|
I am not as impressed as most about the "discovery" of the Higgs boson.
Mostly because I know enough about physics to know that I don't understand it, and I know enough about the mainstream media to know they are a piss poor filter as to what is or is not true or relevant in the scientific community.
And even those in the know say that astrophysics has slid into the realm of speculation and irrelevance, relying on inference and generous assumption and questionable measurements of celestial bodies millions of light-years away. One of the most facile yet overlooked assumptions made by modern astrophysics is that the laws of physics are constant everywhere in the universe, which is a pretty damn generous assumption considering how little we actually know about any of it outside our own atmosphere.
Doing a bit of reading (on Wikipedia lol), what is really striking is that most of the core theory about astrophysics was done back in the 1920s. Astrophysics, like nuclear science, particle/field studies, biofuels, cybernetics, and advanced aviation, seems to be one of those tech trees that simply hasn't gotten any serious attention over the last 60 years, while major strides have been made in fields such as electronics, computing, materials engineering and power supplies. I think what this research really represents (or is an effort by some frustrated scientists to prove) is that there are enormous gains to be had by giving physics research as much attention as bio-engineering.
One very interesting concept, which, perhaps by design, is getting almost no attention, is the possibility of using this research to eventually create artificial miniature black holes and using them to drive turbines (yes, like the Romulans on Star Trek). This would mean that people could carry around snowglobe-sized generators that consume no fuel and produce no radiation or hazardous emissions yet generate more electricity than the Hoover Dam.
It is theoretically possible, but such incredible technology is, by all estimates, very far off. Probably centuries if ever. And seriously pursuing such research would require major advances in superconductors and power supplies (chicken and egg). Such research might also require space colonization, to provide easy access to a vacuum and near-zero gravity to facilitate such work, or to situate the research lab on the far side of an asteroid further from the sun than Earth to avoid contamination from solar radiation.
The upside is, investment in colonization of the asteroid belt to conduct advanced physics research, would provide an IP for a way better FPS than Call of Duty.
Then again, consider how far technology has come since 1912. When wars were still fought with sabers and on horseback, and people still thought that phonographs were a marvel. Under the right conditions, people can make remarkable progress in a very short time. I believe the key is good primary scientific education (to spawn as many potential geniuses and necessary support personnel as possible), accessible institutional advancement in those fields, and providing talented scientists with tenure so they can spend their lives making steady progress, uninterrupted by mundane concerns. This way of life is perceived as arrogant but it has been responsible for most of the progress made in the last hundred years: most of the big work from 1950-1990 was done by the same small handful of very intelligent tenured scientists. Point being, it's not impossible for us to see incredible progress made within our own lifetimes.
I have come to believe that consumerism, the emphasis on extreme short-term gains by the corps (and a corollary unwillingness to pay taxes for long-term investment) as well as their stifling of both liberal and technical education (seeing the former as a political threat and the latter as an economic threat), as well as the militarization of most advanced research, are the three main reasons these fascinating areas of development have received no attention. It is also worth noting that high taxes and public investment in physics research and related support industries (such as construction and refining) would help bring the economy closer to full employment, ensuring social stability.
I think the best parallel is how the end of feudalism led to the first major advances in science in over a thousand years. Or how the ancient Greeks invented the laser and steam engine but never bothered to capitalize on their discoveries. So I think that any such developments will have to wait for our civilization to finally peter out, the upcoming dark age to end, and for some future civilization to pick up where we left off. Or maybe we can be wildly optimistic: perhaps civilization as we know it can overcome its problems, develop new value systems, and begin moving forward again.
idk. anyone have any opinions?
This is a rant I know, but the implications are pretty big. What I wrote is abstract and far reaching, but it is, as I say, a statement of fact. These really are the stakes for our generation. Worth thinking about.
Aestu of Bleeding Hollow... Nihilism is a copout.
|
