- 19,793
- 10,750
We asked our Physics Forums Science advisors “What technology or scientific discovery will be the most revolutionary within the next 20 years?” Here are their responses…
Table of Contents...
Continue reading...
Last edited:
We asked our Physics Forums Science advisors “What technology or scientific discovery will be the most revolutionary within the next 20 years?” Here are their responses…
Table of Contents...
The ability for scientists to create “artificial gametes”—functional human sperm and eggs cells produced in the lab—could 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.
No I'm sorry but it is always 20 years in the future...PAllen said:Definitely not controlled fusion, because that is always 50 years in the future.
MathematicalPhysicist said:a personal Quantum computer, and quantum mac.
PQC.
Will such a computer be able to prove the claymath conjectures with suitable programme?
Your reply doesn't answer my question though.Ryan_m_b said: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.
MathematicalPhysicist said:Your reply doesn't answer my question though.
No.MathematicalPhysicist said:Will such a computer be able to prove the claymath conjectures with suitable programme?
fresh_42 said:No.
Just a few examples:
- ##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, after a general solution has been found for the regular ones.
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.BWV said: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.BWV said:But that is brute force calculation, what about AI actually doing the proofs?
fresh_42 said: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.