5 ms·

Einstein did not have GPS in mind when he was developing his theories of relativity.

fooker 2y ago
Survivorship bias. There is a lot more science that has not panned out. I'm not saying quantum computing won't pan out, but if it has to there's some fundamental piece that is missing so far. In contrast this effort is trying to imagine and monetize GPS before relativity is discovered.
- leononame 2y ago
  That's not the point. The point is that a lot of discoveries and inventions wouldn't have happened if it weren't for researching just for curiosity's sake. Research results will often be useless for product development or capitalism in general. However, focusing research on achieving specific goals only might actually take you further away from your goals. You can't focus on something you don't know exists, you have to discover it first. Maybe, when we have quantum computers, one nerd makes an accidental discovery that enables us to build a room temperature superconductor, and maybe not. But if we don't let people research freely what they're interested in and only things that will pan out, we're going to lose out on a lot of things.
  - fooker 2y ago
    I agree. I didn't say quantum computing research is useless. My point is that we are not at stage that we can offer a small prize and find monetizable uses for it. Fundamental research requires a lot more funding than this.
    - vtomole 2y ago
      > In contrast this effort is trying to imagine and monetize GPS before relativity is discovered. The theory of relativity was discovered decades before GPS. Similarly, the theory of quantum computing was discovered in the 1990s. I agree with the sentiment: trying to find applications for a technology (Large fault tolerant quantum computer) that doesn't exist yet. I just think relativity is the wrong comparison. I do not think that this effort if not worth it due to not having fault tolerant quantum computers. Theory alone can take one very far.
Sesse__ 2y ago
The theory of relativity does not in any way enable GPS. GPS is subject to (some) relativistic effects, but that is merely a source of bias, which could be corrected for with just an experience-based correction factor even if we did not understand relativity. If relativity did not exist as a physical concept, GPS would be easier, not harder or impossible. (I guess this misconception comes from xkcd in some form?) A perhaps more relevant example: Einstein did not have the cell phone camera in mind when developing his theory of the photoelectric effect.
- karmakaze 2y ago
  How could he? there were no cell phones.
  - jlev1 2y ago
    Yes, that was the point of the parent comment.
    - karmakaze 2y ago
      Thanks for reaffirming Poe's law. I was amused by how 'cell phone' was taken as a given, when talking about a CCD sensor.
      - adrian_b 2y ago
        I believe that most, if not all, cell phone cameras have cheaper CMOS sensors, not CCD sensors (which have a lower image noise, but they need a more expensive manufacturing process, less compatible with modern digital logic and more similar to the manufacturing processes used for DRAM). AFAIK the CCD technology continues to be used only in large-area expensive sensors inside some professional video cameras, in applications like astronomy, microscopy, medical imaging and so on.
        karmakaze 2y ago
        Quite true even full-frame DSLRs typically use CMOS sensors for some time now. CCD was the first thing that came to mind as 'charge' is right in the name. Out of curiosity, looked up invention dates for CCD 1969 and CMOS 1963 and CMOS sensor 1993 (quite a gap). I was playing with DRAM light sensitivity in the lab in the late 80's. I'm guessing CMOS had too much noise to be useful for a long while or something.

Survivorship bias. There is a lot more science that has not panned out. I'm not saying quantum computing won't pan out, but if it has to there's some fundamental piece that is missing so far. In contrast this effort is trying to imagine and monetize GPS before relativity is discovered.

leononame 2y ago
That's not the point. The point is that a lot of discoveries and inventions wouldn't have happened if it weren't for researching just for curiosity's sake. Research results will often be useless for product development or capitalism in general. However, focusing research on achieving specific goals only might actually take you further away from your goals. You can't focus on something you don't know exists, you have to discover it first. Maybe, when we have quantum computers, one nerd makes an accidental discovery that enables us to build a room temperature superconductor, and maybe not. But if we don't let people research freely what they're interested in and only things that will pan out, we're going to lose out on a lot of things.
- fooker 2y ago
  I agree. I didn't say quantum computing research is useless. My point is that we are not at stage that we can offer a small prize and find monetizable uses for it. Fundamental research requires a lot more funding than this.
  - vtomole 2y ago
    > In contrast this effort is trying to imagine and monetize GPS before relativity is discovered. The theory of relativity was discovered decades before GPS. Similarly, the theory of quantum computing was discovered in the 1990s. I agree with the sentiment: trying to find applications for a technology (Large fault tolerant quantum computer) that doesn't exist yet. I just think relativity is the wrong comparison. I do not think that this effort if not worth it due to not having fault tolerant quantum computers. Theory alone can take one very far.

Sesse__ 2y ago

The theory of relativity does not in any way enable GPS. GPS is subject to (some) relativistic effects, but that is merely a source of bias, which could be corrected for with just an experience-based correction factor even if we did not understand relativity. If relativity did not exist as a physical concept, GPS would be easier, not harder or impossible. (I guess this misconception comes from xkcd in some form?) A perhaps more relevant example: Einstein did not have the cell phone camera in mind when developing his theory of the photoelectric effect.

karmakaze 2y ago
How could he? there were no cell phones.
- jlev1 2y ago
  Yes, that was the point of the parent comment.
  - karmakaze 2y ago
    Thanks for reaffirming Poe's law. I was amused by how 'cell phone' was taken as a given, when talking about a CCD sensor.
    - adrian_b 2y ago
      I believe that most, if not all, cell phone cameras have cheaper CMOS sensors, not CCD sensors (which have a lower image noise, but they need a more expensive manufacturing process, less compatible with modern digital logic and more similar to the manufacturing processes used for DRAM). AFAIK the CCD technology continues to be used only in large-area expensive sensors inside some professional video cameras, in applications like astronomy, microscopy, medical imaging and so on.
      - karmakaze 2y ago
        Quite true even full-frame DSLRs typically use CMOS sensors for some time now. CCD was the first thing that came to mind as 'charge' is right in the name. Out of curiosity, looked up invention dates for CCD 1969 and CMOS 1963 and CMOS sensor 1993 (quite a gap). I was playing with DRAM light sensitivity in the lab in the late 80's. I'm guessing CMOS had too much noise to be useful for a long while or something.