

Ask HN: Where are the great scientific theories of our lifetime? - alister

It seems to me that all the GREAT theories and discoveries happened
before we were born:<p>Evolution, Big Bang, special relativity, general relativity, quantum
mechanics, Godel's incompleteness theorem, continental drift, asteroid
death of dinosaurs (K-T extinction event), fission/fusion, germ theory,
etc.<p>All of those theories and discoveries are at least 50 years old.<p>You'd think that with scientific knowledge supposedly doubling
every 7 years that we'd have many new really important discoveries
and truly groundbreaking theories. But we don't. Why not?
======
wbhart
Well, you didn't say when you were born. But let me have a go:

Inflation theory (1980), Gluons (1979), Experimental verification of quarks
(mid 1970's), Quantum Chromodynamics (1960, modern version 1975), Quantum
Computing (1982), Spintronics (1980s), Josephson effect (1962), SQUIDS
(1964/1965), Semiconductor Photolithography (1982), Nanotechnology (1980s),
high temperature superconductivity (1986).

Nothing interesting happened after 1994 because of the invention of the Spice
Girls and because the eighties were over and everyone became obsessed with
having answers immediately and looking it up on the web instead of reading
books and so on. (It's just possible that this is when I gave up reading books
and so I don't know about anything that happened since then. But I'd rate that
possibility at less than 10% based on a back of the envelope calculation.)

~~~
alister
These are technology (not theories or scientific discoveries): \- SQUIDS
(1964/1965) \- Semiconductor Photolithography (1982) \- Nanotechnology (1980s)
\- High temperature superconductivity (1986) \- Quantum Computing (1982) \-
Spintronics (1980s)

And these are old (which was my original point about nothing happening
recently): \- Josephson effect (1962) \- Inflation theory (1980) \- Gluons
(1979) \- Experimental verification of quarks (mid 1970's) \- Quantum
Chromodynamics (1960, modern version 1975)

------
guygurari
At least part of the problem is in communicating great discoveries to the
general public. Let me give an example. In the last few decades, Cosmology
transformed from being a speculative, mostly theoretical field to a precise,
quantitative science. Experiments that measured the Cosmic Microwave
Background (WMAP in 2001 and others) enabled us to form a history of the
universe that is backed by evidence. Measurements of supernovae (1998) showed
the universe is accelerating (an amazing fact by itself) and from this we
understand its future behavior.

Within Cosmology, I think the theory of inflation (Guth, 1980) deserves
special mention. Its purpose is to explain what happened before what most
people think of as The Big Bang, and it does so successfully, agreeing with
highly nontrivial experimental tests (with data collected by WMAP and others).
The fact that we can say something meaningful about what happened before the
big bang, and then check it experimentally -- isn't it just mind blowing?
What's fascinating is that inflation requires quantum mechanics and general
relativity to work together to produce the effects we measure in the microwave
background -- the very effects that are later crucial for the formation of
galaxies. [1]

And yet, no one I talked to outside the physics community is even remotely
aware of any of this. We are making great strides toward understanding where
we came from -- the very origins of the universe -- and yet almost no one
seems to notice. Wouldn't surprise me if there are similar examples in other
fields.

[1] The basic picture is that the microscopic uncertainties of QM are
amplified by GR to become cosmic-scale perturbations, which later collapse
(due to gravity) to form galaxies.

------
wbhart
Listing Godel's incompleteness theorem is a bit unfair to mathematics. What
about K-theory, Schemes, Motives, the Langland's programme, Agrawal-Kayal-
Saxena on primes, Number Field Sieve, RSA and Elliptic Curve Crytography, all
more recent. The list goes on, forever.... Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem,
the class number 1 conjecture, the Bieberbach conjecture, Catalan's
conjecture, Serre's conjecture, Kepler conjecture, Poincare conjecture
(Thurston's geometrization conjecture)....

~~~
alister
I can't comment on all of those, but the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is not
in the same category of importance as the examples I gave. It's an
accomplishment certainly, but not a theory or discovery of GREAT importance to
the world.

I do agree that public key cryptography is hugely important to the world, but
it's technology rather than a discovery or a theory. (For the same reason, I
didn't put the Web or Wikipedia on the list. It's very important, but it's
technology.)

Are you saying that some of the others on your list are (a) recent, and (b) in
the same magnitude of importance as the Big Bang and Godel's incompleteness
theorem?

------
bendmorris
I think groundbreaking theories just aren't as obvious anymore because many of
the big general questions have been answered and with these answers,
disciplines are constantly dividing and subdividing. Therefore, the great
ideas of today don't seem as far reaching. Take evolution, for example -
pioneered back when the study of "biology" was mostly just taxonomy and
natural history; it now has applications in the vast array of modern
biological sciences, including ecology, medicine, genetics, and even
computing.

There are some great movements in science today that wouldn't have been
possible in the past. Bioinformatics, working with huge amounts of genomic
data, is one example - how about the Human Genome Project, which was completed
in the last decade? Another is James Brown's "macroecology," the idea of using
statistics and huge amounts of data to learn about general patterns in the
world at enormous temporal and spatial scales
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroecology>) and answer questions like "what
effect would climate change have on the world?" And, depending on how old you
are, the potential global application of immunology to eradicate infectious
diseases such as smallpox and polio.

------
crasshopper
_At first I was a detractor but it seems Lee Smolin agrees with you. From "The
Trouble with Physics" (free preview part):_

The period of time I will address -- roughly since 1975 -- is the span of my
own professional career as a theoretical physicist. It may also be the ...
most frustrating period ... since Kepler and Galileo....

The story I will tell ... tragedy. To put it bluntly...we have failed. We
inherited a science ... that had been progressing so fast for so long ...
model for ... other kinds of science.... For more than two centuries, until
the present period, our understanding of the laws of nature expanded rapidly.
But today, despite our best efforts, what we know for certain about these laws
is no more than what we knew back in the 1970s.

How unusual is it for three decades to pass without major progress in
fundamental physics? Even if we look back more than two hundred years, to a
time when science was the concern mostly of wealthy amateurs, it is
unprecedented.

------
triviatise
Maybe you are adding up all of the great discoveries throughout all of history
and comparing them to a 50 year period.

Another issue is that many of the "great" theories were considered to be
crocks at the time. It took decades for them to be proven and/or accepted.
Anything equivalent discovered now might not be proven for a hundred years.

For example theory of manmade global warming. Telomere theory of aging - may
lead to everlasting life Genetic basis of disease How viruses are integrated
into our genome

Things that are yet to be proven but there are competing theories. Some may
turn out to be correct Origin of species Unified theory Extraterrestrial life

------
chromic
I'd say it's because you consider the 'GREATNESS' of a discovery is correlated
how well it answers a simple question that almost anyone can come up with.
Evolution is a great answer to simple questions about life for anyone willing
to accept it, but subatomic particle research just doesn't have immediate
implications to most people.

Edit: Also, what are your thoughts on technology? While it isn't a theory or
scientific discovery, personal computing has had a major impact on society in
the last couple of decades.

~~~
alister
There's no question that personal computing, the Web, Wikipedia, advance in
semiconductors, networking, etc. have been amazing in the last few decades.
That's why my question is _not_ , "Where are the great technical developments
of our lifetime?" :-).

------
petervandijck
I just read a book about astrophysics where he was lamenting just that.

They've been stuck by not being able to combine general relativity and quantum
physics for decades now, entire careers. Pretty frustrating if you're in that
field.

------
keiferski
I once read that the 20th century was the domain of physics, and (by all
predictions) the 21st century will be the domain of biology and chemistry.
Perhaps the breakthrough advances are in those fields?

~~~
alister
But can you name ANY amazing breakthrough in physics in the 20th century past
about 1960? Or in biology and chemistry for that matter? The original question
still stands.

~~~
hackerblues
For biology:

\- Various advancements in stem cell research. Eg: skin cells into stem cells.
\- The creation of a living organism with a completely synthetically
constructed genome. \- The sequencing of the human genome. \- Nearly all of
neuroscience.

~~~
alister
Those example are all technology. Astounding technology, sure, but still
technology. They're not great theories or discoveries. (And by "discovery" I
mean a discovery of something that exists in nature -- like plate tectonics --
not discovering a way to make something.)

------
crasshopper
Prospect Theory is a great one. <http://prospect-
theory.behaviouralfinance.net/>

------
orangecat
The memristor is one to watch.

------
Mz
Maybe we do and they just are less visible in part because there are so many
-- ie the big ideas are not towering head and shoulders over everything else
in the landscape, so we kind of don't notice. "Can't see the trees for the
forest" type thing.

~~~
alister
So you're saying that the great theories and discoveries these days don't get
the fame that, say, the Big Bang gets, because there are so many of them. If
that's the case you should still be able to name a theory or discovery in
_your_ area of expertise that you think qualifies as a great theory or
discovery--of the same caliber as the Big Bang or evolution--even though it is
not famous.

~~~
Mz
As I said above: I have cystic fibrosis and got myself well. I'm a former
homemaker. I have no fame. I have no idea if this will lead to fame or not.
(Personally, I generally assume that if I get fame, it will be for something
else and then people will nag me for info on how I did it. Until then, no one
gives a flying f __*.) But it's a pretty amazing accomplishment. And it's not
a fluke: My oldest son has the same diagnosis and he is even healthier than I
am. I have some theories regarding my condition and acting on those theories
is what has gotten results. Two key concepts are that excess acidity and the
salt issue are two very major factors in all that goes wrong down the line and
that effectively addressing those prevents/reverses what are really secondary,
tertiary or further down the order of hierarchy effects. So, yeah, I think big
things are going on and not being noticed. I have reason to believe that some
of what I have figured out can be used to good effect for figuring out how to
effectively treat other genetic disorders and medical conditions. The small
number of people who have taken an interest in what I'm up to tend to report
astonishingly good results.

What I have accomplished was built on the info out there, so I think lots of
amazing stuff is currently available. But clearly I'm biased.

Peace.

