What are the Holy Grails of Science that could change our world?

  • Thread starter Virogen
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Science
In summary, the conversation includes a discussion about preparing an inspirational list of challenges for students. The list includes ideas such as the Grand Unified Theory, low energy/cost desalinization, stopping aging, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence. The conversation also touches on topics such as quantum computing, space colonization, and the Riemann-zeta hypothesis. There is a suggestion to revise the list to focus on discoveries that would revolutionize the world and solve problems, rather than just technologies.
  • #1
Virogen
13
0
I am preparing an inspirational list for my students in the hopes that some of them will take up these challenges. I was hoping I could get some more suggestions.


Holy Grails of Science:
- Grand Unified Theory
- Featherweight Solar or wind
- Solar Pavement
- Beamed Power Propulsion
- Low energy/cost desalinization of ocean water for human consumption
- Observe or disprove the Higgs Boson
- Growth of fully functional organs
- Stop aging
- Nanotechnology
- High temperature superconductors
- Detection of gravitational waves
- Detection and discovery of structure of dark matter
- Explanation of the nature of dark energy
- Artificial photosynthesis
- Cold Fusion
- Artificial Intelligence
- Cloning of a human being
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
There are some excellent ones on that list. Some items on the list may be related to engineering as well. Here are some more ideas:

-Detecting/preventing/eliminating cancer
-regenerating neurons/parts of the brain for people with traumatic brain injuries
-curing paralysis
-quantum computing
-room temperature superconductor

Maybe you should replace "cold fusion" with "fusion power," as the latter is the true goal, and the former may be held in poor regard.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
I would say GUT and Quantum computing should be on the top, I would put amongst the biological holy grails... Humans engineering our neurons to have Na channels and K channels that react to negative charge faster... may sound specific, but If we could do it it would increase our intelligence greatly... by increasing our rate of thought. This one Holy grail may make all the others realities!
 
  • #4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything" [Broken] is the holy grail, I believe.

"Sentient computer" or "self-aware computer" AI is not necessarily that intelligent nor self-aware.

Interstellar colonization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization" [Broken]

"Free energy" would be wonderful, but the term has become a joke. TANSTAAFL

Good luck!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Virogen said:
I am preparing an inspirational list for my students in the hopes that some of them will take up these challenges. I was hoping I could get some more suggestions.

This really does not seem right to me. Scientists do not talk in this way, there are active areas of research and some are more groundbreaking than others but there are no "holy grails". The only thing that I could see the term meaning is "discovery that would radically change our understanding of the universe", anything else is just a wishlist of technologies. As for the list;

Holy Grails of Science:
- Featherweight Solar or wind
- Solar Pavement

I'm not even sure what you are referring to here, sounds like an interesting idea but not exactly something the whole community is waiting for.

- Low energy/cost desalinization of ocean water for human consumption

This would be great but hardly something that would change science forever.

- Stop aging

This is not something the scientific community is pursuing.

- Nanotechnology

This makes about as much sense as saying "physics is a holy grail of science". https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3179" [Broken], it is an area of science itself. A huge one that has already made great advances to technology.

- Detection of gravitational waves

I don't get what you mean, we detect gravity all the time. Do you mean discover the mechanism by which gravity works?

- Detection and discovery of structure of dark matter
- Explanation of the nature of dark energy

What do you mean by "structure"?

- Cold Fusion

This is not even possible.

- Artificial Intelligence

Do you mean artificial sentient intelligence? We already have software that displays intelligence. Even if we did make a sentient intelligence there would be huge ethical issues.

- Cloning of a human being

We already can do this but it is illegal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
I'm not even sure what you are referring to here, sounds like an interesting idea but not exactly something the whole community is waiting for.

This would be great but hardly something that would change science forever.

I think the list is more about technologies or discoveries that would revolutionize the world and/or our understanding of the universe and/or solve a problem that human civilization has.

This is not something the scientific community is pursuing.

I think there is a lot of research into manipulating apoptosis, which I think encompasses this.

This makes about as much sense as saying "physics is a holy grail of science". https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3179" [Broken], it is an area of science itself. A huge one that has already made great advances to technology.

Good point, I will revise this.

I don't get what you mean, we detect gravity all the time. Do you mean discover the mechanism by which gravity works?

These are sort of disturbances in space-time that travel as waves. Einstein predicted them but none of the detectors built have been able to measure it.

What do you mean by "structure"?

Well this is an assumption that something with mass has structure. Perhaps I should rephrase it as to "the nature of dark matter".

This is not even possible.

I do need to strike this term from my vocabulary. I will rephrase it as controlled fusion in which the output energy is greater than the input energy.

Do you mean artificial sentient intelligence?

Thanks, I will rephrase this.

We already can do this but it is illegal.

I disagree with this. Some animal cells do not respond well to nuclear transfer and thus we have thus far been unable to clone certain animals, humans included. It's not illegal everywhere, and if it were possible, someone would have done it because it would make them incredibly famous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
I would advise you to split up this list and ask about specific topics in sub-forums. You appear to be under some misunderstandings of some topic and I question how well you could teach them without a good understanding.
 
  • #8
No love for math problems?? :frown:
The Riemann-zeta hypothesis should count as a holy grail...
 
  • #9
ryan_m_b said:
I would advise you to split up this list and ask about specific topics in sub-forums. You appear to be under some misunderstandings of some topic and I question how well you could teach them without a good understanding.

I certainly don't have full understanding of many of these topics. Each topic is something that one could dedicate years of study towards. I am not going to teach these topics, but I want a list to serve as inspiration for students who might want to pursue these areas of research.
 
  • #10
Virogen said:
I certainly don't have full understanding of many of these topics. Each topic is something that one could dedicate years of study towards. I am not going to teach these topics, but I want a list to serve as inspiration for students who might want to pursue these areas of research.

I would suggest focusing on active areas of real science then. It is not a criticism that you are not an expert but some of the things on your list are nonsensical (stopping ageing for example). It would be better if you could inspire the kids without using fantasy, otherwise if any of them choose a career in science they are going to be disappointed. Perhaps you should ask in individual forums what people in each field would class as a "holy grail". Or rephrase your question as "what are the holy grails of modern day science". As it is it is pretty hard to work through the list to help you.

P.S forgot to mention last time that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis" [Broken].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Wikipedia said:
Planck replied that he did not wish to discover new things, but only to understand the known fundamentals of the field, and so began his studies in 1874 at the University of Munich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck

Although we all would love some of these technologies.

I must say after reading this post, I see a flaw with teaching students to strive after discoveries. People who are actually interested in science do not enter into the field hoping to discover something and become famous or respected... really they just want to understand the field.
 
  • #12
Solar pavement would not be any scientific breakthrough, just an engineering extension of known technology. Solar roads have already been designed.
 
  • #13
With solar roads, dragging your muffler could be real expensive... and much sparkier.
 
  • #14
ryan_m_b said:
I would suggest focusing on active areas of real science then. It is not a criticism that you are not an expert but some of the things on your list are nonsensical (stopping ageing for example). It would be better if you could inspire the kids without using fantasy, otherwise if any of them choose a career in science they are going to be disappointed. Perhaps you should ask in individual forums what people in each field would class as a "holy grail". Or rephrase your question as "what are the holy grails of modern day science". As it is it is pretty hard to work through the list to help you.

I am not sure how any scientist could say that stopping ageing would not be possible. It's a biological process that very likely can be manipulated - even nanotechnology might someday produce machines that are able to regenerate cells indefinitely. Something like that has incredible implications... One generation's fantasy is another's history.

However, perhaps telling students that this is something they could achieve in this generation is probably more fantasy. Perhaps I should rephrase it closer to something like "understanding the mechanisms of ageing", which could lead to its manipulation later. I will think about this more for sure.

Since your expertise is in nanotechnology, what would you consider holy grails in that area of science?

That Neuron said:
I must say after reading this post, I see a flaw with teaching students to strive after discoveries. People who are actually interested in science do not enter into the field hoping to discover something and become famous or respected... really they just want to understand the field.

Of course a scientist wants to understand the field, but they want to use their understanding to further knowledge. Otherwise, is there really a career - sounds more like a hobby? There must be some kind of genesis, not stopping at what has already been done. I completely agree with you that they should not enter the field to become famous or respected and that is not what I am trying to do here. But discovery is key to science, and I think exposing them to some ideas is not a negative thing.
 
  • #15
ryan_m_b said:
This is not something the scientific community is pursuing.

Well, maybe not stop aging. But increasing the life span by a lot is.Anyways, I don't think the "Holy Grails of Science" is the right way to attract students to science. I think it is best to develop curiosity by asking questions and trying to solve them. (Maybe ask some interesting questions and try to understand it together... to show that the world somewhat make sense and how there are still unknowns to be figured out.)

As Pablo Picasso once said “All children are born artists, the problem is to remain an artist as we grow up.” I feel this is true for science. “All children are born scientists, the problem is to remain an scientist as we grow up.” All children are naturally curious, all teachers have to do is to not ruin it.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
ryan_m_b said:
P.S forgot to mention last time that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis" [Broken].

I have heard a great deal about this topic over the last fifteen years. For example:

An important quest in modern biology is to identify genes involved in aging. Model organisms such as the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans are particularly useful in this regard. The C. elegans genome has been sequenced [1], and single gene mutations that extend adult life span have been identified [2]. Among these longevity-controlling loci are four apparently unrelated genes that belong to the clk family [3], [4] and [5]. In mammals, telomere length and structure can influence cellular, and possibly organismal, aging [6]. Here, we show that clk-2 encodes a regulator of telomere length in C. elegans.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982201005267
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
glueball8 said:
Well, maybe not stop aging. But increasing the life span by a lot is.


Anyways, I don't think the "Holy Grails of Science" is the right way to attract students to science. I think it is best to develop curiosity by asking questions and trying to solve them. (Maybe ask some interesting questions and try to understand it together... to show that the world somewhat make sense and how there are still unknowns to be figured out.)

As Pablo Picasso once said “All children are born artists, the problem is to remain an artist as we grow up.” I feel this is true for science. “All children are born scientists, the problem is to remain an scientist as we grow up.” All children are naturally curious, all teachers have to do is to not ruin it.

I completely agree with you saying children are born scientists :) Certainly most of my science classes involve investigation and my students have shown in many ways they love my science classes. But (and we're talking Jr. High / Sr. High here) we of course focus on discovering what is already known! In some cases, things that have been known for hundreds of years. We get so caught up in this, that students don't realize how much there is yet to discover - that they could be part of evolving science rather than regurgitating it.

To put what I am asking in this thread in perspective: Once a week I want to have students do a 10 minute presentation on one of these "holy grails" so that they have some inspiration and realize how much work there is left to do. I am not creating a course around "holy grails" or anything like that. It is one small aspect I am trying to create in order to fill a gap in science curricula.
 
  • #18
glueball8 said:
Well, maybe not stop aging. But increasing the life span by a lot is.


Anyways, I don't think the "Holy Grails of Science" is the right way to attract students to science. I think it is best to develop curiosity by asking questions and trying to solve them. (Maybe ask some interesting questions and try to understand it together... to show that the world somewhat make sense and how there are still unknowns to be figured out.)

As Pablo Picasso once said “All children are born artists, the problem is to remain an artist as we grow up.” I feel this is true for science. “All children are born scientists, the problem is to remain an scientist as we grow up.” All children are naturally curious, all teachers have to do is to not ruin it.

I can appreciate the notion of not ruining it, but how many scientists have given credit to shows like Star Trek for inspiring them as kids? For example, the guy who managed the first ion drive project for a deep-space probe once stated that his first exposure to the idea was through Star Trek. He can still quote Scotty verbatim.

Give a kid a curiosity and he or she might take an interest. Inspire him or her and you might change their life forever. Most people are not inspired by ordinary challenges. Give them a chance to change the world.
 
  • #19
Virogen said:
I am not sure how any scientist could say that stopping ageing would not be possible. It's a biological process that very likely can be manipulated - even nanotechnology might someday produce machines that are able to regenerate cells indefinitely. Something like that has incredible implications... One generation's fantasy is another's history.

However, perhaps telling students that this is something they could achieve in this generation is probably more fantasy. Perhaps I should rephrase it closer to something like "understanding the mechanisms of ageing", which could lead to its manipulation later. I will think about this more for sure.

Since your expertise is in nanotechnology, what would you consider holy grails in that area of science?

Nanotechnology is not about the creation of tiny machines, many proposals along those lines are fundamentally flawed. Whilst it may be technically possible to stop ageing whether or not it is practically possible is an entirely different thing. The human body is a hugely complex and chaotic system. We have nowhere near the scientific understanding to even begin understanding the processes involved, to stop ageing would require us to manipulate our entire bodies on the molecular level. I'm sorry but this is pure fiction, whether or not some magic advance makes it possible in the future is irrelevant.

However it may be possible to greatly mitigate the effects of ageing for longer but more importantly healthier life. I'm not sure what I would call a "holy grail" because my answer would be so far removed to what we have now and the field is so diverse that there is no one thing that would be brilliant. For example, currently we create nanoengineered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissue_engineering#Scaffolds", biochemical/mechanical cellular signalling, ECM formation and a thousand other aspects of cell biology. Then based on this understanding hopefully we can design technologies to manipulate cells in culture to become healthy organs for transplant.

So my answer would be slightly vague. A "holy grail" could be all the knowledge necessary to manipulate cell behaviour in every possible way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
Ivan Seeking said:
I can appreciate the notion of not ruining it, but how many scientists have given credit to shows like Star Trek for inspiring them as kids? For example, the guy who managed the first ion drive project for a deep-space probe once stated that his first exposure to the idea was through Star Trek. He can still quote Scotty verbatim.

Give a kid a curiosity and he or she might take an interest. Inspire him or her and you might change their life forever. Most people are not inspired by ordinary challenges. Give them a chance to change the world.

Well, I guess I was just thinking of Feynman. Where his drive was pure curiosity rather than anything else. But yes, inspiration can go a long way.
 
  • #21
Ivan Seeking said:
Give a kid a curiosity and he or she might take an interest. Inspire him or her and you might change their life forever. Most people are not inspired by ordinary challenges. Give them a chance to change the world.

Exactly! It's not my job to limit them!

ryan_m_b said:
Nanotechnology is not about the creation of tiny machines, many proposals along those lines are fundamentally flawed. Whilst it may be technically possible to stop ageing whether or not it is practically possible is an entirely different thing. The human body is a hugely complex and chaotic system. We have nowhere near the scientific understanding to even begin understanding the processes involved, to stop ageing would require us to manipulate our entire bodies on the molecular level. I'm sorry but this is pure fiction, whether or not some magic advance makes it possible in the future is irrelevant.

I appreciate what you are saying - though I fundamentally disagree. Even though something is difficult and years away from realization, I believe it is perfectly valid to build the foundations for its realization today. It is not my job to go up and tell the students that they can never build nanobots. Based on a cursory Google search there is a lot of money and research being poured into nanobot technology, so one person's "fundamentally flawed" may well turn into someone else's realization.

For example, currently we create nanoengineered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissue_engineering#Scaffolds", biochemical/mechanical cellular signalling, ECM formation and a thousand other aspects of cell biology. Then based on this understanding hopefully we can design technologies to manipulate cells in culture to become healthy organs for transplant.

Thanks :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
Virogen said:
I appreciate what you are saying - though I fundamentally disagree. Even though something is difficult and years away from realization, I believe it is perfectly valid to build the foundations for its realization today. It is not my job to go up and tell the students that they can never build nanobots. Based on a cursory Google search there is a lot of money and research being poured into nanobot technology, so one person's "fundamentally flawed" may well turn into someone else's realization.

The fact that you can google something isn't a testament to it's validity. There is practically no money in microscopic robots, there are only a few groups on the planet that are even looking at that and all they are doing is speculating. It is not logical nor helpful to teach children to ignore the realities of something in the hope that one day it will exist. I maintain that it's far better to teach them what really exists because they will be able to actually do something about it if they want and it is far mroe likely to actually affect their lives at some point.

EDIT: I'm not saying that it isn't possible that some day in the future we will be able to make microscopic machines that circulate around the body for medical purposes but the complexities involved are fantastic. You might as well try to inspire the kids to pursue physics by showing them Star Trek episodes.

Thanks :)

No problem.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
ryan_m_b said:
It is not logical nor helpful to teach children to ignore the realities of something in the hope that one day it will exist.

EDIT: I'm not saying that it isn't possible that some day in the future we will be able to make microscopic machines that circulate around the body for medical purposes but the complexities involved are fantastic. You might as well try to inspire the kids to pursue physics by showing them Star Trek episodes.

I am not sure why you chose to say this - it is insulting. You do not know how I teach... You yourself recognize these things may exist in the future in your reply. Compare the world 50 years ago to now. My students will have a good 50 years still ahead of them once they graduate, and you nor I cannot predict what will be possible in those next 50 years. The difference is you maintain that certain things are not worthwhile exploring because at present it appears that they are likely not possible in the time frame of their lives. I humbly disagree. It will only be possible if people pursue this now and build upon accomplishments. I think it is completely valid for a student to want to pursue even if they realize what the ultimate goal will likely not be reached in his or her lifetime. But he or she can build towards it. If you do not like my idea of inspiring students with likely achievable long term human goals, then we simply must agree to disagree.
 
  • #24
ryan_m_b said:
Nanotechnology is not about the creation of tiny machines, many proposals along those lines are fundamentally flawed. Whilst it may be technically possible to stop ageing whether or not it is practically possible is an entirely different thing. The human body is a hugely complex and chaotic system. We have nowhere near the scientific understanding to even begin understanding the processes involved, to stop ageing would require us to manipulate our entire bodies on the molecular level. I'm sorry but this is pure fiction, whether or not some magic advance makes it possible in the future is irrelevant.

Given that you have already been shown to be incorrect in previous statements in this regard, shouldn't you qualify your opinion as such?

You flatly stated that this is not an active area of research when in fact it is. This suggests to me that you are speaking out of ignorance.
 
  • #25
Virogen said:
I am not sure why you chose to say this - it is insulting. You do not know how I teach... You yourself recognize these things may exist in the future in your reply. Compare the world 50 years ago to now. My students will have a good 50 years still ahead of them once they graduate, and you nor I cannot predict what will be possible in those next 50 years. The difference is you maintain that certain things are not worthwhile exploring because at present it appears that they are likely not possible in the time frame of their lives. I humbly disagree. It will only be possible if people pursue this now and build upon accomplishments. I think it is completely valid for a student to want to pursue even if they realize what the ultimate goal will likely not be reached in his or her lifetime. But he or she can build towards it. If you do not like my idea of inspiring students with likely achievable long term human goals, then we simply must agree to disagree.

I did not mean to be insulting. What I meant was that one should not rely on things that may not even happen and are pure speculation at this moment.

Ivan Seeking said:
Given that you have already been shown to be incorrect in previous statements in this regard, shouldn't you qualify your opinion as such?

You flatly stated that this is not an active area of research when in fact it is. This suggests to me that you are speaking out of ignorance.

I did not flatly state this, I was trying to get across the message that nanotechnology is not about microscopic robots any more than physics is about interstellar space ships. I am not speaking out of ignorance however I accept that I may have communicated what I wished to communicate poorly.
 
  • #26
I don't know how old your pupils are but might it be better to start a discussion about what they would want science to achieve in their lifetime and discuss the possibilities of that happening, and the ethical problems that they might bring about, eg would it be ethical to re-boot a self aware computer or if we can stay alive indefinitely would we have to limit reproductive rights.
 
  • #27
Detection of magnetic monopoles would be huge.
 

What are the Holy Grails of Science that could change our world?

The Holy Grails of Science are the most sought-after and elusive discoveries or breakthroughs in science that have the potential to greatly impact and transform our world. These include:

1. Will we ever find a cure for cancer?

Cancer is a complex and diverse disease, and finding a cure for it has been a long-standing goal in the scientific community. While there have been significant advancements in cancer treatment, a universal cure has not yet been discovered. However, with ongoing research and advancements in technology, we are getting closer to finding more effective treatments and possibly a cure.

2. Can we achieve unlimited clean energy?

One of the biggest challenges facing our world today is finding sustainable sources of clean energy. The development of unlimited clean energy would not only reduce our dependence on fossil fuels but also help mitigate the effects of climate change. Many scientists are working towards this goal, and breakthroughs in renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy are bringing us closer to achieving unlimited clean energy.

3. Is time travel possible?

Time travel has long been a topic of fascination and curiosity in both science and popular culture. While the concept of time travel is theoretically possible according to some scientific theories, it is currently not achievable with our current technology and understanding of physics. However, scientists continue to explore and study the possibilities of time travel, and who knows what the future holds?

4. Can we reverse the effects of aging?

The idea of reversing the effects of aging has been a dream for many, and numerous studies and experiments have been conducted to find a way to do so. While we have made strides in understanding the aging process, there is still no definitive solution to reversing it. However, with advancements in technology and medicine, we may one day be able to slow down or even reverse some of the effects of aging.

5. Will we ever find a way to travel to other planets or galaxies?

Space exploration has always been a fascinating and ambitious endeavor for scientists. With the advancements in space technology and the discovery of new exoplanets, the possibility of traveling to other planets or even other galaxies is not out of reach. However, it would require significant advancements in propulsion technology and space travel capabilities before we can make this a reality.

Back
Top