The Science and Inventions of Our Times - Do They Matter?

The integrated circuit (I.C.), 1959.

Good point. One could argue that the IC, rather than the PC was the significant invention.

True, absolutely none of the modern electronics you see all around you would be possible if we couldn't figure out how to integrate different circuit elements together on a microscopic scale.

Please concede that the work of Claude B Shannon is the most significant milestone in information technology ever.

Of course, his work built on that of George Boole.

And Boole's work built on that of Ogg, who first codified his ten toes as a system of mathematics.

excellent point,

And when you think of it, it comes down to where you probably can apply "Six Degrees of Separation" even to inventions to connect references or developments

p911

I concede it. He's the father of the theory.

Basically Bayesian Inference, as you correctly pointed out, has been around for centuries is some form and Information Theory as a field was born in 1948. However the realization that these tools may be helpful in Physics and might prove useful in describing fundamental science (outside of computer science) came much later.

It's like how Einstein used Differential Geometry to come up with General Relativity. Differential Geometry existed long before he used it, but we wouldn't suggest that Gauss invented General Relativity, even if Einstein credited him with the math behind General Relativity (which he did).

Everything was born of something else. Einstein was incredibly influenced by Ernst Mach. Bohr and his crew wouldn't have existed without Rutherford.

When was the last time you heard a non-scientist talk about Laplace or Pascal?

What happens when we get old is we remember the stuff we were there for, so we see the natural evolution of ideas. Those ideas that arrived when we are young appear to come from thin air because we weren't there for the historical development of those theories. Those that come when we are old simply appear to be extensions of the past. Also at times go by, the significance of advancements become clearer.

Your protests regarding invention are not wrong because you feel that modern innovations are derivations of previously know theories. You're protests are wrong because you don't realize that those "previously known theories" were just as derived from earlier theories as today's are from them. Thus the misconception arises that somehow the theories of yesteryear were in some way more original then the ones of today.

Most of these are not inventions, but modifications (well on 50 years I am just past the present gen) still,

1. Internet- no comment since it is related to the other invention, that is modified computer.

2. Laser - Invented (as Maser) in 1949 -1953.

3. Chaos Theory - 1880s

4. Standard Model (particle Physics) - Related to the particles, else this is going on till middle ages (the fundamental building block concepts are from atom - electron/proton/neutron... onwards). The new thing is with modified and more accurate measurements, smaller fundamental particles are being found.

5. LED- 1907

6. Peronal Computer- marriage of Computer(Babbage 1822), Valves (mark-1- 1944) and IC (1952) and miniaturisation.

7. Artificial heart -1949 tried on Dog as Heart lung machine, - attempts, feasibility and research from 1885 onwards. Rest is miniaturisation.

8. HT Super computers- trial since the discovery- Early 1900s, then only trial and error to increase temperature, in 1920 or so, the taboo of 4 deg K broken.

9. MRI (modification of NMR 1937, from the tesla original 1882)

10. Bayesian Inference (Bayes 1700s)+ Information Theory (Shannon-1948 but actual ground work Nyquist et all 1920s and earlier)

Without trying to belittle, where is the original invention?

Seeds were much older, only the facilities were not there then. And then it does take time in trial and errors to find the one better/precise/smaller - that is not invention.

In TRIZ we call it as innovation, not invention.

Informative. If we want to pick such nits, we can trace everything back to early humans using a stone to chip off flint scrapers / knives.

But your point is made. Everything is connected to something before it, which is in turn connected to something before it.

Why do I suddenly feel like James Burke is going to step around the corner?

The point is -

The Transitor effect was original discovery as are LED, Tesla Effect, Photoelectric Effect etc.

Recent originals as I can see are there - in bio-tech field - they do exist (splitting, recombining DNAs) ...

I remember the post referred to, there may be it was my comment, not sure, but made one of this effect.

The basic thing that I stressed - and still do- is that the pure science research is almost non-existant- the researches are in applied sciences- honing up, modifying,... but where is some thing new?

The DNA, double helix and the basic sequencing (G,C,A,T), discovery of DNA and RNAs are all original.

Detailed sequencing of Virus, Pigs, Monkeys,... are not.

Again the same question repeats- where is a new discovery in last 50 Years? How many? (refinements, accuracies, finding a new star 10,000 Light years away, finding the planets orbitting a star, the three methods of finding them,... are all old discoveries, like alcohol, put into alternate use.)

There are too many things that you can not trace back to even 200 Years, forget about medieval ages. Simple example are the list of OP, the only problem is the working concept in lab was put a bit earlier than 50 Years. Most of them just before me , so I can not take credit.

Again the point, that I raised there too is that the commercialisation of pure science. Note that all the above inventions, when they were made were only on lab scale, with the inventor not even had an inkling of the empires that they were going to build.

But today, if it can not be commercialised in grand scale within a few years of lab proof, the scientist loses job/grant.

Even the premier colleges I studied in, are now all doing industry sponsored research (if you call refinement/ developement as research- well they are re + search - the concept was already searched, found and proven ) and the number of these shows the merit of the professor.

This is a sad state of affair, and has a massive bearing on the progress of the race. You can not keep on feeding on the previous generations. We have learnt long back that any invention has a limit of refinement (and that's why the efficiency of say bulb is reaching limit with LED, where is another new transducer- electricity to light ? where is the research? all the institutions are trying to have higher power density LEDs and better efficiency, who is going out of LED?)

Rotating magnetic field - electricity - total civilisation is based on it. Other sources- solar (old), Piezo? (mid 18th), hall Effect? (late 19th century) ...

What is new?

Am I pessimistic?

Am I pessimistic?

You're uninformed. Your answers regarding the Standard Model and Chaos Theory showed that. You're not interested in the truth, otherwise you would have admitted you knew nothing about those subjects and moved on, rather than skimming wikipedia articles for dates without actually knowing the history. You just want to believe nothing important has happened recently. I think you should stick to that belief.

And if no one else responds against your statement, I propose that we make that the CR4 position:

"No new inventions or science has occurred in the last 50 years, only innovations" - CR4

3. Chaos Theory - 1880s

Ok substitute Chaos with String, now what do you have. believe the first suggested possibilities were in the 70's

6. Peronal Computer-

Electronic PC, not only miniaturisation but speed

Without trying to belittle, where is the original invention?

As far as original inventions from the previous generations you answered it yourself with this.

Seeds were much older, only the facilities were not there then. And then it does take time in trial and errors to find the one better/precise/smaller - that is not invention.

If your going to excluded derivatives from ideas are not inventions such as nuclear science, then there is no such thing as inventions.....Take the weed eater, that is no original invention, the inventor got the idea from a car wash. And it goes on.

Its getting to be just semantics.

p911

Just because computers existed prior to the Internet, I'd see it as an "invention".

It certainly was an inventive way to use computers.

A bank is nothing new, for instance, but ATMs are.

Electric motors are not new, but instantly reversible servo motors were.

Little fuzz on the dateline from now to the recent past, and the Laser is in there close enough by my book.

Certainly these things matter for any tool in the toolbox may mean the difference between life and death, or prosperity or poverty at the least, for mankind, the toolmaker.

I do not know how to date Digital Camera Technology, but regard it as very important as it is replacing imaging technologies of great maturity.

(First one I saw work was at Nikon Headquarters in about 1990 or '91 while working on an industrial film about it.)

In the trades inventions such as pneumatic nailguns and my all time favorite, the battery powered screwgun have mattered to me in prosaic pursuits in the quest for paying work.

Possibly there is some way of defining inventions in a way similar to the distinction among musicians, as either interpretive artists, or creative artists.

Really nothing is new since what we do is attempt to recreate ourselves mechanically, or control and understand what we find the world be be made of, and doing.

And hey, how about that Cell phone!

Transcendian:

A bank is nothing new, for instance, but ATMs are.

No, ATM's used to be called loan sharks.

Possibly there is some way of defining inventions in a way similar to the distinction among musicians, as either interpretive artists, or creative artists.

Even Les Paul's inventions can be traced to something, such as multi-track recording systems, He's had an imaginative mind.

And hey, how about that Cell phone!

Nope, Star TREK had them....but they were called communicators.

p911

Guests are the best. I've decided to grade your response. Maximum score possible, 100.

1. The Internet is a modified computer? I'm not sure you understand what the internet is. 0 points

2. So you are suggesting that the Maser was invented and the laser was an outgrowth? Not that the Maser was a research step towards the Laser? Lasers are used everywhere, Masers anywhere? What are you talking about? 5 points for logic, even if it was flawed.

3. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about (try reading the whole wikipedia article). 0 points

4. Wow, just wow. -10 points for being terribly un/misinformed

5. So you are saying the LED was invented when electro-luminescence was discovered. -5 points

However it does turn out that it was invented in 1927. 10 points

Net points = 5 points

6. Sigh, I'll give you 10 points, it was a miniaturization. Though it required a ton of inventions for it to happen.

7. I guess that means transporters, photon torpedoes, cell phones, and warp drive were invented in 1966 by Gene Roddenberry. 0 points

8. So then I guess Steel and Concrete weren't inventions either? -5 points for nonsense

9. So then I guess the X-ray machine wasn't and invention either? -5 points for nonsense

10. 10 points. Yes, Bayesian Inference was invented a long time ago. Of course, it didn't become mainstream until recently.

You Wrote: "Without trying to belittle.."

Don't worry, you are incapable of belittling anyone. By the way, you got a 10/100 = 10%. Good Job. Here's a smiley face.

You Wrote: "ind the one better/precise/smaller - that is not invention"

I suppose if you follow your flawed, biased logic to its inevitably insane conclusion, then yes, you are right, nothing has been invented or discovered after 1959....that you understand.

I would make the opposite argument. The thing we call "The Internet" is actually a conglomeration of 1000's of inventions. Similarly the laser invented back in the 50's was useless, only the application of many many more inventions made them ubiquitous in the present day.

I think the reason that some people have trouble naming a significant invention is that there are so many - you can't see the tree because the forest is in the way. But if you look at the larger picture - how do we communicate today compared to 1960? - how do we (as engineers) work today as compared to 1960? - how do we understand disease today compared to then? the universe? - the true depth and breadth of our inventions becomes apparent.

Part of my thesis is that a system is as much an invention, as the thing itself.

I think you will allow my point.

The laser beam was in fact a new invention enabling CD players, which were a new invention, even though record players existed.

They were making holograms right quick after the invention of the laser, so I don't see it as useless at all.

(In 1970 I saw my first Hologram in a Lab in Bloomfield Hills Michigan.)

Sure enough there is a difference between trees in the forest, or a house made of them.

Without the axle, the wheel is just something to watch.

The holograms you saw were probably generated using a gas laser (argon, for instance) not the original ruby laser - at least that's what we used when I was in grad school - since you want a continuous beam for holograms and the original laser only made short pulses of light. And the laser in your CD player is actually a semiconductor laser, different from both the ruby and gas type.

The laser beam was in fact NOT a new invention enabling CD players, but it did lead to the invention of the semiconductor laser, which - along with many other inventions in materials, data encription and optical sensing - did allow for the invention of the CD player.

Green thing it was with whorls. Cut in half it was the same image, only of less intensity. Supposedly this was like braincells that divide and get old, but still have the info.

What is the wheel and what is the axle here?

yes - in order to make a hologram the image is assumed to be periodic (because you use a Fourier transform) so you can take a part of it and still retrieve the info. I had forgotten about that. Many years ago.

The laser is the wheel. The optical sensor is the spokes. The axle is digital signal processing. Thin film plastics is the cart. Your CD player is what is riding in the cart.

so then the CD player is the invention.

well, really the CD.

Don't forget metamaterials.

First theoretical description 1967 Victor Veselago.

I expect the present research will form the basis for new versions of old technologies (eg vastly more powerful "lenses". Is the lense new?) and new stuff unheard of to boot. By the end of the 21st century, we will have a completely new technology scene to take for granted. A very significant advancement/invention.

Good point. I almost mentioned Photonic Crystals, as I think eventually they will be used in a lot of applications.

what about Flubber?

Well, if the "If someone thinks of it it's invented" axiom of response number 2 applies, I'd say that was the greatest invention Robin Williams had since he invented Matt Damon.

I hope Fred Macmurray's not listening.

My god you're right! I had completely forgotten that that movie was a remake. I

Fred Macmurray, if you're listening from Hollywood Heaven, I'm sorry about that oversight.

CCD, STM etc, may be a few that you can count on the fingers of a single hand - for last fifty years.

IMHO, don't think that is really fair, to view things that was invented over fifty years ago, and compared them with things invented in the last 50 years, basicly current.

I believe we are on a verge of alot of development of original inventions that will be noticed Fifty years from now.

p911

FloMax! (dadburned whippersnappers, grumble, curse, ...)

I did like that Aristotle thing where it was said you couldn't get to a conclusion in a debate unless the words had one meaning for those participating in the debate.

I looked up "Invention", in this Oxford we have. The least fuzzy part of the definition is "one for which a patent is granted." - a thing invented" isn't that fuzzy...

- It can also be a conception.

What the hell, it's like porno: I know it when I see it!,,one.

Typically I myself make some distinctions between discoveries and inventions.

Was the Mule, discovered, or invented?

Roger's list was not limited by him, and we were asked what other things we might add to it.

Some of these things I know about, and others I don't.

I wanted to add battery powered screwguns, and digital cameras, and surly regard the internet as something like a mule.

I really like String Theory.

IC circuits make a lot of sense too for the list.

Somewhere we did come up with a list of important books to use to recreate civilization with, and instructions for building the important inventions are nice to have around.

How Things Work, is a great book, though I don't know if I could really rebuild too quick from it. It's short on parts lists and other details.

I one time postulated that the Modern Man ought to know in his head how to make electricity as it sure is important to Modern Civilization.

As far as what inventions will be around from now on, come from right recent history, my additions of screw guns or broadly, batterpowered tools, and digital cameras, and Iron Man exoskeletons, as common as forklifts are my contributions to the list.

How about the greatest anti-scientific invention? I vote for the Human Caused Global Warming hoax. Or should that be a different thread?

Try it as another thread, and see how it goes.

By the way, what's the point?

Isn't being pointless a point in itself.