Site Menu

null.gif Home
null.gif Members
null.gif News
null.gif Downloads
null.gif Content
null.gif Site
null.gif Drugs
null.gif Physics
null.gif Nature
null.gif Poetry
null.gif Chess

Site Info

Last SeenLast Seen
Server TrafficServer Traffic
  • Total: 9,751,480
  • Today: 217
Server InfoServer Info
  • Oct 03, 2022
  • 10:16 am EDT
 

Resources



Passwords

PC Tools Password Generator
Boutrager CGI Passwords
.htaccess Password Generator

Favicons

Favicon maker- Create a favicon from any image

CSS Scrollbars

CSS Scrollbar

SEO

SEO: Search Engine Optimization
SEO: Search Engine Optimization

Powered by RavenNuke™

Powered by RavenNuke(tm)

Evaders Squadron Coding

Evaders Squadron Coding

Clan Templates

Php Nuke Clan Themes

DaDaNuke

dadanuke.org: addons, themes, fixes, mods and support for PhPNuke/RavenNuke™ CMS

Papa Mike Creations

Papa Mike Creations

Honeypot

Stop Spam Harvesters, Join Project Honey Pot

VB Script

VisualBasicScript.com

PhP Resources

The PHP Resource Index

PhP Junkyard

Free PHP scripts for download

Coffeecup

CoffeeCup - HTML Editor- Flash - Web Design Software

Memory

Crucial Memory

NMAP

NMAP Security Scanner

Pirate Bay
The Pirate Bay

AX4
Tricks • Secrets • Bugs • Fixes

Tizag
Tizag Web Tutorials

Reporter's Desktop
Reporter's Desktop

NukeSentinel™

This is the list of NukeSentinel(tm) banned IP addresses.

  • 196.244.192.*
  • 20.171.102.*
  • 91.207.114.*
  • 185.190.24.*
  • 20.125.130.*
  • 85.90.247.*
  • 20.25.143.*
  • 89.45.90.*
  • 91.90.122.*
  • 194.113.35.*
  • 136.144.17.*
  • 193.233.209.*
  • 159.203.84.*
  • 212.58.200.*
  • 45.132.225.*
  • 69.167.42.*
  • 51.141.165.*
  • 45.143.164.*
  • 64.225.0.*
  • 98.159.98.*

Trophy

Thank you, Navy SEALs

NukeSentinel™

You have been warned!
We have caught 2669 shameful hackers.

Are we witnessing the end of science?

Almost all the great revolutions in scientific thinking may be behind us, but the way modern science is conducted stifles radical new ideas

space science

Physicists only really understand 4% of the universe's constituents – the rest is mysterious dark energy and dark matter (represented here in purple flanking the Bullet colliding galaxy clusters). Photograph: AP

Wired magazine is well known for its catchy cover lines. I won't forget one from 2007. Alongside a mocked-up image of a yellowing lab notebook and magnifying lens, it proclaimed: "The end of science: The quest for science used to begin with grand theories; now it begins with massive amounts of data."

Scientists and science commentators often say that if yesterday's science needed outstanding individuals such as Darwin and Einstein, tomorrow's theories will be shaped by the vast quantities of data pouring forth from networked computers and from the labours of big research teams working in areas such as particle physics, the human genome and astronomy.

The End of Science was also the title of a book published in 1996 by science writer John Horgan, though Horgan thought the pursuit of science was coming to an end for different reasons. He claimed that the basic scaffolding of the natural world is now mostly understood – the big bang theory, the structure of DNA and evolution by natural selection and the periodic table of elements are not going to change. Yes, many refinements are needed in our understanding of how things work, but as we are closer to reality in so many fields, the chances of seeing revolutionary new thinking will be that much less.

Will we never witness a scientific revolution again? And will tomorrow's theories be guided by big data rather than revolutionary ideas?

I recently put these questions to particle physicist Alison Wright, chief editor of the journal Nature Physics and to Lewis Wolpert, pioneering biologist from University College London, when I chaired a debate on the future of science.

Lewis's view is that fundamental biology is now unlikely to throw up any new surprises: there is much we don't know, but the fundamental architecture won't change. Alison takes a similar view for physics and says that we shouldn't expect any new shocks to the system, though, unlike Lewis, she recognises that you can never say never.

I'm with Alison on this – something tells me that physics has the potential to take off in directions that we cannot predict. Many physicists would like to see a single theory explain all of the fundamental forces of nature, or at the very least see experimental verification of the Standard Model of particle physics.

There are good reasons for this. Unification in physics has a long history – electricity and magnetism were unified in the 1800s, and later mass and energy were found to be interchangeable. In the latter half of the 20th century, two further forces were unified: electromagnetism and the "weak" force. But for the past 30 years, experimental verification of theory in physics has been more limited. This may well be because scientists have lacked the right equipment – results from the Large Hadron Collider at Cern could break the logjam.

But you do see something similar going on in physicists' attempts to unpack the composition of the universe. According to the big bang model, our universe is made up of around 4% of normal (atomic) matter; 22% dark matter and 74% dark energy. Some research groups claim to have found a signature for dark matter – but their results have not been corroborated by others. As for the idea of dark energy, Alison describes it as a "sticking plaster" that masks the fact that we don't really know what it represents.

But if we assume for a minute that physics holds the potential for a revolution in thinking, would we be able to see one coming?

Revolutions in scientific thinking are always difficult – but perhaps one reason why we may see fewer of them in the future is because of the highly professional way in which modern science is organised. It takes a lot of courage to challenge conventionally accepted views, and it needs a certain amount of stamina to constantly battle those who want to protect the status quo. Mavericks do not do well in large organisations, which is what some scientific fields have become.

Progress in science needs researchers who are not afraid – or who are encouraged and rewarded – to ask awkward and difficult questions of theory and of new data. It is easier to question mainstream views if you are independently wealthy, as many scientists in previous ages tended to be. But I wonder how many of us would do so if we were employed by the state and our career progression depended on the validation of our peers?

Ehsan Masood is a science writer and chaired Nature's Big Science Debate on the future of physics and biology, which took place on 8 June

Guardian


Short URL:
Cognation
Posted on Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 00:27:52 EDT by Southern 

click Related        click Rate This        click Share
Associated TopicsSpaceTimeCognation

Topics

Forums

Babes


© ThemeFreaks

GCalendar

<< October 2022 >>

S M T W T F S
            1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031         

11/15
• Southern's birthda...

bookmark site


Bookmark Us
Bookmark Us

Set as Homepage
Set as Homepage


Support RavenNuke™

RavenNuke(tm) v2.40.01

Proverbs

15:5, A fool despiseth his father\s instruction: but he that regardeth reproof is prudent.

R.O.P.: R.I.P.

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


Islam spreads like a virus....
more: Islam violence



List of Islamic Terror Attacks For the Past 2 Months

Support Our Troops

Support Our Troops


© ThemeFreaks

Honey Pot

Bots in the pot!
We have [360] bots in the pot!

Page Generation: 0.67 Seconds