Uni Troubles

[europbaron]

It is unfair to say that state funded research is either critical or pointless. We have so many universities and they have to justify their existence, partly through research. Companies therefore, have less incentive to do their own "blue skies" research as they can get the universities to do it for them, with far less commitment than establishing their own research facilities. This is not to say that there is no incentive for private research.

Whether progress without state funded research would have been faster, slower or more or less beneficial to humanity is purely hypothetical.

[dothemaths]

So none of your examples could possibly have been developed without state funding?

If you wait long enough, human ingenuity means that probably anything discovered with tax-payer money would eventually be developed without any funding, state or otherwise. Funding just speeds things up and gives the first mover advantages to the people who make the discoveries. It is just a question of whether we as a society want to continue to have the advantanges that accrue from being at the scientific cutting edge.

Places like Singapore, China are willing to make that long term investment and will eventually gain the advantages

that this entails. The US (for now) continues to do it. If we don't keep up, we won't be the first society that declines due to being overtaken technologically.

It's societal darwinism. You snooze, you lose.

[tim123]

Looking around I see, 2 flat screens (high res. liquid crystal displays - physics nobel 91) , 3 computers (quantum mechanics, semiconductors, transistor, ..... - physics nobels 1932, 1933, 1938, 1945, 1956, ...),

Despite having googled I can see nothing in QM that was needed to invent the computer.

Yes, it may explain something about the operation of the "electric" atoms internally, but I don't see that you need to understand why they work that way, you just need to have observed that they do

tim

Edited January 11, 2010 by tim123

[europbaron]

Despite having googled I can see nothing in QM that was needed to invent the computer.

Yes, it may explain something about the operation of the "electric" atoms internally, but I don't see that you need to understand why they work that way, you just need to have observed that they do

tim

Being able to calculate how thick a gate oxide needs to be to prevent tunelling is quite useful. However, it's not necessary to get a functioning FET, but to get a fast one it is. Other than that I can't think of what in quantum mechanics is necessary either, despite having worked in semiconductors and having a physics degree (from a long time ago so I may have forgotten).

Perhaps someone could enlighten us.

[corevalue]

Despite having googled I can see nothing in QM that was needed to invent the computer.

Yes, it may explain something about the operation of the "electric" atoms internally, but I don't see that you need to understand why they work that way, you just need to have observed that they do

tim

QM was needed to understand the working of transistors at a most fundamental level. Without it, no solid-state electronics would exist. The underlying mechanism, a diode like structure, had been around for ages, ever since the cat's whisker in crystal sets, but nobody could explain how it worked, or how it could be improved, let alone be made into a fundamentally new device - the transistor.

[Guest absolutezero]

you are seriously suggesting someone would have thought in 1910 - I know lets build an electronic computer so I will fund research in Quantum Mechanics? Even though there is no obvious connection between the two at all to someone in 1910 and even if you did make the connection you know you get no return on your investment for at least 50 years?

With GPS perhaps its plausible someone would have made an ad hoc gravitational time dilation law to make it work when they found it did not work, but again it relies on computer chips which I just don't see how they would ever have come about without someone funding the basic QM research for 30-50 years first.

You're wasting your time.

Most of this lot are mad capitalists who can only see short term profits and masses of financial accountability.

[noodle doodle]

and there is a profit motive for producing stuff that people actually want.

no need to steal tax-payers money.

How would the inventor of the laser know it would make a good medium for storing music on disc before he even discovered the effect?

On the Discovery->Understanding->Control->Application spectrum, private business tends to only get wet and willing at the last stage. How many quids would you get on dragon's den for saying you discovered a coherent source of light and it looked quite interesting? They can't be anything but, investors want a return on their bux, either the venture cap types or the pension fund managers, they can't/won't wait for 30 years down the line, if anything comes of the work at all.

[moesasji]

Being able to calculate how thick a gate oxide needs to be to prevent tunelling is quite useful. However, it's not necessary to get a functioning FET, but to get a fast one it is. Other than that I can't think of what in quantum mechanics is necessary either, despite having worked in semiconductors and having a physics degree (from a long time ago so I may have forgotten).

Perhaps someone could enlighten us.

For someone with a physics-degree you should be ashamed.

How would you come up with a concept of a laser without a basic understanding of quantum-mechanics? Population-inversion in a multi-level quantum system is an idea that doesn't exist in classical physics let alone something as stimulated emission.

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

I suggest that those who are totally against state-supported university research in biology, chemistry, physics etc. should be offered only 1910 medical treatment.

given that the gov'ts have used force to monopolise health services it should come as no surprise that most medical discoveries have come from people employed by the state, however that does not indicate that these discoveries (and others) would not have been made by the free market, and to suggest that no medical advances whatsoever would have been made since 1910 without the state is simply ridiculous.

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

Because very much of modern medicine relies on decades of development in our knowledge of natural sciences.

A lot of it, perhaps even most, would not exist if there had not been any state support of scientific research (which feeds into medical developments, often decades later).

how have you come to such a conclusion?

[europbaron]

For someone with a physics-degree you should be ashamed. ...

Why?

How would you come up with a concept of a laser without a basic understanding of quantum-mechanics? Population-inversion in a multi-level quantum system is an idea that doesn't exist in classical physics let alone something as stimulated emission.

I was referring to the statement "Despite having googled I can see nothing in QM that was needed to invent the computer."

As the first computers were mechanical devices I think it is a fair statement. Even when vacuum tubes were used I don't think QM comes into it. It's only when you start to consider transistors that QM comes into play. I do not know enough scientific history to state if transistors were invented through an understanding of QM, or if understanding transistors came about through QM. These are two seperate cases.

As I am aware lasers only became part of computers when optical storage started taking over. If I am wrong please explain why rather than just telling me to hang my head in shame!

[wren]

how have you come to such a conclusion?

Just consider all the various drugs used in modern medicine. Their development relied on knowledge of chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology, physiology.

I'm not suggesting that none would exist without state-funded research, but I do suggest that there would at this time be a lot less than is now available.

A lot of it relied on advances in basic scientific knowledge which was not of immediate commercial interest.

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

Just consider all the various drugs used in modern medicine. Their development relied on knowledge of chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology, physiology.

didn't rely on stealing people's money though, so can't see why state needed.

I'm not suggesting that none would exist without state-funded research, but I do suggest that there would at this time be a lot less than is now available.

why?

A lot of it relied on advances in basic scientific knowledge which was not of immediate commercial interest.

lots of things get done that are not of immediate commercial interest. like you and me posting on this forum. still can't see why taxation is required.

[Saver]

Why?

I was referring to the statement "Despite having googled I can see nothing in QM that was needed to invent the computer."

As the first computers were mechanical devices I think it is a fair statement. Even when vacuum tubes were used I don't think QM comes into it. It's only when you start to consider transistors that QM comes into play. I do not know enough scientific history to state if transistors were invented through an understanding of QM, or if understanding transistors came about through QM. These are two seperate cases.

As I am aware lasers only became part of computers when optical storage started taking over. If I am wrong please explain why rather than just telling me to hang my head in shame!

Yes lasers are only relevant for cd/dvd storage.

Once you know a modern transistor device exists if you want to understand how it works (and hence improve it to make it work better, more efficienctly, to eventually comercialise it) then you need a theory to do this. So you won't get far without first knowing about Quantum Mechanics in any case, and I doubt you could work out QM from just looking at a transistor since development of QM used many different experiments to constrain how it could be constructed.

Looking in a google search it appears the transistor was developed using the previous knowledge of semiconductors and hence quantum mechanics.

[Byron]

Someone who wanted to build a GPS system? A philanthropist? I dunno. Is it a trick question?

As I said before, physicists can go and do their blueskies bobbins till their ickle hearts are content. It's the expecting the rest of us to cough up for their particular hobby horses that gets the heckles up.

Are we to presume from your bile that you have been frozen out of something?

[Saver]

Are we to presume from your bile that you have been frozen out of something?

lol

[europbaron]

Yes lasers are only relevant for cd/dvd storage.

Once you know a modern transistor device exists if you want to understand how it works (and hence improve it to make it work better, more efficienctly, to eventually comercialise it) then you need a theory to do this. So you won't get far without first knowing about Quantum Mechanics in any case, and I doubt you could work out QM from just looking at a transistor since development of QM used many different experiments to constrain how it could be constructed.

Looking in a google search it appears the transistor was developed using the previous knowledge of semiconductors and hence quantum mechanics.

I've no argument with any of that. However, once a phenomenom is uncovered, then potential applications and the desire to understand and improve performance arise. This does depend upon the documentation of phenomena, and this is an area where HE does do well, given the amount of papers published seems to be a major metric for performace evaluation. Unfortunately, it also results in a lot of very dubious stuff published.

[moesasji]

Why?

...

As I am aware lasers only became part of computers when optical storage started taking over. If I am wrong please explain why rather than just telling me to hang my head in shame!

Sorry, I read your reply out of context: I read it as saying "other than tunnelling in FETs I don't see where QM is useful (in general)". Clearly not what you said upon re-reading. My apologies.....

I would agree that QM in itself has not been crucial for the concept/development of a computer, although I would say that for the creation of modern transistors I does play an indirect role. Simply because it is difficult to disentangle concepts such as bandgaps in semi-conductors, doping-levels from QM as a general theory.

*) Off-course the transistor is an example as it was discovered by Bell labs, which was a company research lab. However private research-labs of that kind don't exist anymore as times have changed and few company research labs offer that kind of freedom to explore. The few companies that have large research labs are mostly in Asia, where connections between industry and universities are much stronger.

[europbaron]

Sorry, I read your reply out of context: I read it as saying "other than tunnelling in FETs I don't see where QM is useful (in general)". Clearly not what you said upon re-reading. My apologies.....

I would agree that QM in itself has not been crucial for the concept/development of a computer, although I would say that for the creation of modern transistors I does play an indirect role. Simply because it is difficult to disentangle concepts such as bandgaps in semi-conductors, doping-levels from QM as a general theory.

*) Off-course the transistor is an example as it was discovered by Bell labs, which was a company research lab. However private research-labs of that kind don't exist anymore as times have changed and few company research labs offer that kind of freedom to explore. The few companies that have large research labs are mostly in Asia, where connections between industry and universities are much stronger.

Appreciated.

And I don't dispute that without understanding QM we would not have computers as powerful as those we have today, at least not at current power consumptions and sizes. It will be interesting to see how computers are made in 20 years time, given the problems that are currently faced using silicon based technology.

[frozen_out]

Just consider all the various drugs used in modern medicine. Their development relied on knowledge of chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology, physiology.

I'm not suggesting that none would exist without state-funded research, but I do suggest that there would at this time be a lot less than is now available.

A lot of it relied on advances in basic scientific knowledge which was not of immediate commercial interest.

Just consider for a moment that the state is not accumulating and centralising vast swathes of wealth from the private sector then dishing it out to projects which it sees fit, undercutting private sector research in the process. I wonder if commercial enterprise may have been just that little bit more amenable to so-called blueskies research.

There's nothing on this thread that wouldn't have been developed without state funding. In fact, funnily enough, the fundamentals of the majorityof it was. Theories of computing and QM come from a time when Universities were not in the main state funded. Relativity, obviously, was discovered by a young patent clerk. Public sector, granted, but not what you'd call a traditional research environment.

All I see on the thread is scientists trying to justify their own hobby horses, why they should be given money from the public purse. It is claimed that we've seen a huge return on investment and that state funded pure research leads to wonderful things. The irony is that it's all taking place on a website populated mainly by those disenfranchised in some way. All that amazing state funded 'pure' research all those great discoveries, and you've ended up here moaning about high house prices and how the government is about to withdraw its ubiquitous, loving teat.

It's hilarious, it really is. keep it up chaps, I haven't laughed so much in a long time.

Edited January 11, 2010 by frozen_out

[wren]

didn't rely on stealing people's money though, so can't see why state needed.

why?

lots of things get done that are not of immediate commercial interest. like you and me posting on this forum. still can't see why taxation is required.

Less of it would have been done so we would be behind where we are now.

I understand your position about state theft.

I'm not completely against state taxation but it has to carefully justified and kept under control.

There's also the matter of educating the next generation where doing research and educating them can be complementary processes (Ph.D. students as cheap labour).

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

Less of it would have been done so we would be behind where we are now.

how do you know that?

[wren]

how do you know that?

Because a lot of the basic research was basic science with no immediate prospect of commercial application.

For example, the discovery of the structure of DNA brought together various strands of information from various academic institutions. It was only years later that that knowledge combined with a lot more basic research could lead eventually to commercial applications.

[dothemaths]

QM was needed to understand the working of transistors at a most fundamental level. Without it, no solid-state electronics would exist. The underlying mechanism, a diode like structure, had been around for ages, ever since the cat's whisker in crystal sets, but nobody could explain how it worked, or how it could be improved, let alone be made into a fundamentally new device - the transistor.

thanks

[Tiger Woods?]

The whole prioritisation of publishing of papers seems to me to be tremendously wasteful. I've seen papers regurgitated multiple times, simply with a different title and references. How is this productive?

Ah, you mean paper slicing - an unforeseen outcome of accountability metrics. Enforcing accountability of university research was such a good idea....not.

You get the best results out of people when they are thinking about what they want to think about without distraction and continual interruption, or perpetually wasting time slicing up papers and submitting them all over the place to keep your research count up. There is a fellow at Cambridge (name slips my mind at present) who has 2 Nobel prizes. He has published 5 papers. Quality and quantity are two very different things and a lot of time is wasted in academia by pushing out 10 or 20 epsilon papers a year to keep the auditors happy, instead of doing truly original research.

Keep the managers and bean counters away from the universities at all costs, as they turn everything they touch into s***.

Edited January 12, 2010 by D'oh