4 ms·

I think your claims require a bit more backing than mere assertion. Certainly, some of the most important research (now described as "pure") was done with appli

I think your claims require a bit more backing than mere assertion. Certainly, some of the most important research (now described as "pure") was done with applications immediately in mind. For example, Newtonian physics always had the goal of calculating artillery trajectories. Nuclear physics had the goals of energy/weapons. Probability theory, operations research, and most of our modern computational infrastructure came directly from people trying to do applied work. Nonlinear wave equations, to discuss a niche example I know well, are primarily motivated by applications in photonics. I'm very well aware of the many anecdotes of very pure research turning out to be useful later. But there are also a huge number of anecdotes of pure research being directly motivated by providing theoretical justification for/analysis of applied work. So I don't see any compelling reason to believe your unsupported assertions.

ssivark 10y ago
Here are a couple of examples: 1. Quantum mechanics was never motivated with the thought of semiconductors (therefore computing technology). If you were motivated by building a computer, you would never have discovered quantum mechanics. 2. Probability theory was "invented" to understand/solve gambling problems. Nobody anticipated how widely it would be used. When paradigm shifts occur, it takes a long time for the effects to percolate, before we can even get a feel for the space of possible applications. However, if resources (including smart people's time) are not spent laying the foundations, one could never have taken aim at the applications! If one is always chasing applications, who spends time and money on the preliminary legwork? At any point, if resources are directed through some small set of people who decide and enforce the directions to be pursued, then the outcomes will be more representative of their biases than reality. Those few people effectively act as a bottleneck for human ingenuity.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  First of all, quantum mechanics was motivated by the thought of semiconductors. One of the primary use cases of it was explaining the photoelectric effect [1]. Secondly, other primary motivations for QM were explaining and predicting chemical reactions, radiation sources, and nuclear energy. Secondly, probability and statistics - as you note - were invented to understand/solve gambling problems. Virtually every early advance was then made by people attempting to use it. These include Gauss predicting the orbit of Ceres, Graunt and Halley (yes, he also spotted Halley's comet) doing insurance, Galton and Pearson studying evolution and developing eugenics, and Gosset using statistics to brew better beer. Probability and statistics are perhaps the worst possible example of pure research that - purely by chance - happens to be useful later. [1] Interestingly, the classical belief that the photoelectric effect proves the quantization of light is wrong. The Schrodinger equation + continuous electromagnetic fields actually exhibit the photoelectric effect.
  - ssivark 10y ago
    Claiming that quantum mechanics (QM) was motivated by semiconductors is bordering on discussing in bad faith. A glance at [1] will show that people were thinking about issues leading up to QM for several decades. Planck's equation relating energy to frequency of light (in several ways the first "quantum" idea that conceived what we today call Planck's constant) was motivated by understanding the "ultraviolet catastrophe" [2] (which was a purely "theoretical" endeavour as some would call it today). Planck's work preceeded Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect by several years. Even when the photoelectric effect was observed, it was first noticed in zinc (IIRC); it was only in the 1930s that QM was applied to understand the functioning of semiconductors. You are confusing all the things we use QM for today with all the reasons for which it was first conceived. Moany of those reasons of course spurred development in QM after it was conceived -- but none of those motivations would have conceived QM. With regards to your comment on the development of probability: There was always a reason/purpose something was conceived. So claiming that it was "motivated by applications" is tautological. The relevant question to ask is whether the applications today are different from the original motivations. If they are, then frankly, it doesn't matter what the original motivations were... the idea would have been difficult to conceive starting with the eventual application in mind. Eg: Without an understanding of probability, linear algebra and differential equations, there would have been no quantum mechanics. Somebody observing the photoelectric effect could not have developed those tools for their "application". I notice your other comment on the thread (OP) talks in analogy with physical training. IMHO, such an analogy is misguided for endeavours which cannot be reasonably well specified so as to be manageable (in that it can be managed, with the goal in mind). Basic research is often not amenable to that because it has tons of unknown unknowns [3]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      The photoelectric effect was first discovered in silver chloride solution. I don't know that much about the energy bands of silver chloride, so I won't comment about whether that was a semiconductor. (I also know very little about liquids, basically all the physics I did happened in semiconductors.) The first solid state demonstration was in selenium, which is a semiconductor. This is what I was thinking of when I said that the photoelectric effect was semiconductor physics. http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/manufacturing/first-photovoltaic-devices http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/manufacturing/first-photo... The relevant question to ask is whether the applications today are different from the original motivations. If they are, then frankly, it doesn't matter what the original motivations were... the idea would have been difficult to conceive starting with the eventual application in mind. You are defining "pure" in a far more expansive way than the article does. Your definition is actually so broad that it doesn't contradict the article at all. The article claims that science, with the goal of building cool military applications (or presumably life tables or brewing beer) will work better than curiosity driven applications. Then it claims the fruits of those labors will be useful elsewhere. Now you seem to be agreeing with this, or at least not disagreeing. Note that the article isn't saying "don't figure out fundamental physics". It's saying "go build a giant wall of ice to keep the mexicans out and a better understanding of pure thermodynamics will be one output of that project." Also note that I'm not arguing for the premise of the article, necessarily. I'm simply arguing that it can't be casually dismissed without even an argument. My analogy is meant to be suggestive, not to prove the point.
lutusp 10y ago
> For example, Newtonian physics always had the goal of calculating artillery trajectories. Excuse me? Principia Mathematica' real purpose is to compute artillery trajectories? Sorry, this claim is absurd and the burden of evidence just shifted to you. > Nuclear physics had the goals of energy/weapons. That's entirely false. What we now call nuclear physics originated in particle physics. Weapon research is a recent spinoff of this field, and is not a source of new insights into nature. When Leo Szilard realized that a chain reaction was possible, he wasn't trying to solve a practical problem, he was simply brainstorming a pure-research idea (and it is said, while waiting to cross a street). When Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn discovered nuclear fission, they were engaged in pure research, they were not trying to solve any specific problem. The Manhattan Project and all that followed from it were applied-research spinoffs of basic breakthroughs in pure research. > But there are also a huge number of anecdotes of pure research being directly motivated by providing theoretical justification for/analysis of applied work. Your claim is self-contradicting. If the goal of a research program is the solution of a practical problem, then it's not pure research. > So I don't see any compelling reason to believe your unsupported assertions. I don't have unsupported assertions, instead the history of science has copious examples in support of the idea that most of our insight into nature arises in pure research.

ssivark 10y ago

Here are a couple of examples: 1. Quantum mechanics was never motivated with the thought of semiconductors (therefore computing technology). If you were motivated by building a computer, you would never have discovered quantum mechanics. 2. Probability theory was "invented" to understand/solve gambling problems. Nobody anticipated how widely it would be used. When paradigm shifts occur, it takes a long time for the effects to percolate, before we can even get a feel for the space of possible applications. However, if resources (including smart people's time) are not spent laying the foundations, one could never have taken aim at the applications! If one is always chasing applications, who spends time and money on the preliminary legwork? At any point, if resources are directed through some small set of people who decide and enforce the directions to be pursued, then the outcomes will be more representative of their biases than reality. Those few people effectively act as a bottleneck for human ingenuity.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
First of all, quantum mechanics was motivated by the thought of semiconductors. One of the primary use cases of it was explaining the photoelectric effect [1]. Secondly, other primary motivations for QM were explaining and predicting chemical reactions, radiation sources, and nuclear energy. Secondly, probability and statistics - as you note - were invented to understand/solve gambling problems. Virtually every early advance was then made by people attempting to use it. These include Gauss predicting the orbit of Ceres, Graunt and Halley (yes, he also spotted Halley's comet) doing insurance, Galton and Pearson studying evolution and developing eugenics, and Gosset using statistics to brew better beer. Probability and statistics are perhaps the worst possible example of pure research that - purely by chance - happens to be useful later. [1] Interestingly, the classical belief that the photoelectric effect proves the quantization of light is wrong. The Schrodinger equation + continuous electromagnetic fields actually exhibit the photoelectric effect.
- ssivark 10y ago
  Claiming that quantum mechanics (QM) was motivated by semiconductors is bordering on discussing in bad faith. A glance at [1] will show that people were thinking about issues leading up to QM for several decades. Planck's equation relating energy to frequency of light (in several ways the first "quantum" idea that conceived what we today call Planck's constant) was motivated by understanding the "ultraviolet catastrophe" [2] (which was a purely "theoretical" endeavour as some would call it today). Planck's work preceeded Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect by several years. Even when the photoelectric effect was observed, it was first noticed in zinc (IIRC); it was only in the 1930s that QM was applied to understand the functioning of semiconductors. You are confusing all the things we use QM for today with all the reasons for which it was first conceived. Moany of those reasons of course spurred development in QM after it was conceived -- but none of those motivations would have conceived QM. With regards to your comment on the development of probability: There was always a reason/purpose something was conceived. So claiming that it was "motivated by applications" is tautological. The relevant question to ask is whether the applications today are different from the original motivations. If they are, then frankly, it doesn't matter what the original motivations were... the idea would have been difficult to conceive starting with the eventual application in mind. Eg: Without an understanding of probability, linear algebra and differential equations, there would have been no quantum mechanics. Somebody observing the photoelectric effect could not have developed those tools for their "application". I notice your other comment on the thread (OP) talks in analogy with physical training. IMHO, such an analogy is misguided for endeavours which cannot be reasonably well specified so as to be manageable (in that it can be managed, with the goal in mind). Basic research is often not amenable to that because it has tons of unknown unknowns [3]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    The photoelectric effect was first discovered in silver chloride solution. I don't know that much about the energy bands of silver chloride, so I won't comment about whether that was a semiconductor. (I also know very little about liquids, basically all the physics I did happened in semiconductors.) The first solid state demonstration was in selenium, which is a semiconductor. This is what I was thinking of when I said that the photoelectric effect was semiconductor physics. http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/manufacturing/first-photovoltaic-devices http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/manufacturing/first-photo... The relevant question to ask is whether the applications today are different from the original motivations. If they are, then frankly, it doesn't matter what the original motivations were... the idea would have been difficult to conceive starting with the eventual application in mind. You are defining "pure" in a far more expansive way than the article does. Your definition is actually so broad that it doesn't contradict the article at all. The article claims that science, with the goal of building cool military applications (or presumably life tables or brewing beer) will work better than curiosity driven applications. Then it claims the fruits of those labors will be useful elsewhere. Now you seem to be agreeing with this, or at least not disagreeing. Note that the article isn't saying "don't figure out fundamental physics". It's saying "go build a giant wall of ice to keep the mexicans out and a better understanding of pure thermodynamics will be one output of that project." Also note that I'm not arguing for the premise of the article, necessarily. I'm simply arguing that it can't be casually dismissed without even an argument. My analogy is meant to be suggestive, not to prove the point.

lutusp 10y ago

> For example, Newtonian physics always had the goal of calculating artillery trajectories. Excuse me? Principia Mathematica' real purpose is to compute artillery trajectories? Sorry, this claim is absurd and the burden of evidence just shifted to you. > Nuclear physics had the goals of energy/weapons. That's entirely false. What we now call nuclear physics originated in particle physics. Weapon research is a recent spinoff of this field, and is not a source of new insights into nature. When Leo Szilard realized that a chain reaction was possible, he wasn't trying to solve a practical problem, he was simply brainstorming a pure-research idea (and it is said, while waiting to cross a street). When Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn discovered nuclear fission, they were engaged in pure research, they were not trying to solve any specific problem. The Manhattan Project and all that followed from it were applied-research spinoffs of basic breakthroughs in pure research. > But there are also a huge number of anecdotes of pure research being directly motivated by providing theoretical justification for/analysis of applied work. Your claim is self-contradicting. If the goal of a research program is the solution of a practical problem, then it's not pure research. > So I don't see any compelling reason to believe your unsupported assertions. I don't have unsupported assertions, instead the history of science has copious examples in support of the idea that most of our insight into nature arises in pure research.