Accepting that we will understand everything eventually makes it sound like there's nothing of wonder and mystery in this universe, maybe understanding the universe could be that nothing is ever in a standstill and it's a constant revolution. Where in one galaxy it stands to reason to work in one way, while another it seems that it's not.

For that matter, how would one, even a species go about to understand the [i]universes[/i], pending that multiple universes do exist? I mean in out own universe, there could a life form that can only breathe grape jelly...

I think the scientific community really should be more rewarding for out there theories and ideas; those that challenge the status quo. We aren't going to be gaining new understanding if we just keep looking at out data and keep mentioning that "it's just not possible". I agree that revolutions only happen if we let them though.

 Reply

Provided a) it fits the available evidence, and b) it, in some way, explains more than the old theory did.

But what you're describing, the kind of condition that would make constant new understandings possible, is itself subject understanding, isn't it? I mean, according to the Calculus, change is itself a fixed and predictable phenomenon (even the change in change is identifiable and calculable).

Of course, presuming a universe that is fundamentally incomprehensible also presumes the ultimate futility of scientific revolutions.

 Reply

So your concept of the sun = electricity is dead in the water right there because of a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

As for "progress," you do realize that "making everything smaller" requires breakthroughs in manufacturing and general understanding of electricity and materials on the nanometer scale right? One could argue that the change from vacuum tube to semiconductor was simply "making things smaller" but the reality is that it was a massive breakthrough in our understanding of materials and electricity's interaction with them.

All of these things lead toward a better understanding of quantum mechanics, which shapes the very concept of how the universe exists and functions. This does not hinder our understanding of the universe, but rather, it allows us to look at it in a more abstract way than ever before and see things we couldn't even imagine just a few decades ago.

Scientific breakthroughs are realized in hindsight. Today, they occur much more frequently, and in slightly smaller jumps than they used to, so we no longer hear of them, but this is nothing more than a mistake in perception. Just because we know the fundamentals of how the universe works, does not mean that getting "the details" is any less important or any less of a breakthrough.

 Reply

Let's look at fusion as an example of what he means by limited thinking. If tomorrow, someone created a stable, maintainable fusion reaction, all we could use it for with our current technology is to generate heat which would convert water to steam to turn a turbine that would generate electricity. It might be safe and clean and unlimited, sure, but it would still only power ELECTRICAL devices. It would be an amazing discovery and bring us closer to the future we all dream of, but it wouldn't really be that impressive to the average person. We would still be plugging the same 3 conductive prongs in to the same outlet at the same voltage and amperage.

Since electricity is not the only form of energy in the universe, why do we use it to power everything? It's a fair and fascinating question. Of course, the answer is that we know how to transmit it, alter it, and harness it safely. But what else is there that we could manipulate similarly if we changed the way we think about energy and its practical application?

Since you are obviously quite knowledgeable, Cin, maybe next time someone asks a valid question, you could use your considerable intellect to actually answer and educate rather than castigate?

 Reply

As for your point, the answer is simply because we haven't figured out another efficient way yet. Don't forget, electricity is still a fairly new technology. Funny to think about, I know, but it's true. It's been less than 200 years that we've used electricity, and before that, everything was mechanically driven. Did that mean that people stopped looking for other methods of transferring energy? Of course not. Mechanical energy had problems that couldn't be resolved, just as electricity does (energy loss due to heat being one of them, as pointed out by kagekiri). We're still looking into wireless power transmission, optics, and other technologies. Just as learning to build the telegraph didn't stop us from finding new ways to communicate (eventually leading to the telephone, radio, television, fiberoptics and the internet that we speak on today), the amount of current knowledge will not stop us from progressing, and if anything, enable us to do so more effectively.

To be frank, the arguments put forth in this article strikes me as two scenarios:

1 - A researcher angry that he can't be a 'maverick' in his field, just because he has to be peer reviewed and have his results tested and challenged (as all modern theories are, no matter how special this guy's mom tells him he is).

2- The equivalent of someone graduating high school, and when asked "What college are you going to?" replies "Why do I need to go to college? I already know all the basics, the rest are just details." This is, of course, absurd. Knowing the basics does not mean there's nothing more of importance to learn, and the reality is that to assume that we know all of the basics of science, and are correct in what we have learned so far is, at best, folly, and at worst, hubris.

===

"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

-Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton (1855) by Sir David Brewster (Volume II. Ch. 27)

 Reply

(This has crashedpc's scientific contribution of the month)

 Reply