Uni Troubles

[dothemaths]

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!

While the concept of 'mechanical' computing is not dependent on the particular architecture, you need a computing machine that is able to perform many, many operations a second for modern applications. That's where the developments in semiconductors and solid-state devices was essential. BTW there are probably another 10 physics nobels that I was too lazy to add associated with various developments in solid state physics (all quantum mechanical by the way) which have all contributed to the development of the computer you are using to post to this forum.

If you have some time and you're interested see http://nobelprize.or...sics/laureates/

There is short layman's description of the research leading to each prize and there are even reasonably technical detailed write up of the more recent ones.

Edited January 12, 2010 by dothemaths

[Tiger Woods?]

The postdocs will do the bulk of the work

The students (phd students) will get to do 'side' projects, which if they stuff up or walk away from won't damage the larger project.

That's only if the academic (principal investigator) designed the project properly in the first place though

I always think of it in software terms, postdocs are your core modules and phd students your optional plug-ins

This is not the way to do good research. This is the way to waste millions of pounds. In my experience, people work harder and are more creative when they aren't a cog in a machine.

During my time as an academic, my best results (determined by citation and my own sense of quality) all came about serendipitously. Big projects have a momentum and a target and cannot turn on a dime when something truly interesting pops up.

[ZeroSumGame]

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.

Maybe you'll p1ss yourself laughing at this :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jan/11/universities-gordon-brown-cuts-recession

Not be long before you'll be getting your fundamental science done by the City folk then ?

You're wasting your time.

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

Actually I've never met any anti-science Luddites, but there sure are one or two sad cases on here that seem to fit that description.

[zebbedee]

There's a simple way to completely kill the debate - show the accounting. Prove it. And don't forget to account for diminishing returns. QM and relativity experiments were tuppence ha'penny in 1910. Even in real terms. The LHC cost £3.5bn and millions to run every year.

Prove to me my kids/grandkids are likely to see a return on my tax invested in blueskies and I'll shut up. Until then I'll keep with the position that I'd rather not give you my money to sit on your particular hobby horse.

The accounting is simple-the research on any distinct area has a finite cost but the benefits of that research will be available for all time, any discrete benefit will sum to an infinite amount over all time and therefor outway the cost.

Edited January 12, 2010 by zebbedee

[frozen_out]

Actually I've never met any anti-science Luddites, but there sure are one or two sad cases on here that seem to fit that description.

I love it when academics get all defensive. You can see where the climate change lot get it from.

How can I be anti-science? I'm a scientist you retard. What I'm anti is spunking money against the wall because some idle nob in an ivory tower tells me it's a good idea to do so.

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***.

Being corporate we don't publish a great deal - and we still do some great science. The really odd thing is though that being corporate we still have management and bean counters.

The bean counters can't turn anything to shit, they just have a habit of revealing where the shit's accumulating. In your case academia. Since I left I've been offered two ways back in, both at reader level. Both at Russel group unis (not that that's worth anything) but I'll not go back until I'm well past my peak and just fancy getting fat and lazy off the taxpayer, when I'm about 55 I guess.

[moesasji]

Actually, what is happening is exactly what YOU wanted. Academics are increasingly required to fundraise and do 'useful' research rather than the fundamental 'blue skies' research which really drives science (and developed societies) forward. Singapore in particular, and to a lesser extend China, is providing very attractive packages with plenty of funding, nice facilities and academic freedom. In addition to the usual US exodus, I expect a brain drain from the UK to that part of the world in the next decade

@Frozen_out: To understand your frustration. At what point in your career did you leave university for a corporate research lab? An important question as I personally don't recognize the picture you paint of the university and I don't get the impression you are fully aware of how much time is being wasted on fundraising.

I myself have worked at both university and industry and both have their strengths and weaknesses in the system. For progress in science you simply need involvement of both partners (something in which the UK is very weak in comparison to Asia or to a country as Germany!). In particular as someone has to train PhD-level scientist to work in industry or do you want to do this yourself as well? One major advantage of university is that research is open so people can learn from the progress/failures of others.

As a sideline: the drive to fundraise in the UK is currently killing the most ambitious proposal due to the low successrates on funding proposals which is below 10%. In combination with the fact that you can no longer re-submit proposals once it has been unsuccessful a disaster to be honest.

*) As an example, my latest proposal is applied and would have a major impact on future healthcare. This is something that all 5 referees explicitly recognize and find it very important and recognize it as a major breakthrough in many different areas of research (if it would work). The 2 referees with an industrial background seem to be particularly enthusiastic. Unfortunately one out of the 5 doesn't believe that the underlying technology is possible mainly because he is coming from another area so considers it unfundable. His/her misunderstanding is easy to point out if you would sit down... yet this now most likely leads to the proposal being unfunded and ending up in the drawer. Months of works and a great concept (already patented) wasted.

So please show me where somebody in an ivory tower is deciding to waste money.

[frozen_out]

@Frozen_out: To understand your frustration. At what point in your career did you leave university for a corporate research lab? An important question as I personally don't recognize the picture you paint of the university and I don't get the impression you are fully aware of how much time is being wasted on fundraising.

Frustration? You write a 2 page missive on your frustrations with the funding system then accuse me of being frustrated! As far as I can see I'm the only one on the thread entirely happy with all aspects of my role.

IIn particular as someone has to train PhD-level scientist to work in industry or do you want to do this yourself as well? One major advantage of university is that research is open so people can learn from the progress/failures of others.

As I said previously, we function essentially like a University. We have post-grad students and do doctoral training through the EngD scheme (yeah, yeah, I know it's partially funded with public money). I realise the open-ness of a university is an advantage. What I dispute is that they must be funded so heavily with public money and that there should be so many of them.

*) As an example, my latest proposal is applied and would have a major impact on future healthcare. This is something that all 5 referees explicitly recognize and find it very important and recognize it as a major breakthrough in many different areas of research (if it would work). The 2 referees with an industrial background seem to be particularly enthusiastic. Unfortunately one out of the 5 doesn't believe that the underlying technology is possible mainly because he is coming from another area so considers it unfundable. His/her misunderstanding is easy to point out if you would sit down... yet this now most likely leads to the proposal being unfunded and ending up in the drawer. Months of works and a great concept (already patented) wasted.

My BS detector is flashing here: You can't patent a concept. Not only that you need to provide examples, so the technology MUST be shown to work prior to patenting. Of course you can always make up examples, but if someone shows them to be BS then your patent falls down.

Anyways, assuming you've just slipped up on terminology and you mean you have a patented invention then why on earth are you asking for public money to fund development? To patent you must prove an inventive step AND industrial/commercial application (in the UK/Europe at least), the US is a bit different. Assuming you've passed both these tests and have a patent all you need to do is licence the technology or set up the spin-off. Using public money to exploit a patent is particularly odious IMO.

Edited January 12, 2010 by frozen_out

[moesasji]

As I said previously, we function essentially like a University. We have post-grad students and do doctoral training through the EngD scheme (yeah, yeah, I know it's partially funded with public money). I realise the open-ness of a university is an advantage. What I dispute is that they must be funded so heavily with public money and that there should be so many of them.

To be honest you miss a crucial element of what a University does.....how do you get your students from A-level physics into a state that they are useful for you to work as a post-grad student?

*) patenting is the combination of concepts into an entirely new way, with a suggested implementation. So it's not only the concept that is under consideration for a patent. Indeed not yet patented but has been submitted...a slip. You are probably well aware that universities are asked to protect inventions.....so that in this case is done before asking to support developing a proof of concept.

[frozen_out]

*) patenting is the combination of concepts into an entirely new way, with a suggested implementation. So it's not only the concept that is under consideration for a patent. Indeed not yet patented but has been submitted...a slip. You are probably well aware that universities are asked to protect inventions.....so that in this case is done before asking to support developing a proof of concept.

That's not really what patenting is, but that's an aside.

You've been caught out in the lie. Nothing you say can be taken at all seriously forthwith.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

Russell Group claims that 30 institutions could go bust if the proposed cuts go through - Telegraph.

Ironically, if that ends up happening, it'll do a lot less damage to the sector as a whole than if every institution gets their core funding salami sliced ... assuming you axe the right 30, i.e. the worst performing of the new university sector, about which the best that can be said is that they're fulfilling the function previously undertaken by the FE sector, but at a much lower cost.

[ZeroSumGame]

Russell Group claims that 30 institutions could go bust if the proposed cuts go through - Telegraph.

Ironically, if that ends up happening, it'll do a lot less damage to the sector as a whole than if every institution gets their core funding salami sliced ... assuming you axe the right 30, i.e. the worst performing of the new university sector, about which the best that can be said is that they're fulfilling the function previously undertaken by the FE sector, but at a much lower cost.

Yes, but isn't it likely to be the research institutions that will end up getting pasted. IMHO the very ones we need to keep.

[frozen_out]

Russell Group claims that 30 institutions could go bust if the proposed cuts go through - Telegraph.

Ironically, if that ends up happening, it'll do a lot less damage to the sector as a whole than if every institution gets their core funding salami sliced ... assuming you axe the right 30, i.e. the worst performing of the new university sector, about which the best that can be said is that they're fulfilling the function previously undertaken by the FE sector, but at a much lower cost.

I agree that closing 30 would be more preferable to simply cutting funding at all institutions.

Closing 70 AND cutting funding at the remaining would be more preferable. Actually I'd settle for 4 academic terms a year, on the same funding. Roughly a real-terms 30%cut but everyone still gets paid.

[Guest Skinty]

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

It's always a sign that someone is losing the argument when they have to resort to ridicule like this.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Skinty

[Fudge]

Russell Group claims that 30 institutions could go bust if the proposed cuts go through - Telegraph.

Ironically, if that ends up happening, it'll do a lot less damage to the sector as a whole than if every institution gets their core funding salami sliced ... assuming you axe the right 30, i.e. the worst performing of the new university sector, about which the best that can be said is that they're fulfilling the function previously undertaken by the FE sector, but at a much lower cost.

Some of these Universities were in trouble anyway.

Does anyone remember which ones?

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

Yes, but isn't it likely to be the research institutions that will end up getting pasted. IMHO the very ones we need to keep.

Depends on who wins the election.

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

Some of these Universities were in trouble anyway.

Does anyone remember which ones?

London Met is the big one - they are basically dead. Leeds Met is also in trouble I believe. It would be interesting to know which 30 are in the doo doo - I would imagine the financial problems are different from institution to institution. Some were caught out by HEFCE a la London Met, others too dependant on various types of funding, others committed to expansion financed on the assumption the good times last forever. It is interesting that the Russell Group are the ones who are squeaking first....

[frozen_out]

It's always a sign that someone is losing the argument when they have to resort to ridicule like this.

Losing the argument?

I merely pointed out that for all the wonderful advances you're all claiming via state funded science, we've ended up up 5hit creek with you all congregationg on a website for the disenfranchised asking for more of the same. Something doesn't add up.

What was it Einstein said about repeating something but expecting different results?

Anyways, at least you can be content that you're not alone. The whole state edifice is creaking, that much is obvious. And I'll be honest, I've nothing to be smug about because it's going to take us all down with it when it goes.

[Saver]

Losing the argument?

I merely pointed out that for all the wonderful advances you're all claiming via state funded science, we've ended up up 5hit creek with you all congregationg on a website for the disenfranchised asking for more of the same. Something doesn't add up.

science is a very tiny part of what the state spends money on. Also why would scientific advances have any affect on how the goverment manages their finances? We can have all the science advances we want, but that won't stop the goverment wasting money on bueracracy and what not.

[rondy]

I Both at Russel group unis (not that that's worth anything) but I'll not go back until I'm well past my peak

Offered the jobs to do what? Clean the toilets or remove the rubbish?

You really sound like somebody in great demand, being as stupid as you are.

[tim123]

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.

But you listed transistors separately so you are double counting.

Computers were once made out of valves so you don't need transistors to make a computer - just a very large space and a lot of air conditioning :-).

So I was right. Computers did not need research into QM, electronic minaturisation needed it.

tim

Edited January 12, 2010 by tim123

[moesasji]

That's not really what patenting is, but that's an aside.

You've been caught out in the lie. Nothing you say can be taken at all seriously forthwith.

Right I'm sure you are really making a point accusing people of lying without actually backing up anything of your numerous claims:

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

The procedure for granting patents, the requirements placed on the patentee, and the extent of the exclusive rights vary widely between countries according to national laws and international agreements. Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must be new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

*) Bottomline: where does it claim that it has to be proven as working? (Note that I do agree that a patent invention is strengthened it if you have a working implementation).

[Saver]

But you listed transistors separately so you are double counting.

Computers were one made out of valves so you don't need transistors to make a computer - just a very large space and a lot of air conditioning :-).

So I was right. Computers did not need research into QM, electronic minaturisation needed it.

tim

Well I think it is fair to say the computer as we know it did need QM, surely those valve computers bear little resemblance to what any one today would consider a computer?!

btw even the valve computers had transistors it turns out, but as you say the modern electronic transistor was based on QM ideas.

[frozen_out]

Offered the jobs to do what? Clean the toilets or remove the rubbish?

You really sound like somebody in great demand, being as stupid as you are.

For all that it's relevant, both.

science is a very tiny part of what the state spends money on. Also why would scientific advances have any affect on how the goverment manages their finances? We can have all the science advances we want, but that won't stop the goverment wasting money on bueracracy and what not.

So basically, this is an admission that all the state-sponsored scientific advance of the 20th century has actually made not a jot of difference to humanity.

We've got a lot of stuff we would have had anyway, eventually, and we've still got the same old dicks at the top pulling the same old stunts that they have since time immemorial. And you're happy with that, as long as they're giving money to you.

Morally, philosophically, economically and intellectually bankrupt. Academia is a poor parody of what it should be. Thanks mainly to state funding. More of the same is not the answer.

[frozen_out]

Right I'm sure you are really making a point accusing people of lying without actually backing up anything of your numerous claims:

You lied. You said you had a patented concept. You don't. Case closed.

*) Bottomline: where does it claim that it has to be proven as working? (Note that I do agree that a patent invention is strengthened it if you have a working implementation).

It has to pass sufficiency i.e.:

The application contains a description of how to make and use the invention that must provide sufficient detail for a person skilled in the art (i.e., the relevant area of technology) to make and use the invention. In some countries there are requirements for providing specific information such as the usefulness of the invention, the best mode of performing the invention known to the inventor, or the technical problem or problems solved by the invention. Drawings illustrating the invention may also be provided.

If it don't work it doesn't show sufficiency. And *pffft* your patent falls over.

[Saver]

For all that it's relevant, both.

So basically, this is an admission that all the state-sponsored scientific advance of the 20th century has actually made not a jot of difference to humanity.

no its not. Its just your very limited intellect thinking that is the case.