Revolutionary Technologies and Discoveries in 20 Years
Table of Contents
Experts weigh in: Most revolutionary technologies and discoveries in the next 20 years
We asked our Physics Forums science advisors, “What technology or scientific discovery will be the most revolutionary within the next 20 years?” Below are their responses, edited for clarity and readability while preserving each contributorās original voice.
Demystifier
“Machine learning will be ubiquitous, just as applications of traditional computer algorithms are ubiquitous now.”
Ygggdrasil
The ability for scientists to create artificial gametesāfunctional human sperm and egg cells produced in the labācould fundamentally change society. The idea is that a doctor could take a skin cell from a patient, convert that skin cell into a stem cell in the lab via cellular reprogramming, and culture the stem cells in a dish to coax them to differentiate into germ cells capable of generating sperm or eggs. Scientists have partially demonstrated this artificial-gamete technology in mice.
First, this technology would help people who currently cannot have biological childrenāfor example because of cancer treatment, age, or genetic issues. Second, it could relieve women of the pressure of the “biological clock.” As women age, their egg quality declines and the risk of chromosomal defects (like Down syndrome) increases. While some women currently freeze eggs to preserve fertility, lab-generated “fresh” eggs could eventually be available at any age.
The technology would also affect potential genetic enhancement. With access to a larger supply of sperm and eggs, parents could select embryos based on desired traits. Furthermore, scientists could introduce new traits into germ cells through CRISPR gene editing, producing gene-edited sperm and eggs. These gene-edited artificial gametes could avoid many technical challenges associated with editing embryos directly.
I am not sure this will be available within 20 years, but researchers are actively developing it, and it will have huge clinical and societal implications whenever it reaches the clinic.
Further reading
- Advances toward creating sperm and eggs in the lab (Physics Forums)
- A new way to reproduce (MIT Technology Review)
QuantumQuest
I think the Internet of Things (IoT) will be one of the big technology drivers within the next five to ten years. Connected machines with efficient sensors, working with intelligent systems and applications, will create a large portion of the next big-data explosion. Add small smart devices and wearables, and the opportunities for data exchange and processing become explosiveāthe benefits for human life will be significant.
Regarding science, nanoscience and nanotechnologyāengineering at the nanoscaleāwill deliver revolutionary products in the next ten to fifteen years. Many other fields (physics, chemistry, biology, engineering) will benefit from nanoscale ideas. Enhanced material properties (greater strength, lighter weight, tailored chemical reactivity) that differ from bulk counterparts will enable new applications and real societal impact.
PhanthomJay
In terms of discovery: quantum gravity theory.
For technology: a 3D printing boom.
mfb (moderator)
CRISPRāsee Ygggdrasil’s entry above for more on gene editing and germline implications.
I also expect spaceflight to look very different in 20 years because of reusable rockets, though Iām not an expert in that area.
In my field: I hope for clarity on the B-physics anomalies or some other unexpected result in the next 20 years. Any clear deviation from predictions would be amazing.
jambaugh
The internet continues to be the most profound technology shaping society. Over the next two decades we will see ongoing rearrangement of information institutionsānews media, academia, entertainmentāand their business models.
Not a single innovation, but we now have private companies with the capital to invest in space launch and transport. Expect an explosion of innovations in propulsion, vehicle and habitat design, and resource exploitation. I predict a private orbital station within the next two decades.
boneh3ad
AI. It can be applied broadly and will have cross-disciplinary impact, making it a clear candidate for the most revolutionary technology.
RUTA
Twenty years from now, I predict we will have ascended toward Frank Wilczekās āGodās-eye viewā of reality and will be pursuing new approaches to quantum gravity and unification.
āA recurring theme in natural philosophy is the tension between the Godās-eye view of reality comprehended as a whole and the antās-eye view of human consciousness, which senses a succession of events in time… The Godās-eye view seems, in the light of relativity theory, to be far more natural. ā¦ To me, ascending from the antās-eye view to the Godās-eye view of physical reality is the most profound challenge for fundamental physics in the next 100 years.ā
ā Frank Wilczek: Physics in 100 Years. Physics Today 69(4), pp. 32ā39 (2016).
I have a BS in Information Sciences from UW-Milwaukee. I’ve helped manage Physics Forums for over 22 years. I enjoy learning and discussing new scientific developments. STEM communication and policy are big interests as well. Currently a Sr. SEO Specialist at Shopify and writer at importsem.com
”
This cannot be answered as AI as well as proofs are both hypothetical. I find it difficult to encode the concept of for all in an AI, i.e. I cannot imagine that this can be done. Furthermore the number of potential proofs in the sense of a finite sequence of conclusions is so incredibly huge, that I think it needs phantasy and creativity, which again I cannot imagine could be added to an AI. But the discussion is meaningless so far. The best AI of today can just pretend to understand, so the discussion will have to be postponed a few decades.
”
I think there is a good argument that AIs can encode the concept of “for all”, since human beings have that ability and they encode the concept using neural networks (and there is arguably not much difference between biological and artificial neural networks in terms of encoding capability).
I have seen it stated that artificial neural networks are equivalent in some sense to Turing machines. [URL=’https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5401′] https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5401%5B/URL%5D: “Moreover, it is known that RNNs are Turing-Complete (Siegelmann and Sontag, 1995), and therefore have the capacity to simulate arbitrary procedures, if properly wired.”
I agree that doing creative mathematics will be hard for AIs, but that is also hard for humans. In terms of music, AIs before the current renaissance could already write music that sounded quite good for short segments, although large scale structure was probably problematic (as it generally is also for humans):
[URL unfurl=”false”]https://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/algorithmic-music-david-cope-and-emi/[/URL]
[URL unfurl=”false”]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt7fEchgFrU[/URL]
[URL unfurl=”false”]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2r1er_3Pa8[/URL]
”
But that is brute force calculation, what about AI actually doing the proofs?
”
This cannot be answered as AI as well as proofs are both hypothetical. I find it difficult to encode the concept of for all in an AI, i.e. I cannot imagine that this can be done. Furthermore the number of potential proofs in the sense of a finite sequence of conclusions is so incredibly huge, that I think it needs phantasy and creativity, which again I cannot imagine could be added to an AI. But the discussion is meaningless so far. The best AI of today can just pretend to understand, so the discussion will have to be postponed a few decades.
[LIST]
[*]advances in robotics
[*]advances in AI
[*]medicines that are more specifically targeted to specific diseases and specific individuals.
[/LIST]
”
But that is brute force calculation, what about AI actually doing the proofs?
”
Yes that was what I referred to when I said a QC with a suitable programme like the proof-assistants software we have nowadays, like Coq.
”
Will such a computer be able to prove the claymath conjectures with suitable programme?
”
No.
Just a few examples:
[LIST]
[*]##P\neq NP\, : \,## We need a proof for something cannot exist. Computer capacities won’t help.
[*]##ERH\, , \,\text{Goldbach}\, : \,## We already checked ##10^{10}## zeroes. Some more won’t help.
[*]##\text{Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer}\, : \,## same as ERH
[*]##\text{Navier-Stokes}\, : \,## A computer can give a numerical approximation and so does a pipe, but this doesn’t solve the problem.
[*]##\text{Yang-Mills}\, : \,## A quantum computer might be helpful to deal with some exceptional groups, [U]after[/U] a general solution has been found for the regular ones.
[/LIST]
”
Affordable and reliable quantum computers would be revolutionary in chemistry, materials, biotech and medicine (at least). Simulating molecules and their interactions is very hard and relies on a lot of approximations, consequently even the best computational chemistry work is paired with rounds of practical experiments. A quantum computer would be able to simulate chemistry without these approximations, the potential for that is vast. Anything from searching for more efficient photosynthetic molecules (and efficient pathways to synthesise them) to hunting for new medical candidates by simulating potential targets and how to inhibit them.
”
Your reply doesn’t answer my question though.
Definitely not controlled fusion, because that is always 50 years in the future.
a personal Quantum computer, and quantum mac.
PQC.
Will such a computer be able to prove the claymath conjectures with suitable programme?
I’ll throw in for advanced robotics in manufacturing.
“The ability for scientists to create āartificial gametesāāfunctional human sperm and eggs cells produced in the labācould fundamentally change society. The idea would be that a doctor could take a skin cell from a patient, convert those skin cells into stem cells in the lab via cellular reprogramming, and culture the stem cells in a dish to coax them to differentiate into germ cells capable of generating sperm or eggs. ”
Interesting. This is the first I’ve ever heard of this idea.
Thanks, [USER=124113]@Ygggdrasil[/USER].