Live data from Hacker News

Too many new papers may mean novel ideas rarely rack up citations

blog.pnas.org

91–100 of 241 posts

Re: Too many new papers may mean novel ideas rarely rack up citations

#91
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's obviously waning if you look at any field that deals with physical world: a car from 1940 looks totally different than one from 1980's, but the one from 2020 and 1980 looks almost the same. Space rockets are same as they were in 80's, where are nuclear engines, fusion propultion, etc? Its the same for airplanes, appliances, and everything execept computers. https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/145134227466…

Cars, planes, and rockets all have optimal shapes for their environment, of course they're not going to change much once they get to that point. Cars are still vastly different today than in the 80s in (at least) performance, efficiency, and safety. Planes are also getting quite a bit better, although adoption of these planes is slow as most airlines want to get as much as they can out of the old fleet.[0] SpaceX has…

Powered landing was definitively proved technology in 1969.

Applying it to booster reuse on Earth waited a bit longer.

Re: Too many new papers may mean novel ideas rarely rack up citations

#92
post #47

One thing obvious is the breakdown between theory and experiment in physics. Newton's great accomplishment was discovering a link between terrestrial and extraterrestrial physics. Today on the large scale we see it takes multiple kinds of "dark matter" to explain the rotation of galaxies, structure of galaxy clusters, and cosmology. "Dark matter" evades any attempt to detect it on Earth. Einstein's prediction of how…

I don't understand why consensus jumped to the conclusion that there must be a new form of undetectable matter instead trying to figure out what we don't know about gravity. Theoretical particle physics is even worse. There haven't been any advances since the 1970's. Experimental particle physics has done a great job in verifying/testing the predictions from the 1960's/1970's but theoretical physicists are stuck in a…

Mostly because no one has found a modified version of gravity that can explain all of the observed data.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsta.2011...

Re: Too many new papers may mean novel ideas rarely rack up citations

#93
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something has changed. I can't imagine Einstein's generation functioning like that. Have pioneers of innovation moved to private corporations now that they have capital that rivals academia? Private companies can reward innovators with more than just credentials. Bell Labs, Xerox Parc, Google Brain, OpenAI, Tesla, SpaceX, ... Granted, this isn't even across all fields as they are not all economic drivers.

Bell Labs was only pseudo private. The government required they have that research lab in exchange for being allowed to have a monopoly. One should also consider that institutions like that were partly so productive for being at the right place and time in history, when we were developing the tools to exploit the low hanging fruit nature has to offer us. That whole era, we snatched it all up quick. Spaceflight and su…

Source?

Re: Too many new papers may mean novel ideas rarely rack up citations

#94

No, it isn't waning. There are struggles, but that doesn't mean its waning. We're having massive progress in medicine, space, cosmology, environment, biology, food, transportation. Hell, the only thing that's waning is public perception of science and that seems to be a deliberate political attack.

I think it's obviously waning if you look at any field that deals with physical world: a car from 1940 looks totally different than one from 1980's, but the one from 2020 and 1980 looks almost the same. Space rockets are same as they were in 80's, where are nuclear engines, fusion propultion, etc? Its the same for airplanes, appliances, and everything execept computers. https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/145134227466…

Car styling being somewhat static does not imply that Scientific Progress is waning. You could say something similar about clothing styles: comparing clothing styles between 1980 and 1990 there was a lot of difference. Comparing between 2010 and 2020 - not much difference. This has a lot more to do with economics and tastes than scientific progress (or lack thereof).

Re: Too many new papers may mean novel ideas rarely rack up citations

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's obviously waning if you look at any field that deals with physical world: a car from 1940 looks totally different than one from 1980's, but the one from 2020 and 1980 looks almost the same. Space rockets are same as they were in 80's, where are nuclear engines, fusion propultion, etc? Its the same for airplanes, appliances, and everything execept computers. https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/145134227466…

That ignores an enormous about of vehicle safety improvements (roof crush resistance, various collision detection/drift detection, electronic stability control, crumple zones... ad nauseum). That also ignores really impressive improvements in ICE based cars (idle shutdown, cylinder deactivation, reduced pollution). That's not even touching on electric vehicles and self-driving car advances.

The fact that we are still discussing ICE cars proves my poity. The first electric care was built 120 years ago and London had an Electric Bus company (!) in year 1903.

Re: Too many new papers may mean novel ideas rarely rack up citations

#96
post #47

One thing obvious is the breakdown between theory and experiment in physics. Newton's great accomplishment was discovering a link between terrestrial and extraterrestrial physics. Today on the large scale we see it takes multiple kinds of "dark matter" to explain the rotation of galaxies, structure of galaxy clusters, and cosmology. "Dark matter" evades any attempt to detect it on Earth. Einstein's prediction of how…

I don't understand why consensus jumped to the conclusion that there must be a new form of undetectable matter instead trying to figure out what we don't know about gravity. Theoretical particle physics is even worse. There haven't been any advances since the 1970's. Experimental particle physics has done a great job in verifying/testing the predictions from the 1960's/1970's but theoretical physicists are stuck in a…

[deleted]

Re: Too many new papers may mean novel ideas rarely rack up citations

#97
post #63

Understandability is waning. Which in many places amounts to the same thing. Newtonian physics could be understood by an average child. General Relativity could be understood by intellectuals somewhat. The cutting edge of physics now is barely understood by the people who are publishing the papers. For additional progress to continue in a lot of fields we're giving up a lot of understanding. If we give a mouse a maze…

GR is hard to understand, because it uses wrong postulates. A medium (Higgs «field») is present everywhere, so we can use it (or CMB) as 0 point.

BB is wrong theory because photons are not immortal things, they are losing energy with time, thus H0(s) are representing rates of loss for different frequencies. Our local group of galaxies is expanding, because we are falling into Great Attractor and Shapley Attractor, but it's coincidence.

QM can be reproduced and studied at macro scale using walking droplets or air bubbles in water bubble in microgravity.

Re: Too many new papers may mean novel ideas rarely rack up citations

#98
post #33

I enjoyed this podcast[0] with Peter Thiel and Eric Weinstein, where one of their central discussion points is the current stagnation of technological innovation, beginning in the mid 1970s, with the sole exception of computer software. [0] https://youtu.be/nM9f0W2KD5s

Peter Thiel aka Computer Software businessman and Eric Weinstein aka theoretical mathematician and his pal in software business. Like they know anything about the technological innovation, outside of computer software.

Re: Too many new papers may mean novel ideas rarely rack up citations

#99

It's worth noting that scientific progress in the Soviet Union seriously stagnated in the Lysenko era due to the prioritization of ideology and the destruction of independent science. I'd argue we are seeing the same thing in many western countries, especially the USA, under the ideology of corporate control of academic research. Much can be traced back to Bayh-Dole legislation in the 1980s, which allowed universitie…

Excellent observation apart from the profit-minded corporations bit. Corporate R&D spending has greatly increased, while USGOV spending has remained mostly flat. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2018/may/rd-busine...

Every major pharmaceutical drug I know of (including mRNA vaccines see Pfizer) is based on publicly-financed (NIH) research done at public univesities and transferred to the private sector under Bayh-Dole exclusive licensing regimes.

Now, would a university academic overseer be pleased to find their chemisty professors doing 'open-source drug discovery', or focusing on alternative uses of old drugs that cannot be patented (say, cannabis extracts as pain medications competing with new patented opiate derivatives)?

I don't see how anyone can honestly argue that the profit motive isn't seriously skewing (and limiting) the kinds of academic research being done in US universities today.

Re: Too many new papers may mean novel ideas rarely rack up citations

#100
post #92
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why consensus jumped to the conclusion that there must be a new form of undetectable matter instead trying to figure out what we don't know about gravity. Theoretical particle physics is even worse. There haven't been any advances since the 1970's. Experimental particle physics has done a great job in verifying/testing the predictions from the 1960's/1970's but theoretical physicists are stuck in a…

Mostly because no one has found a modified version of gravity that can explain all of the observed data. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsta.2011...

Why not both?

Part of why dark matter is such an attractive explanation is because there are no constraints on it. Unfortunately this seems to have relieved pressure to explore and test modified gravity.

Post reply on HN