Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How do we know for sure that technology will continue to advance?

  1. Oct 6, 2009 #1
    In both Hardware and Software?
    Does anybody see technology reaching its limit?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 6, 2009 #2
    it's called the bomb...and it's coming 0-0

    but if we somehow reach the "startrek" point... I'd imagine we'd figure out how to "crack" the universe, if possible, and use and manipulate matter/energy in rawest forms :3
     
  4. Oct 6, 2009 #3
    Well, in the original question I meant stopping before 2050... which some of us may find shocking
     
  5. Oct 6, 2009 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    [shakes his magic 8 ball] "Ask again later."
     
  6. Oct 6, 2009 #5

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No. I don't see how that's possbile, unless either:
    1] We stop (deliberately or inadvertantly).
    2] We attain god-like abilities.

    What?? Are you drunk?
     
  7. Oct 6, 2009 #6

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think you have a problem there, Russ. I got "Outlook not so good," and I just got my 8 ball calibrated.
     
  8. Oct 6, 2009 #7
    :rofl:I just dropped mine and one of the puppies ran off with it and the other puppy knocked it down the stairs. Is it bad luck to break your magic 8 ball?:eek:
     
  9. Oct 6, 2009 #8
    The future is going to be friggin' awesome with invisible cars, floating schools, and sham-wow!


    No, but the little people living there and making the results will want revenge.
     
  10. Oct 6, 2009 #9
    Little people died after the crash. :uhh:
     
  11. Oct 6, 2009 #10
    Bad puppy!

    On a serious note, how much new technology is still sitting on the shelf?

    I think that cost will be the only thing that slows the advancement of technology in the future.
     
  12. Oct 6, 2009 #11

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There is so much "technology" that isn't available to the public yet, it would boggle your mind. The technology for DSL was invented in the 1970's, the technology for cell phones back in the 1940's, just because it's not a product on the market doesn't mean it's not known. Also, new technology is built open old technology in many cases, you take a piece of something and create something new from it. We have enough known technology right now to be putting out new products for decades.
     
  13. Oct 6, 2009 #12

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here is the problem I see. 400yrs ago you became a research grade scientist by reading a handful of books. That is all there was, you could learn enough to be "state of the art" is a summer. Now it takes 12 yrs of elementary education to get ready for 8 to 12 yrs of university work. So now it takes more like 20yrs of education to be come "state of the art". This combined with the trend that most major breakthroughs are made by the 25 - 35 age group does seem to but a limit on our ability to advance technology. Just when will these factors kick in? Get out the magic 8 ball.
     
  14. Oct 6, 2009 #13
    That is true just look at military planes:
    B-52H 1962
    B-1A 1970
    B-2 1987
    F-117A 1982
    F-16 1979
    And the list goes on with the newest most advanced aircraft (declassified) being the F-35 coming out in 1999

    On the civilian side:
    Boeing 777 1994
    Boeing 747 1969
    Airbus A380 2005
    Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde 1969

    All of these dates are test plane flight date.

    Just think most of the planes that are in the air were designed when slide rules were king, and also have blueprints (gasp).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2009
  15. Oct 6, 2009 #14

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Really? I've always wondered about the mapping of the past onto the present.

    It always seemed to me that the Wright Brothers could do groundbreaking scince in their garage, but that could never occur nowadays? Or is it an illusion casued by being too close? Another century and they'll be looking back in astonishment at what we could do in a small warehouse with a few inspired guys.


    Youth fashion trends, music, kids' counter-culture, etc. They all seem to change, but the changes are a constant. A mapping of patterns over time.

    I wish there was a name of this kind of study. It keeps coming up in my life and I don't know what to call it.
     
  16. Oct 6, 2009 #15
    We're no where close to even 'average' technology...considerer the best processor in the market consuming ~125 - 150W...where as it should consume none...the reason why technology is progressing sooo fast cause right now we're bad at it.
     
  17. Oct 6, 2009 #16

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The recent Nobel prize reminded me that Bell Labs was responsible for so many technological discoveries. Sad that it was broken up and the funding dried up. Kao, Boyle and Smith were working for Bell Labs when they did their work.
     
  18. Oct 6, 2009 #17
    Things will keep improving because we don't know what's coming next.

    No one ever knew about plasmas and LCD TVs in the 50s, and look at the times now.

    It's a really weak example I know, but all it takes is one nerd out there to discover something and then to publish it after fighting for grant money to change the world and make it a more technologically advanced place.

    Brb working on my ray gun.
     
  19. Oct 6, 2009 #18
    There was a higher up for patents in the early 1900's who said all the inventions that would be had already been made. That was before airplanes, radios, etc :rolleyes:

    Just like a record player repeats itself, so does history.

    It requires more assumptions to say that technology won't continue than to say that it will. If I put my keys into the car ignition, I can't know for sure that it'll start, only that it has in the past. Believing that it'll start again requires an extra assumption compared to saying "I don't know". However, it requires even more assumptions to say the car will not start.
     
  20. Oct 6, 2009 #19

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Why would a record repeat itself?
     
  21. Oct 6, 2009 #20

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Maybe he meant an 8-track tape.
     
  22. Oct 7, 2009 #21
    Since some on PhysicsForums got mad at me earlier for taking three words from a television show and adding six to create a phrase I had never read, and they accused it of being too much from a book, you know it may be good for me to refrain from sounding too analytical/left brained here.

    Maybe something that can be more easily imagined/less room for wiggling around in meaning, perhaps we could say a CD left in a CD Player, or an MP3 Player which keeps on playing. Eventually it'll repeat itself again. The record player/tape player/whatever was meant to be a simile for meaning, not a precise analogy. I guess when we have logical sounding analogies people say, "Not from a book", or empty your mind of all personal thoughts/feelings because all personal thoughts are automatically found in academia somewhere, or believe the world is flat because it being round is actually "from some book", etc. Who knows what these accusers are actually thinking?

    I guess this relates to an earlier thread about using metaphors/similes to explain and using actual evidence to prove, and that metaphors/similes usually only get the "gist of it" across rather than an exact description like precise scientific language does. As far as evidence, I used one fact at the top of my previous post, one of the higher ups who thought all inventions had already been made the early 1900's (and there's quite a lot of people who thought the present tense was modern/static throughout history). I guess I could have found more evidence that history keeps on repeating itself. However, I think you already know it does, and were just saying something about my choice of simile :smile:
     
  23. Oct 7, 2009 #22

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What? You've never heard the phrase 'broken record' to refer to someone repeating themselves?
     
  24. Oct 7, 2009 #23

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I have.

    1] If he'd said 'like a broken record repeating itself', it would have made sense.


    2] (Not his fault, but) the old adage is wrong and always has been. Broken records do not repeat themselves. Scratched records repeat themselves. No sane person would try to put a broken record on a turntable. :wink:
     
  25. Oct 7, 2009 #24
    Something to maybe consider, the word "broken" can mean different things in different contexts. It could mean physically broken, but broken can also mean functional broken. Given that it wouldn't be rational to use a physical broken in half (or fifths) record, the second definition may be more appropriate.

    If someone says, "My boss is a pig," we know they're not being literal but rather meaning something else. When people talk, we typically expect them to say the truth, and the only way "My boss is a pig" makes sense and is honest is when we believe it to have a different meaning based on context. Perhaps maybe the same could be said about what we expect with truth and a possible real meaning for a broken record?

    Now I'm back to analyzing again.
     
  26. Oct 7, 2009 #25
    Well unless you had this awsome peice of tech. http://www.elpj.com/main.html" [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Loading...