• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Key Discoveries in the History of Science

Serendipity.

The story is Faraday was outside using a compass during a storm. He noticed the needle deflected when there was a nearby lighting strike making a connection between electricity and magnetism.

In terms of impact I put Maxwell and Newton as a tie for first place.

Electromagnetocs is tge basis of all modern elctromic ad e;ctrical technology and Mewtomian mechanics is still the mainstay pf mechanics.

AE cfedited Maxwell.

What is called Maxwell's Equations bear the names of Ampere, Gauss, and Fraraday.
 
If you are going to talk about practical electricity in the US you have to talk about Tesla.
 
I've been enjoying reading through this thread this morning!

Some contributions from my field:

Eugene Dubois discovering the remains of an H. erectus individual in Java, monumentally confirming that there were other hominin species aside from our own, and lending enormous weight to the proposal of a human evolutionary lineage. Raymond Dart's discovery of the Taung child, the first hominin to be placed in the Australopithecine genus, likewise. It re-animated interest in Africa, which ultimately proved the right place to look for our earliest ancestors, and greatly expanded the conversation on what, physically, we were looking for.

Steno's laws: the basic guidelines of how the stratigraphic landscape forms. These have never been replaced; they remain the rules of thumb for budding geologists, archaelogists, paleontologists, and anyone else who digs in the dirt to find knowledge.

The discovery of a three-fold structure of phoneme->morpheme->sentence that underlies all human language and made the systematic comparison of languages plausible. Especially fascinating in that it was independently discovered by several cultures at different times, thus implicitly confirming that the pattern was real rather than imposed once linguists were able to share notes.

Franz Boas on the expedition to Baffin Island, realizing that cultural superiority was largely contextual and that cultural bias therefore must be controlled for if meaningful cultural observations are to take place.

It was already mentioned in this thread, but I wanted to point out something specific about the discovery of DNA; along with its many applications to natural biology and medicine, it also freed up the social sciences to explore beyond the limitations of racial pseudoscience by finally putting the nail in that particular coffin and thus bridging the ideological gap that had formed between biologists/medical professionals and social scientists. We've greatly profited from the subsequent exchange of information between those fields, and the not-coincidental development of the sociomedicine and medical anthropology subfields over the twenty years that followed have saved millions of lives.

The discovery that the metallic properties of blood allowed for the physical mapping of activity within otherwise hidden anatomical structures - ie., the realization that led to the development of the Magnetic Resonance Imager (MRI). The impacts on medicine are too extensive to list, and when this logic was applied to the study of the brain, neuroscience was able to take an enormous leap forward. We can barely have a conversation about social/cultural topics these days without some discussion of neuroscience, and Raymond Damadian's device is largely to be credited for this, elevating neuroscience from a mostly speculative science to a truly experimental one.
 
If you are going to talk about practical electricity in the US you have to talk about Tesla.
I would assume that the key discoveries in science would be the understandings of the basic nature or reality. In this case, it would be notables like Newton, Maxwell, et. al. that would be recognized as major contributors.

Tesla and many others would be noted, not for a new revaluation about the nature of reality but, for inspired use and application of the understandings given us by others. As for engineering that most greatly influenced our world, I would nominate Johannes Gutenberg.
 
There is theory and that is what is usually meant by scientific discovery.

But when you say "key discovery" I think utility.

Understanding the basics of electricity is good.

Being able to listen to good music is "key".
 
Some great science being done pointing to the hypothesis that consciousness may exist apart from the physical organism.

Neuroscience intersecting with AI intersecting with gerontology.
 
Some great science being done pointing to the hypothesis that consciousness may exist apart from the physical organism.

Neuroscience intersecting with AI intersecting with gerontology.

I think you misspelled “pseudoscience”.
Again.
 
Some great science being done pointing to the hypothesis that consciousness may exist apart from the physical organism.

Neuroscience intersecting with AI intersecting with gerontology.

I am concentrating on a number and directing it to you, what is it?
 
Some great science being done pointing to the hypothesis that consciousness may exist apart from the physical organism.

Neuroscience intersecting with AI intersecting with gerontology.

I am concentrating on a number and directing it to you, what is it?

I'll narrow it down.

It s either 1 or 2.
 
In 2012, the Large Hadron Collider's experimenters discovered the Higgs particle, thus discovering all of the particles of the Standard Model.

Possibly.

The Muon g-2 phenomena is not understood yet.
This discrepancy is somewhat larger than the measurement errors, so it is likely real.

A departure from the canonical Standard Model is now well-established: neutrino masses and mixings, manifest in neutrino oscillations.

There are some more Beyond Standard Model (BSM) effects that we might eventually observe:
  • Neutron electric dipole moment - measure of CP violation. Is it greater than the Standard Model's prediction?
  • Neutrinoless double-beta decay - predicted from Majorana theory of neutrinos
  • Axions - they suppress strong-interaction CP violation
  • Dark-matter elementary particles (WIMP's)
  • Proton decay - isolated protons and stabilized protons and neutrons in nuclei
 
So have all the particles definitely been discovered?

All the forces?

Have we peeled to the core of the onion or are we at the outer layer?
 
Law of Least Action (part 2)

It would be too difficult for me to complete my intended discussion of this discovery; and anyway I can hardly compete with Wikipedia or Ipetrich. However there is one important point that has been overlooked so far.

First note that this variational equation:
. . . . δE·dt = 0
does NOT in general find a local minimum, let alone a global minimum. It may instead find a maximum or a saddle-point. This is why the variational principle is now properly called the Law of Stationary Action rather than the Law of Least Action.

Maupertuis and Euler adhered to an insight that Least Action resulted from some Divine Parsimony, but in fact the Least Action Principle is not even correct! One needn't search for obscure counterexamples to the Principle; a counter-example arises even in the 1st-century understanding of mirror reflection by Hero of Alexandria.

Consider a concave mirror in which you are positioned outside the mirror's focal point and look at your (upside-down) reflection. If the light rays really were minimizing distance or time (or action) they would be "reflecting" off the edge of the mirror — the point closest to you! In fact, the central point from which your centered eye does reflect is actually a local maximum of (straight-lined) distance. The "Law of Least Action" is elegant, exciting and useful ... but in general it is Wrong!

Patrick (Chevalier) d'Arcy (1725-1779) and the great Jean le Rond d'Alembert (1717-1783) may have been first to point out exceptions to the Law. In competition with the great Leonhard Euler, d'Alembert was under-appreciated and this may have contributed to his insight being ignored. Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736-1813) developed the Law of Least Action in his famous textbook (though he avoids its use when he derives further results) and he never seemed to comment on exceptions. Simeon Poisson (1781-1840), long after d'Alembert, also comments on exceptions to the Law. But Poisson decided that Action is sometimes maximized. This might lead to absurdity: Any large-action path can be made arbitrarily larger by first circuiting the Milky Way a few million times!

For almost a century, simple exceptions to the Law of Least Action had been published ... but were ignored!

It was not until the middle of the 19th century that the correct Law of Stationary Action was finally presented. Credit for this goes first to William Rowan Hamilton (1805-1865) and second to Carl Gustav Jacobi (1804-1851).

The incorrect Principle had caused little trouble: physics problems were solved with other dynamical laws. But William Hamilton also invented the concept of phase space. That and his Law of Stationary Action led to revolutionary advances in 20th-century physics. But I'll stop the story now.
 
Just watched a show on history of tools.

Going back to the first civilizations the hammer was a major invention.

It was not until the 19th century that the problem of the head flying off was solved.
 
It would be too difficult for me to complete my intended discussion of this discovery; and anyway I can hardly compete with Wikipedia or Ipetrich. However there is one important point that has been overlooked so far.

First note that this variational equation:
. . . . δE·dt = 0
does NOT in general find a local minimum, let alone a global minimum. It may instead find a maximum or a saddle-point. This is why the variational principle is now properly called the Law of Stationary Action rather than the Law of Least Action.

Maupertuis and Euler adhered to an insight that Least Action resulted from some Divine Parsimony, but in fact the Least Action Principle is not even correct! One needn't search for obscure counterexamples to the Principle; a counter-example arises even in the 1st-century understanding of mirror reflection by Hero of Alexandria.

Consider a concave mirror in which you are positioned outside the mirror's focal point and look at your (upside-down) reflection. If the light rays really were minimizing distance or time (or action) they would be "reflecting" off the edge of the mirror — the point closest to you! In fact, the central point from which your centered eye does reflect is actually a local maximum of (straight-lined) distance. The "Law of Least Action" is elegant, exciting and useful ... but in general it is Wrong!

Patrick (Chevalier) d'Arcy (1725-1779) and the great Jean le Rond d'Alembert (1717-1783) may have been first to point out exceptions to the Law. In competition with the great Leonhard Euler, d'Alembert was under-appreciated and this may have contributed to his insight being ignored. Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736-1813) developed the Law of Least Action in his famous textbook (though he avoids its use when he derives further results) and he never seemed to comment on exceptions. Simeon Poisson (1781-1840), long after d'Alembert, also comments on exceptions to the Law. But Poisson decided that Action is sometimes maximized. This might lead to absurdity: Any large-action path can be made arbitrarily larger by first circuiting the Milky Way a few million times!

For almost a century, simple exceptions to the Law of Least Action had been published ... but were ignored!

It was not until the middle of the 19th century that the correct Law of Stationary Action was finally presented. Credit for this goes first to William Rowan Hamilton (1805-1865) and second to Carl Gustav Jacobi (1804-1851).

The incorrect Principle had caused little trouble: physics problems were solved with other dynamical laws. But William Hamilton also invented the concept of phase space. That and his Law of Stationary Action led to revolutionary advances in 20th-century physics. But I'll stop the story now.
Don't stop now. Motion is a subject that fascinates me to no end.
 
I submit that CRISPR will have the biggest impact on humanity since the agricultural revolution
 
It would be too difficult for me to complete my intended discussion of this discovery; and anyway I can hardly compete with Wikipedia or Ipetrich. However there is one important point that has been overlooked so far.

First note that this variational equation:
. . . . δE·dt = 0
does NOT in general find a local minimum, let alone a global minimum. It may instead find a maximum or a saddle-point. This is why the variational principle is now properly called the Law of Stationary Action rather than the Law of Least Action.

Maupertuis and Euler adhered to an insight that Least Action resulted from some Divine Parsimony, but in fact the Least Action Principle is not even correct! One needn't search for obscure counterexamples to the Principle; a counter-example arises even in the 1st-century understanding of mirror reflection by Hero of Alexandria.

Consider a concave mirror in which you are positioned outside the mirror's focal point and look at your (upside-down) reflection. If the light rays really were minimizing distance or time (or action) they would be "reflecting" off the edge of the mirror — the point closest to you! In fact, the central point from which your centered eye does reflect is actually a local maximum of (straight-lined) distance. The "Law of Least Action" is elegant, exciting and useful ... but in general it is Wrong!

Patrick (Chevalier) d'Arcy (1725-1779) and the great Jean le Rond d'Alembert (1717-1783) may have been first to point out exceptions to the Law. In competition with the great Leonhard Euler, d'Alembert was under-appreciated and this may have contributed to his insight being ignored. Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736-1813) developed the Law of Least Action in his famous textbook (though he avoids its use when he derives further results) and he never seemed to comment on exceptions. Simeon Poisson (1781-1840), long after d'Alembert, also comments on exceptions to the Law. But Poisson decided that Action is sometimes maximized. This might lead to absurdity: Any large-action path can be made arbitrarily larger by first circuiting the Milky Way a few million times!

For almost a century, simple exceptions to the Law of Least Action had been published ... but were ignored!

It was not until the middle of the 19th century that the correct Law of Stationary Action was finally presented. Credit for this goes first to William Rowan Hamilton (1805-1865) and second to Carl Gustav Jacobi (1804-1851).

The incorrect Principle had caused little trouble: physics problems were solved with other dynamical laws. But William Hamilton also invented the concept of phase space. That and his Law of Stationary Action led to revolutionary advances in 20th-century physics. But I'll stop the story now.

Integral E dot dl is a statement of conservation. It says the voltage around any closed loop in a circuit, Kirchoff's Law, or the voltage in 3d n electric efield must sum to zero.

Sum the prssures around any path in a water tank refenced +- relative to a starting point will equal zero.

It all comes down to conservation beneath seemingly complicated theory.

When looking at something new I look for the mass and energy terms.
 
A key series of discoveries that was rather recent. The hydrogen-deuterium ratio reveals the matter density of the early universe, and the density of the cosmic microwave background radiation calibrates the photon density. Together these imply how much baryonic matter is present in the universe. I'd heard some of this before, but never explained as clearly as Veritasium does.

Veritasium's video "Half the universe was missing... until now" answers these questions: How do cosmologists how much ordinary matter there should be in the Universe? How did they finally discover the missing part? Calculations based on a "forest" of red-shifts are involved!
[YOUTUBE]Kp_kqamkYpw[/YOUTUBE]
 
Back
Top Bottom