close to eugenics without a firm moral and ethical code.

[swansont]

Proper and recognizable artificial intelligence (a difficult term) - a machine based intellect which most reasonable humans would realise/believe is capable of having and deserving rights, self-determination, and cognitive freedom

Is that a revolution of science or technology?

[imatfaal]

Is that a revolution of science or technology?

 

Both? Neither? Paraphrasing -- Any sufficiently profound advance in technology is indistinguishable from an advance in science.

 

I think it will be a scientific breakthrough in that it is seeking to do something which is theoretically novel within the current practical constraints; whereas technological progress is the overcoming of practical barriers within the current theoretical environment.

[StringJunky]

Yes, that really would feel like a revolution to me. Good one. Transistor electronics and digital architectures are my profession, and I know quite a bit about software (though I don't have formal training in computer science), and I have no idea how we get from here to there.

You can't predict emergent outcomes, so it seems to me that we'll likely walk into backwards.

[KipIngram]

You can't predict emergent outcomes, so it seems to me that we'll likely walk into backwards.

 

So, question about that. One example I've heard put forth in support of that is that you can't anticipate the properties of water by studying hydrogen and oxygen. That makes sense. But couldn't you predict the molecule that hydrogen and oxygen would form, and then use standard techniques to study the expected properties of that molecule?

 

Maybe that just winds up saying it's not a good example of emergence; I'm not sure. I do like your notion that a truly emergent property would be fundamentally impossible to anticipate.

[Delta1212]

 

So, question about that. One example I've heard put forth in support of that is that you can't anticipate the properties of water by studying hydrogen and oxygen. That makes sense. But couldn't you predict the molecule that hydrogen and oxygen would form, and then use standard techniques to study the expected properties of that molecule?

 

Maybe that just winds up saying it's not a good example of emergence; I'm not sure. I do like your notion that a truly emergent property would be fundamentally impossible to anticipate.

The thing about emergent properties is not that they are fundamentally impossible to predict so much as prohibitively complex to predict. It's more of a practical impossibility than a theoretical one, but practically speaking, there isn't much difference.

[StringJunky]

The thing about emergent properties is not that they are fundamentally impossible to predict so much as prohibitively complex to predict. It's more of a practical impossibility than a theoretical one, but practically speaking, there isn't much difference.

Well put.

[KipIngram]

Well put.

 

Yes, very - thanks for that.

[StringJunky]

 

Yes, very - thanks for that.

It's nice that some things are still like 'magic'.

[seriously disabled]

Modern physics makes the assumption (I'm talking about quantum mechanics and quantum field theory) that something can come from nothing.

 

This is where I think it is wrong because the evidence shows that something cannot come from nothing.

[dimreepr]

In answer to the thread title, yes of course we just don't know what they'll be.

[Mordred]

Modern physics makes the assumption (I'm talking about quantum mechanics and quantum field theory) that something can come from nothing.

 

This is where I think it is wrong because the evidence shows that something cannot come from nothing.

Lets be clear here, that is just one of the possible models. Surprising enough it is a feasible model, though it takes a considerable understanding to see how. However it is just one of numerous possibilities even under QM.

 

Yes solving BB would obviously be nice, solving lepto and Baryogenesis would be nice as well.

[seriously disabled]

Lets be clear here, that is just one of the possible models. Surprising enough it is a feasible model, though it takes a considerable understanding to see how. However it is just one of numerous possibilities even under QM.

So you're saying that something can be produced from nothing under certain conditions? If so how?

[Mordred]

That would be a lengthy conversation better off in a separate thread. (I recommend the title, Understanding the universe from Nothing model). As we would have to detail numerous related topics to avoid misleading heuristic analogies.

 

The topic itself can too easily hijack a thread lol

Edited May 29, 2017 by Mordred

[tar]

Thread,

 

I think there will of course be profound revolutions in science. Every generation takes the workable stuff provided by the investigations of their forbearers and improves upon the ideas, folds the progress into new technology and greater reach, and finds "new" avenues to explore.

While one cannot predict a new thought, without actually having it, in the first place, I would tend to say that we will find out "how things work" that currently are unanswered questions. Things like we are already suggesting...what is gravity, why does a mass attract a mass, biogenesis, how matter comes into existence, and so on, have to have a reason for being the way they are. Some sort of cause and effect, some rules by which space and time, matter and energy interact to cause some entity to be.

 

Paradigm shifts I think are likely, in terms of what aspects are the most interesting and pertinent to our survival.

 

Interesting to me, are technological advances that make the impossible for anyone, possible for everyone, or at least everyone with funds. But most interesting is how we get "bigger" and smarter and obtain greater reach as a collection, as a collective consciousness.

 

That we can study the slow movement of the plates of the Earth, as if we are watching pond scum pile up in the breeze.

 

My prediction of the next revolution, I think will be related to an expansion of our senses, through technology, into "seeing" the electromagnetic spectrum that surrounds us, that we move through and interact with other items through. Goggles that reach into the infrared and ultraviolet and beyond. Goggles that "see" magnetic fields.

 

Regards, TAR

and maybe from that, gravity wave sensors and displays and so on

[Sensei]

I read that when Einstein first proposed in 1905 that light was quantized (i.e., that quanta were actually real, as opposed to the heuristic that Planck had considered them to be), the scientific community was "highly skeptical." Yet of course it turned out to be so and quantum theory "changed science." Relativity was a major change of outlook as well.

 

Do we think the remaining things we don't fully understand will require such radical "retooling," or is it likely that those two were the big ones and the rest will involved less thoroughgoing alterations? I read that obtaining a quantum theory of gravity is one of the major remaining difficulties - are there any other things that are that problematic, or is that the only major issue that remains?

 

How about (hypothetical):

Quantization of mass

Quantization of energy

Quantization of time

Quantization of velocity

Quantization of acceleration/momentum

[KipIngram]

Some of those things already are quantized in certain cases, so I take it you mean "across the board"?

[Sensei]

Some of those things already are quantized in certain cases, so I take it you mean "across the board"?

 

In Standard Model quantized are charge and angular momentum, Baryon number, Lepton number, quark and anti-quark quantity..

That's why I didn't mention them in above post.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Sensei