On Sep 9, 8:46 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 9, 7:30 pm, George Herold <gher...@teachspin.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 9, 4:39 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 9, 2:37 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > PD wrote: > > > > > On Sep 8, 7:19 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> PD wrote: > > > > >>> There is often a lag of five to ten decades before fundamental > > > > >>> research surfaces in practical applications. > > > > >>> This was true in Newton's day, in Lavoisiere's day, in Kelvin's day. > > > > >>> PD > > > > >> Sure, we all have our failures. But the record of particle physics--as > > > > >> particle physics, not Beef Byproducts like the WWW--is zero useful > > > > >> results, over 60 years. > > > > > > As I believe I just said, it is not unusual at all for five to ten > > > > > decades to pass before useful applications arise from fundamental > > > > > research. > > > > > If you find that an abomination, that's fine -- lobby your congressman > > > > > to stop funding fundamental research. > > > > > As for myself, I consider it an unwise display of impatience. > > > > > You pulled those numbers out of thin air. > > > > > Do you have a recent example of something that sat around for a century > > > > unused and then made a big splash? I can't think of one. Note that we > > > > aren't talking about Leonardo's helicopter, here--he didn't know how to > > > > make one fly. We're talking about Faraday's dynamoelectric effect, or > > > > the transistor, or....? > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Phil Hobbs > > > > Sure. > > > > Newtonian gravity -- proposed 1687. First practical application, if > > > you want to call it that: discovery of Neptune 1846 (16 decades). > > > First big splash: planned trajectories of launched satellites 1950s > > > (26 decades). > > > > Mendelian genetics -- proposed 1866. Ignored until 1918 (5 decades). > > > First big splash: industrial agricultural breeding for harvest crops > > > 1950's (7 decades). > > > > Boyle's law -- proposed 1662. First practical application: Savery > > > engine 1712 (5 decades). First big splash: Watt engine 1775 (11 > > > decades). > > > > Coulomb's law of charge redistribution in conductors - 1785. First > > > application: Faraday cage 1836 (5 decades). First big splash: > > > Electrodynamic revolution 1890's (11 decades).- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > PD, Are any of these from the last century... discounting gravity > > which made a big spalsh before 1950. > > Well, I think that's the point. > Quantum mechanics, originated in the 1930's, has started to make > significant splash some 50 years later. > But weak interaction physics, originated in the 1940's, hasn't really > started to make a splash yet, but could very well in the next two > decades. Controlled fusion power is the most likely candidate. > Strong interaction physics, originated in the 1960's, probably won't > make a splash for another three decades. > Gravitational physics, originated in 1915 and then ignored for three > decades, probably won't make a splash for another four decades or so. > > > I think the trend of the last 25 years is to exploit any discovery as > > quickly as possible... before the other guy does it. > > That's not so for fundamental research. > > > In the past > > there just wasn't the competition of today. You could what till the > > end of your career and then publish some of thie things you did. > > Today if there's an aplication or advance it's used right away. The > > people at the LHC are not stupid. If they had found some new "thing" > > that could make them some money... or get them tenure > > Tenure doesn't buy you anything except for continued servitude. > > > > > you cna bet it > > wouldn't just sit there for 50 years. > > George- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
PD, > But weak interaction physics, originated in the 1940's, hasn't really > started to make a splash yet, but could very well in the next two > decades. Controlled fusion power is the most likely candidate.
Wow, are you really expecting some electro-weak application. OK I guess you are taking the long view! Since I expect nothing from this in my lifetime (another 30 years if I'm lucky), or even my kids lifetime.
But I do have an example for your view. How about General Relativity. Without which we would not be able to synchronize all our clocks in orbit.