Will science ever stagnate and come to a halt?

[JacobNewton]

There was a time when most of the universe was an unexplored place. Today we have thanks to time machines, hubble telescopes etc, what it takes to have gleaned the depths of the known universe. 

You will say there is a lot to be discovered yet; but how much of those discoveries would make the progress of mankind a less futile objective?

We have for example invented everything of practical importance there is to invent; the light bulb, facebook, the wheel, electricity etc.

The human race appears to have stagnated in the annals of scientific discovery.

Again, no doubt there are stuff out there to learn about science, like for example, how many toes does a virus on Mars have? How far does one have to walk from point A to point B on Pluto to obtain fresh water? Any possibilitity of setting up a restaurant on the moon? 

All these childish attempts at discovery, leave them to people like Trump to discover.

But as far as science has progressed, havent we already run the course of novelty?

[iNow]

no

[Lorentz Jr]

Well, we still don't have a warp drive. Physics has already stagnated for the last half century (because of relativity, IMO), but there's certainly plenty more out there to be discovered.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Lorentz Jr

[studiot]

8 hours ago, JacobNewton said:

But as far as science has progressed, havent we already run the course of novelty?

Of course not.

Jacob, I don't know if you are still at school, or what they teach in Science these days but try to objectively separate fact from fantasy.

We are at the gateway to whole new realms and capabilities in science, similar to the early years of the 20th century, but in different areas from that time.

Just think how quick and effective the biochemistry response has been to Covid in the last couple of year.

Instead of watching that spongebob rubbish try view the first couple of series of " The Last Ship".

An excellent SF adventure story based on biochem tech we are only now in the course of developing.

 

41 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Physics has already stagnated for the last half century (because of relativity, IMO)

I disagree and the OP asked about Science in general, not Physics in particular.

As to your particular point, the first few decades of the 20th century were certainly busy with discoveries in the physical sciences, but this is normally the way.

Historically there is a period where important new principles are discovered, followed by not stagnation but lots of very hard work testing, proving, refining and combining with the existing framework. This may appear stagnation to some but establishing the proper place in the order of things is just as important in Science as the glory projects and discoveries.

Edited January 17, 2023 by studiot

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Physics has already stagnated for the last half century (because of relativity, IMO)

Really? Nothing new since 1973?

 

[Lorentz Jr]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

Really? Nothing new since 1973?

Not much in the foundations that seems productive to me. I keep reading about tenure and grant money being monopolized by ideas like string theory and the Big Bang, and then about how there are both serious problems and promising alternatives to these theories, but they're suppressed by academic politics.

[Bufofrog]

9 hours ago, JacobNewton said:

Today we have thanks to time machines, hubble telescopes etc, what it takes to have gleaned the depths of the known universe. 

We have time machines?  I think time machines would be a pretty big discovery in the past 50 years...

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I keep reading about tenure and grant money being monopolized by ideas like string theory and the Big Bang, and then about how there are both serious problems and promising alternatives to these theories, but they're suppressed by academic politics.

Curiously, I keep reading the same about biology, how it is monopolized by ideas like evolution and how there are both serious problems and promising alternatives to these theories, but they're suppressed by academic politics.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Well, we still don't have a warp drive. Physics has already stagnated for the last half century (because of relativity, IMO), but there's certainly plenty more out there to be discovered.

Topological insulators

Quantum computing

High-precision tests of the standard model (not science-spectacular, but extremely important)

Neutrino physics (flavour-changing neutrinos)

Observational cosmology (gravitational waves, supermassive BHs, accelerated expansion, exoplanets, etc.)

Negative tests of proton decay (negative-result test are extremely important)

Non-linear optics 

And the list goes on...

As to other sciences,

Ancient DNA

Gene therapy

Stem-cell therapy

Ribozymes

Cloning techniques

And the list goes on...

I think it's the other way around: It's very hard to keep up, really. It's because we're piggybacking on the shoulders of giant breakthroughs that it's so hard to tell how fast we're going --relativistic metaphor-- and even harder to relate the information in order to get a glimpse of any kind of big picture.

I think there hasn't been a major change of paradigm, and that's easy to be misinterpreted as no advance. Whether these major advances will coalesce into a paradigm shift is neither certain, nor necessarily the case to be expected.

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

I think there hasn't been a major change of paradigm

I think that data science is a major shift.

[joigus]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

I think that data science is a major shift.

So do I. There are silent, progressive revolutions, and you understood my point perfectly.

[TheVat]

10 hours ago, JacobNewton said:

But as far as science has progressed, havent we already run the course of novelty?

You may want to look into the area of quantum computing.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Not much in the foundations that seems productive to me. I keep reading about tenure and grant money being monopolized by ideas like string theory and the Big Bang, and then about how there are both serious problems and promising alternatives to these theories, but they're suppressed by academic politics.

Foundations is only a tiny part of physics

[Phi for All]

11 hours ago, JacobNewton said:

We have for example invented everything of practical importance there is to invent; the light bulb, facebook, the wheel, electricity etc.

This is such a laughable statement that it makes me doubt you're here in good faith. You seem to like making super dumb assertions to get a rise out of folks. It's not interesting at all.

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is such a laughable statement that it makes me doubt you're here in good faith. You seem to like making super dumb assertions to get a rise out of folks. It's not interesting at all.

I have a recollection of similar quotes from ca. 120 years ago.

Michelson saying of physics that “most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established” in 1894

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_A._Michelson

(ironic, since the M-M experiment pointed to a huge paradigm shift)

Thomson, Lord Kelvin declaring that “No balloon and no aeroplane will ever be practically successful” in 1902

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin

(he also said  “X-rays will prove to be a hoax." in 1883)

More here:

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Incorrect_predictions

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

There may well be a certain amount of incredulity built into the process (it's hard to imagine what hasn't been dreamed up yet). I think there's also an intellectually lazy path that tells some folks it's easier to claim that science is stagnating so they don't have to bother studying it at great length. It's so much easier to claim it's not worth your while than to actually learn it.

[Genady]

Sour grapes, again (the second time today; the other one referred to math.)

[iNow]

40 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

it's hard to imagine what hasn't been dreamed up yet

In fact, it's chronologically impossible

[John Cuthber]

"Will science ever stagnate and come to a halt?"

Most  Friday afternoons

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Foundations is only a tiny part of physics

And at the moment a lot of the advances seem to be occurring in the life sciences. 

[CharonY]

Science as such won't stop as long as people remain curious. However, it might make sense to think a bit about science funding. In most systems, tenure and grants are given fairly conservative. At the same time, things need to be sold as groundbreaking all the time. As such, funding is more likely to be granted to something that seems to be just at the cutting edge of whatever current trend there is.

Fundamental research is harder to get funded, as are thing that appear to far ahead. The only folks that tend to be successful with the latter are well-known researchers with a proven track record, a folks tend to assume that they are more likely to produce something groundbreaking. The issue with that is that really novel research is often serendipitous, but if you have to hunt for the latest trend all the time to feed your lab, you might not have the time and money to stop and follow up on surprising things.

I have been wondering for a long time whether a more "random" approach to funding would be better. I.e. just cut off the really bad proposals and then randomize funds among those that pass. Big names would not get all the money and there might be a bigger diversity of ideas getting funded.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

And at the moment a lot of the advances seem to be occurring in the life sciences. 

True. 
 

Science advancing doesn’t require that all areas advance at the same rate. Sometimes theory leads experiment, sometimes experiment shows the need for more/better theory. Sometimes we have to wait for technology to advance before theory can be tested (see e.g. Bose-Einstein condensation, gravitational waves)

There are more areas of inquiry than there were 50 years ago, and more then than 100 years ago. 

[CharonY]

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

There are more areas of inquiry than there were 50 years ago, and more then than 100 years ago.

There is also a massive expansion of literature, which in itself creates a problem of curation. You sometimes observe a divergence in lit on the same topic, e.g. because someone introduces a new term and younger scientists/students pick up on it, and miss lit that is older or lit that uses the original terminology. The fact that some discussion have moved to social networks such as twitter might have have accelerated this effect.

[joigus]

In the words of George Costanza (Season 3, episode 9, The Nose Job),

"You can't stop modern science. You can't stop it. You can't stop it. Can't stop science. Can't be stopped. No way, no how, science just marches..."

 

[geordief]

Does the law of diminishing returns apply to scientific progress?

If humans' needs are more or less met  will what is unknown in the physical world seem less important ?

Might     human civilisation "degenerate" into party time ?(especially if all the scientific acquisition are kept in the trust of AI guardians**whom few are inclined to doubt)

 

**one of their roles might be the propagation  of scientific infotainment.