News1 min ago
Science And Metaphysics
I read from, 'Sämtliche Werke und Briefe in Vier Bänden', a biography of the Berlin German woman poet; Mascha Kaléko, that in 1952 she sent one of her poems to Albert Einstein, the opening line was; "Time stands still. It is us who are passing away".
Einstein replied: "I think your poem is very beautiful and rich in meaning. It touches upon a deep metaphysical problem that has become relevant through physics".
What do you think he meant by that?
Einstein replied: "I think your poem is very beautiful and rich in meaning. It touches upon a deep metaphysical problem that has become relevant through physics".
What do you think he meant by that?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well there you are, I was mistaken and my apologies -- I don't agree though that the research at CERN detracts from anything. Indeed, as has surely been established, the accidental or related discoveries along the way have been hugely important. Never mind the needed advances in computer power, to handle all the data, and superconductor technology, and goodness knows what else besides -- and of course the world wide web itself. No, CERN is no luxury. It's possibly one of the largest collaborations in the world, with a total of nearly 14,000 people from over 100 countries working together, and there is far more achieved there then just new understanding of the very small.
I agree science delivers spin-off treats for it's child technology. Some are good, most are both good and bad when delivered into human hands.
Perhaps the more philisophically adept among us can debate with you whether you can defend something by highlighting, not it's stated goals, but the percieved benefits arising from it's methodology. Pax colmc
Perhaps the more philisophically adept among us can debate with you whether you can defend something by highlighting, not it's stated goals, but the percieved benefits arising from it's methodology. Pax colmc
jim; //but if you are suggesting that scientists wait until the money is about to run out before inventing yet another stunning result, you have another think coming.//
That is exactly what I am saying; you may have learnt a lot about science jim, but you still have much to learn about human nature. I have spent a great deal time sitting on University Academic Board meetings, and know something of how obtaining funding works. Being on 'the edge of an outstanding result' is a standard ploy, and CERN, I believe. is no exception.
That is exactly what I am saying; you may have learnt a lot about science jim, but you still have much to learn about human nature. I have spent a great deal time sitting on University Academic Board meetings, and know something of how obtaining funding works. Being on 'the edge of an outstanding result' is a standard ploy, and CERN, I believe. is no exception.
@Khandro
09:54 Sat 04th Jan 2014
'Solipsism merits close examination because it is based upon three widely entertained philosophical presuppositions, which are themselves of fundamental and wide-ranging importance. These are: (a) What I know most certainly are the contents of my own mind – my thoughts, experiences, affective states, and so forth.; (b) There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between the mental and the physical. For example, there is no necessary link between the occurrence of certain conscious experiences or mental states and the “possession” and behavioral dispositions of a body of a particular kind; and (c) The experiences of a given person are necessarily private to that person.'
This entire paragraph is wrapped in quote marks. Whose work is it?
In (a), use of the word 'know' is intriguing. This author may be using this word merely as the lexical token for the act of memory retention.
You will recall that the atheist/theist debates often centre on splitting hairs over the difference between 'knowing' something because it has been experimentally proven to be so, the information later being passed on to you, during your education and the contrasting situation of thinking/believing/assuming/presuming/supposing something to be true because it 'feels right' and is, moreover something not amenable to scientific analysis.
I may be incorrect in my useage of the word but, personally, "metaphysics" is the catch-all term for all things which are "not amenable to scientific analysis".
-
I can barely make sense of the sentence in (b) other than it appears to say that a mind doesn't necessarily have to be connected to a body in order to have experiences. Whether this pertains to the sci-fi-esque brain-in-a-jar situation or something to do with transcendental whatnots, I cannot tell.
* * * *
Further explanation of what this is about would be much appreciated.
* * * *
As for (c), superficially, what you quoted would seem to be the case. However, in the absence of proof of a biological/biomechanical mechanism for broadcasting thoughts out of ones own head and into someone else's, we have to adopt the position that telepathy does not exist.
Those who believe in deities presumably expect that their God knows what they're thinking, at all times, through this thought-sharing medium. No?
It's taken me three days to catch up with this thread. I brought fresh supplies of popcorn. Anyone want some?
09:54 Sat 04th Jan 2014
'Solipsism merits close examination because it is based upon three widely entertained philosophical presuppositions, which are themselves of fundamental and wide-ranging importance. These are: (a) What I know most certainly are the contents of my own mind – my thoughts, experiences, affective states, and so forth.; (b) There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between the mental and the physical. For example, there is no necessary link between the occurrence of certain conscious experiences or mental states and the “possession” and behavioral dispositions of a body of a particular kind; and (c) The experiences of a given person are necessarily private to that person.'
This entire paragraph is wrapped in quote marks. Whose work is it?
In (a), use of the word 'know' is intriguing. This author may be using this word merely as the lexical token for the act of memory retention.
You will recall that the atheist/theist debates often centre on splitting hairs over the difference between 'knowing' something because it has been experimentally proven to be so, the information later being passed on to you, during your education and the contrasting situation of thinking/believing/assuming/presuming/supposing something to be true because it 'feels right' and is, moreover something not amenable to scientific analysis.
I may be incorrect in my useage of the word but, personally, "metaphysics" is the catch-all term for all things which are "not amenable to scientific analysis".
-
I can barely make sense of the sentence in (b) other than it appears to say that a mind doesn't necessarily have to be connected to a body in order to have experiences. Whether this pertains to the sci-fi-esque brain-in-a-jar situation or something to do with transcendental whatnots, I cannot tell.
* * * *
Further explanation of what this is about would be much appreciated.
* * * *
As for (c), superficially, what you quoted would seem to be the case. However, in the absence of proof of a biological/biomechanical mechanism for broadcasting thoughts out of ones own head and into someone else's, we have to adopt the position that telepathy does not exist.
Those who believe in deities presumably expect that their God knows what they're thinking, at all times, through this thought-sharing medium. No?
It's taken me three days to catch up with this thread. I brought fresh supplies of popcorn. Anyone want some?
I have two issues here. One, that Jim states that “you can't share a lot of Science to non-scientists, not that easily anyway,” – an arrogant statement that assumes ignorance – and two, that he claims scientists don’t ‘make things up’. I cite the conclusion - which he agrees with - on the findings of Andrew Wakefield. I agree with Khandro. He has much to learn about human nature – and about human beings.
Pass the popcorn.
Pass the popcorn.
Hypo; I lifted it from here. http://
Quoting it, does not necessarily mean that I understand it either. If I remember correctly, I was just leaving for a game of golf, and thought I would throw it in to keep everyone occupied in my absence :-)
I'm happy to return to it though.
Quoting it, does not necessarily mean that I understand it either. If I remember correctly, I was just leaving for a game of golf, and thought I would throw it in to keep everyone occupied in my absence :-)
I'm happy to return to it though.
Dear Khandro,
Re your post of 23.47 Sun 05/01/14,
Bang on, well done!
In appying for research grants there are key areas where the use of single words or phrases are guaranteed the money - if was to aid the research into "mere" asthma or searching for Higg's so-called "God-particle" then the God Particle won every time even tho' as jim has said one of its properties, "spin", turned out wrong! Who got it wrong, CERN or Higgs' maths?
But grant-giving bodies are also inluenced by publications. That's why I referred much earlier to corruption in the "peer review" process and evidenced with it by the reference to "man-made" change in climate. One group encouraged others to block publication of contrary views. Rhetorically speaking how many reputable journals have published scepticism about the real-world benefits that CERN etc., are offering or even the danger that such experiments hold?
It must be years since I asked whether modern cosmology or sub-atomic physics would deliver a better fridge of safer car but now add rheumatoid arthritis, ashthma, bone-recalcification to avoid articial joint replacement etc. I'll surprise many but hope I don't offend, but considering quality of life versus length of life I would even relegate cancer-research below the osteo/rheumatoid arthritis, heart-disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis etc and would stop state funding of infertiliy treatment which is sad but not an agonisising disease - in fact not a disease at all. Nope I suffer from none of these conditions yet but know many who do.
Sorry jim you're a great guy and dedicated scientist but research-spending has to be prioritised and it's all out of kilter.
By the time we understand, and can practically apply, either cosmology or subatomic particles then mankind will be dead. Understanding, per se, is valueless as an aim in itself.
SIQ.
Re your post of 23.47 Sun 05/01/14,
Bang on, well done!
In appying for research grants there are key areas where the use of single words or phrases are guaranteed the money - if was to aid the research into "mere" asthma or searching for Higg's so-called "God-particle" then the God Particle won every time even tho' as jim has said one of its properties, "spin", turned out wrong! Who got it wrong, CERN or Higgs' maths?
But grant-giving bodies are also inluenced by publications. That's why I referred much earlier to corruption in the "peer review" process and evidenced with it by the reference to "man-made" change in climate. One group encouraged others to block publication of contrary views. Rhetorically speaking how many reputable journals have published scepticism about the real-world benefits that CERN etc., are offering or even the danger that such experiments hold?
It must be years since I asked whether modern cosmology or sub-atomic physics would deliver a better fridge of safer car but now add rheumatoid arthritis, ashthma, bone-recalcification to avoid articial joint replacement etc. I'll surprise many but hope I don't offend, but considering quality of life versus length of life I would even relegate cancer-research below the osteo/rheumatoid arthritis, heart-disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis etc and would stop state funding of infertiliy treatment which is sad but not an agonisising disease - in fact not a disease at all. Nope I suffer from none of these conditions yet but know many who do.
Sorry jim you're a great guy and dedicated scientist but research-spending has to be prioritised and it's all out of kilter.
By the time we understand, and can practically apply, either cosmology or subatomic particles then mankind will be dead. Understanding, per se, is valueless as an aim in itself.
SIQ.
This question of whether fundamental research is applicable to technology (better fridge ya de ya) is a very old one and there are two answers to it.
The first (easy) one is that it's impossible to predict the applications of fundamental research - The laser is the classic example - it's almost so ubiquitous these days that it's incredible to think that it was once described as a solution looking for a problem.
There are dozens of similar examples
However I think that dodges the point
Answering such questions is part of the human experience - You might as well ask whether Art or Opera builds a better fridge
Being part of the search for knowledge in its purest form is part of our contribution to the betterment of humanity as a nation.
If we didn't do such things and soley concentrated on building better fridges - well what would be the point? We'd become a species solely focussed on it's own pleasure the biological equivilent of a teenager that spent its life sitting in its underware playing computer games.
The religious often ask what is the purpose, the meaning of life - I'd say to be a better generation than the one that went before. And that means knowing more - not just building better fridges
The first (easy) one is that it's impossible to predict the applications of fundamental research - The laser is the classic example - it's almost so ubiquitous these days that it's incredible to think that it was once described as a solution looking for a problem.
There are dozens of similar examples
However I think that dodges the point
Answering such questions is part of the human experience - You might as well ask whether Art or Opera builds a better fridge
Being part of the search for knowledge in its purest form is part of our contribution to the betterment of humanity as a nation.
If we didn't do such things and soley concentrated on building better fridges - well what would be the point? We'd become a species solely focussed on it's own pleasure the biological equivilent of a teenager that spent its life sitting in its underware playing computer games.
The religious often ask what is the purpose, the meaning of life - I'd say to be a better generation than the one that went before. And that means knowing more - not just building better fridges
Not many people know that even state of the art million dollar pieces of kit for 'smashing atoms' have uses after they are obsolete as research tools. The cyclotron on the university of Paris campus at Orsay is now used for treating certain types of tumours with proton beams, I know, I've been there. I can't imagine a cyclotron being built purely to treat tumours.
Ty jake-the-peg,
Good points well taken here but please note I have extended my old examples to health and the quality of life thereof.
Your example of the laser is good but nothing to do with
cosmology/sub-atomic physics.
As regards the unpredictabiliy of research: that's about probabilities and that's where the allocation of funding should lie. Our biochemical, pharmaceutical and indeed earthly physics knowledge is firmly grounded and is being built upon daily. I am simply proposing that a world-wide effort against disease, many times larger than ever before, is a better way forward relying on serendipity.
O.K. I'm sorry I mentioned "a better fridge" years ago if you're gonna haunt me with that but at least that will be achieved by earth-bound engineers and was only the simplest of challenges I could think of to put to cosmologists and sub-atomic particate physicists. So it's easy but not to the latter.
You will be aware that mankind has only a single antibiotic left which has yet to develop bacterial resistance. That antibiotic is highly restricted in use if allowed at all. It is stockpiled around the world in case of a massive pandemic.
And I haven't even metioned malaria.
Please don't get me wrong, I very much understand your post but do not want to get into a side-line debate.
With Great Respect,
SIQ.
Good points well taken here but please note I have extended my old examples to health and the quality of life thereof.
Your example of the laser is good but nothing to do with
cosmology/sub-atomic physics.
As regards the unpredictabiliy of research: that's about probabilities and that's where the allocation of funding should lie. Our biochemical, pharmaceutical and indeed earthly physics knowledge is firmly grounded and is being built upon daily. I am simply proposing that a world-wide effort against disease, many times larger than ever before, is a better way forward relying on serendipity.
O.K. I'm sorry I mentioned "a better fridge" years ago if you're gonna haunt me with that but at least that will be achieved by earth-bound engineers and was only the simplest of challenges I could think of to put to cosmologists and sub-atomic particate physicists. So it's easy but not to the latter.
You will be aware that mankind has only a single antibiotic left which has yet to develop bacterial resistance. That antibiotic is highly restricted in use if allowed at all. It is stockpiled around the world in case of a massive pandemic.
And I haven't even metioned malaria.
Please don't get me wrong, I very much understand your post but do not want to get into a side-line debate.
With Great Respect,
SIQ.
It is always going to be difficult to assess the social and cultural value of "blue skies research" until sometime after it has been done, applications developed etc. We should not discount or downplay its value to human development.
I would agree though that there are areas of medical research that would undoubtedly benefit from a greater spend. As SIQ highlights, antibiotic resistance is a serious concern,with little prospect of new antibiotic drugs in the pipeline at the moment.
That is not to discount the value of the existing classes of antibiotics, or their use in combination however, nor are all microbes resistant to all existing antibiotics - they still have some use! :)
I wish we could persuade the farming industry to use less; paring back their use would have a beneficial impact and markedly slow down the development of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.
I would agree though that there are areas of medical research that would undoubtedly benefit from a greater spend. As SIQ highlights, antibiotic resistance is a serious concern,with little prospect of new antibiotic drugs in the pipeline at the moment.
That is not to discount the value of the existing classes of antibiotics, or their use in combination however, nor are all microbes resistant to all existing antibiotics - they still have some use! :)
I wish we could persuade the farming industry to use less; paring back their use would have a beneficial impact and markedly slow down the development of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.
Naomi:
'One, that Jim states that “you can't share a lot of Science to non-scientists, not that easily anyway,” – an arrogant statement that assumes ignorance...'
Given that much of Scientific work is maths, that most people don't seem to know much of beyond the basics, I think it's a fair statement and not at all arrogant. Science is maths before it is words, and the words are sometimes not adequate to get the message across. I actually think it's part of my job to try, but it's not always possible. Not arrogance, just truth. How can you possibly explain concepts such as "gauge symmetry", which is pretty much the entire basis of modern particle physics, without graduate-level mathematics and beyond, to a non-mathematician? I'm not sure it's possible without a great deal of hand waving. And so it is with most scientific concepts whose origins properly lie in deep and complicated mathematics. It's not easy -- I'm not even sure it's possible. At some point, perhaps, you can see and read my own attempt at explaining some very difficult concepts surrounding the Higgs boson, but it's getting very long already and I'm not yet halfway through. Sometimes, though, the technical knowledge is vital for understanding something, and to say so is never arrogant -- nor, indeed, is it a criticism of ignorance for people who don't know.
As to your second point, I think I typed a bit too hastily. I suppose you could argue that "Andrew Wakefield wasn't a scientist", but at least at one point he had the qualifications, and then of course an opinion article in the Times today highlighted the danger of taking at face value the results of pharmaceutical companies, and others, who manipulate or ignore data that runs contrary to their conclusions. It's something I am aware of and hopefully I'll never be guilty of such a shocking thing myself, and I certainly shouldn't have pretended that Science is perfect. Reacted to colm's posts, that I suppose I think of a bit as criticism of myself (by proxy), too hastily.
* * * * * * * *
SIQ: '...Higg's so-called "God-particle" then the God Particle won every time even tho' as jim has said one of its properties, "spin", turned out wrong! Who got it wrong, CERN or Higgs' maths?'
Not entirely sure what you mean by this -- I've certainly never said that the property of spin has turned out wrong. It's just not been 100% nailed down yet, because of a lack of data or because the analysis is difficult. I did say that some of my work was going to look at the property of spin of what we've found, but that is a work in progress and the expectation is that it will lead to confirming that the particle detected has spin-zero.
And, again, the name "God particle" was never a scientist's term -- coming instead from a publisher who preferred it to "God-damn particle". The name has, sadly, stuck, as the media insist on using it.
As it happens I think that understanding the Universe is important as a goal in itself, and certainly far more important than opera or art or architecture. But that's a personal opinion, I wouldn't insist upon it, and as far as I can see there is no detraction from physics, or medicine, because some people would rather paint. Almost everything humans do has a tendency to enrich our lives in one way or another, and while more effort needs to be put into antibiotics or medicine I don't think that this effort need necessarily be at the expense of other disciplines that, in their own way, are just as fulfilling. And besides, most people are interested in one thing or the other and so their efforts are surely best placed by following where their interests go. You wouldn't find me of much help working in a chemical lab -- I'm just not interested in doing that sort of thing -- and I'm sure a number of practical medics wouldn't find it fun stuck in front of a computer coding up some boring physics problem.
'One, that Jim states that “you can't share a lot of Science to non-scientists, not that easily anyway,” – an arrogant statement that assumes ignorance...'
Given that much of Scientific work is maths, that most people don't seem to know much of beyond the basics, I think it's a fair statement and not at all arrogant. Science is maths before it is words, and the words are sometimes not adequate to get the message across. I actually think it's part of my job to try, but it's not always possible. Not arrogance, just truth. How can you possibly explain concepts such as "gauge symmetry", which is pretty much the entire basis of modern particle physics, without graduate-level mathematics and beyond, to a non-mathematician? I'm not sure it's possible without a great deal of hand waving. And so it is with most scientific concepts whose origins properly lie in deep and complicated mathematics. It's not easy -- I'm not even sure it's possible. At some point, perhaps, you can see and read my own attempt at explaining some very difficult concepts surrounding the Higgs boson, but it's getting very long already and I'm not yet halfway through. Sometimes, though, the technical knowledge is vital for understanding something, and to say so is never arrogant -- nor, indeed, is it a criticism of ignorance for people who don't know.
As to your second point, I think I typed a bit too hastily. I suppose you could argue that "Andrew Wakefield wasn't a scientist", but at least at one point he had the qualifications, and then of course an opinion article in the Times today highlighted the danger of taking at face value the results of pharmaceutical companies, and others, who manipulate or ignore data that runs contrary to their conclusions. It's something I am aware of and hopefully I'll never be guilty of such a shocking thing myself, and I certainly shouldn't have pretended that Science is perfect. Reacted to colm's posts, that I suppose I think of a bit as criticism of myself (by proxy), too hastily.
* * * * * * * *
SIQ: '...Higg's so-called "God-particle" then the God Particle won every time even tho' as jim has said one of its properties, "spin", turned out wrong! Who got it wrong, CERN or Higgs' maths?'
Not entirely sure what you mean by this -- I've certainly never said that the property of spin has turned out wrong. It's just not been 100% nailed down yet, because of a lack of data or because the analysis is difficult. I did say that some of my work was going to look at the property of spin of what we've found, but that is a work in progress and the expectation is that it will lead to confirming that the particle detected has spin-zero.
And, again, the name "God particle" was never a scientist's term -- coming instead from a publisher who preferred it to "God-damn particle". The name has, sadly, stuck, as the media insist on using it.
As it happens I think that understanding the Universe is important as a goal in itself, and certainly far more important than opera or art or architecture. But that's a personal opinion, I wouldn't insist upon it, and as far as I can see there is no detraction from physics, or medicine, because some people would rather paint. Almost everything humans do has a tendency to enrich our lives in one way or another, and while more effort needs to be put into antibiotics or medicine I don't think that this effort need necessarily be at the expense of other disciplines that, in their own way, are just as fulfilling. And besides, most people are interested in one thing or the other and so their efforts are surely best placed by following where their interests go. You wouldn't find me of much help working in a chemical lab -- I'm just not interested in doing that sort of thing -- and I'm sure a number of practical medics wouldn't find it fun stuck in front of a computer coding up some boring physics problem.
Jim, You have no idea of the extent of other people’s knowledge or ability, and your continual assumption that anyone who doesn’t hold the same specific qualification that you hold must necessarily be educationally completely lacking in the field is arrogant. Frankly, it gets on my pip. Truly great and respected scientists like Stephen Hawking seem to manage to interact with people and explain themselves without insulting their readers’/listeners'/companions' intelligence! I wonder if anyone ever told Sir Patrick Moore that since he lacked formal qualifications in the subject, astronomy must be far beyond his comprehension? You think you know it all – but you don’t. You have a lot to learn.
I think you're missing a lot of subtleties, frankly. Firstly, I don't assume that anyone is "educationally completely lacking" -- just that they are unlikely to have the technical knowledge necessary to follow the details. So, naturally, and like everyone else who has ever written about science, I withhold them. Have a look at Hawking's books, again. How much maths do they actually contain? The answer is almost none. And yet, how can you explain concepts so deeply embedded in maths without using the actual maths? For Stephen Hawking, the answer is pretty well, and yet at the same time it's clear on reflection that a lot is missing from his explanations -- that, in fact, he has hidden details on the assumption that most people just aren't interested or won't be able to follow them --, and that's only clear if you've gone and learned the detail yourself. Incidentally, Hawking inspired me to study physics in the first place and I hope that I can explain things half as well as he can. So far, according to most people I've met, I'm actually quite a good teacher -- though I'm sure I can be a better one.
In future, perhaps, I should just assume that everyone knows precisely as much about this as myself. On the other hand, this is surely a bad assumption to make: for, if it is false, then everyone will get lost in the technical language and often arcane equations, and presumably also will get bred very quickly; and, if true, then why bother explaining something people already know? Generally I try to make the assumption that people have at least some formal educational background up to A-Level in the specific subject under discussion -- I think that's the right way to pitch explanations here.
In future, perhaps, I should just assume that everyone knows precisely as much about this as myself. On the other hand, this is surely a bad assumption to make: for, if it is false, then everyone will get lost in the technical language and often arcane equations, and presumably also will get bred very quickly; and, if true, then why bother explaining something people already know? Generally I try to make the assumption that people have at least some formal educational background up to A-Level in the specific subject under discussion -- I think that's the right way to pitch explanations here.
Jim, // Generally I try to make the assumption that people have at least some formal educational background up to A-Level in the specific subject under discussion //
Well in that case dear old Patrick would be out of the running in any discussion here on astronomy, wouldn’t he! Assume nothing – it’s a big mistake. If people who don't understand what you're talking about want to know, they will ask you. This is a discussion site – not a lecture hall.
Well in that case dear old Patrick would be out of the running in any discussion here on astronomy, wouldn’t he! Assume nothing – it’s a big mistake. If people who don't understand what you're talking about want to know, they will ask you. This is a discussion site – not a lecture hall.
Dear LazyGun,
Quite right that our antibiotics are still valuable and not all bugs are resistant. I do not wish to make it too big an issue but the potency of our drugs have been widely reduced through over-use and patients not completing the full treatment period as you know.
Anyway I suppose a greater concern is our lack of anti-viral knowledge wherein antibiotics are only a secondary defence against bugs which thrive when the immune system has been virally reduced e.g. influenza turning to bacterial pneumonia.
However all the health issues I cited were mere examples of where our money should be spent and others could well cite a different or modified list but with far geater probability of benefit to mankind than the furthest extremes of physics. As we all know, only a tiny percent of potential research projects move from the drawing-board to practical use thus making funding needed so great.
Certainly it would be marvellous to support the whole research spectrum but the money just isn't there and the "blue-sky" window has to be narrowed.
SIQ.
Quite right that our antibiotics are still valuable and not all bugs are resistant. I do not wish to make it too big an issue but the potency of our drugs have been widely reduced through over-use and patients not completing the full treatment period as you know.
Anyway I suppose a greater concern is our lack of anti-viral knowledge wherein antibiotics are only a secondary defence against bugs which thrive when the immune system has been virally reduced e.g. influenza turning to bacterial pneumonia.
However all the health issues I cited were mere examples of where our money should be spent and others could well cite a different or modified list but with far geater probability of benefit to mankind than the furthest extremes of physics. As we all know, only a tiny percent of potential research projects move from the drawing-board to practical use thus making funding needed so great.
Certainly it would be marvellous to support the whole research spectrum but the money just isn't there and the "blue-sky" window has to be narrowed.
SIQ.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.