The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Post Reply New Topic

I don't see why you are irritated at me for voicing what is clearly your own opinion. It is an interesting study with no current practical application. Whats wrong with suggesting that we focus on more pressing immediate concerns instead of theoretical disparity?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uswsWh7OaMM[/youtube]

Not sure what your point is.

The world spends more on the military than it does on 'theories'.

For that matter-the world spends more money on lipstick, beer, and on hyping the Superbowl, than it does on 'theories'. So why single out "theories" ?

But more to the point: knowledge is indivisible.

What could be more practical than seeking wealth (for yourself and others)?

And what quicker way to make the world wealthy could there be than to find a way to make base metals (like lead) into gold?

And thats exactly the quest that the alchemists of old devoted their lives to for 2000 years. The result of the 2000 year quest? NOTHING!

In contrast-what could be more IMpractical than wondering what air is?

The ancients assumed that air was an element- one thing.

Finnally a number of basement do-it-yourself scientists in the 1700's actually did experiments to figure out what air is.

They found that air was a blend of gases -one of which was nitrogen.

Then a centurey later one guy figured out how to turn nitrogen into dynamite, and another guy figured out how to turn nitrogen into fertilzer.

The first discovery lead to all the ordinance of modern warfare, and the deaths of millions. The later made modern agriculture possible-which made feeding you and I possible. So the deaths of millions, and the feeding and clothing of BILLIONS were both made possible because someone wondered what the heck air is. So you cant predict what will result from curiosity no matter how 'impractical' the curiosity may seem.

Perhaps you can explain why understanding quantum theory could have any practical applications? After all it is "just" mathematics; and very obscure mathematics at that. The bottom line is that if physicists / mathematicians figure out the basis of our universe, the physics following on from that could open up countless new technologies and possibilities that were previously undreamed of. I have no idea what they may be; just as previous obscure physics discoveries have opened up new possibilities. As I keep repeating - pure science comes first, and from that knowledge applications and technologies are invented. Without this inquiring spirit we'd still all be living in caves and hunting mammoths with spears.

Because if people had heeded such advice in history, this is what the world would look like today:

Well, I believe you answered it yourself. Since scientists, etc are the ones who are most likely to find cures and solutions to practical problems wouldn't it be better if they focused on more pressing issues instead?

I do understand where you are coming from but you must agree that there are better things we can put our minds to rather than a theoretical theory that currently has no practical application.

Some scientists ARE. Science works on many frontiers, some seeking practical solutions for today's problems and other scientists unravelling the workings of every aspect of the universe... which yields practical solutions for the future. Are you trying to suggest that ALL scientists should become short-sighted in their research and focus only on practical solutions for today?

Why shouldn't scientists work at every frontier of knowledge? If everyone worked only on the problems of today, scientific and technological progress would stagnate. Pure science research is the greatest driver of new technology and new solutions to problems.

You can't be seriously be making the assertion that cavemen only advanced by ruminating on theoretical concepts.

Why is everyone being so touchy about this? I feel like I have incurred the wrath of religious fanaticism by simply suggesting that scientist could serve a better purpose by helping the sick and solving pressing practical problems.

Maybe because you are implying that the only science worth doing is trying to solve today's needs. Are you suggesting that ALL scientists should be so narrowly focussed?

I wouldn't call helping the dying short sighted.

You still don't seem to grasp the fundamental issue that without pure research our "helping the dying" would still revolve around sprinkling magic herbs on them and chanting incantations to the gods.

The more scientist working on the problem the faster there will be a break through. I wouldn't say they should devote all resources to a single problem but it seems logical that the more important issues should receive the majority of the attention.

Oh come sir, you are comparing a purely theoretical mathematical idea about the origins of the universe to advances in medicine.

Because we - unlike you - know how infinitely valuable basic science (which has no immediate practical application) is to scientific progress. It is extremely arrogant to assume that one can single out specific recent scientific results and pass judgement on their usefulness.

Illustration: Louis Pasteur revolutionized medicine and food production by looking at something as trivial as spoiled milk...