Scientific progress and its applications

[Anonymous No.4439116]

Is scientific progress accelerating?

Did science progress faster in the decade 2000-2010 than in the decades before?

Were there any "breakthroughs" or can we "expect" breakthroughs in the future due to scientific advancement? Or are breakthroughs the result of random chance (an eperiment gone wrong or finding a practical use for something in an area where it was not expected)?
Or will it rather be small steps of improvements of what we already have?
In which fields will we probably see promising scientific progress and maybe even practical applications in the next decade?

tl;dr Speculation about development of science and scientific progress in the near-future (2020, maybe 2050, 2100 at most).

[Anonymous No.4439119]

>speculation
>future

NO NO NO

STOP THAT NONSENSE RIGHT HERE

[sage No.4439121]

>>4439116
IIRC science in europe and most of asia is increasing (especially india and the netherlands)

In the US, unfortunately, things are getting worse.

[Anonymous No.4439131]

>>4439116
Scientific progress would be accelerating if the govt. was putting funding into the true sciences that matter as opposed to the bullshit sciences like biology.

[Anonymous No.4439134]

Jacob Barnett is gonna ensure some extraordinary breakthroughs.

[Anonymous No.4439140]

We can expect breakthroughs as practical applications are found for recent theoretical breakthroughs.

As for rate of scientific advancement getting faster, that's an extraordinarily difficult thing to calculate. From paper publication data, 1997 was hotter than 2011.

[Anonymous No.4439147]

After he finishes his unified TOE, he will go into biology and make it become a hard science.

[Anonymous No.4439162]

Check out a book by Michio Kaku called Physics of the Future. It describes possible advances in science up to the year 2100. I've just began reading it, but I think it'd answer this question quite well.

[Anonymous No.4439166]

>>4439131
>Scientific progress would be accelerating
has anyone produced a citation that it isn't, no.
>if the govt. was putting funding into the true sciences that matter as opposed to the bullshit sciences like biology.
If you can't win finding on merit then you shouldn't get funding. The people who get funding over you had a better project with more applications. I'm an astronomer and I support funding for biology more than astronomy, funding is nice but biology is far far more important.


It's hard to be certain of any breakthroughs but the direct detection of gravitational waves will almost certainly happen this decade.

[Anonymous No.4439167]

It's impossible to judge future breakthroughs no matter what we have accomplished in the past. We may make estimations of potential outcomes expected in the next number of years but it is highly wrong to 'predict' the future.

[Anonymous No.4439191]

2003: Peak oil hits, resource wars begin.
2013: Resource wars escalate: US invades Syria, US and Israel invade Iran, China invades Taiwan, North Korea invades South, France invades Egypt and Syria, UK invades Argentina, Russia invades Georgia.
2023: Wars continue as flooding from global warming creates a stream of refugees from now-underwater coastal regions. Mass starvation ensues as even first-world governments divert all available resources to the war effort.
2033: The killing comes to an end as the warring parties are no longer able to meet their energy needs. Survivors make their living as subsistence farmers.
2103: Nothing has changed in the past 70 years because there are no resources available to rebuild society.

[Anonymous No.4439288]

>>4439166
But bio does have less merit
Physics= the orgin of the entire universe
biology= why do worms wiggle

[Anonymous No.4440144]

The Singularity?

>The technological singularity refers to a hypothesized future scenario in which some intelligent agent, not necessarily very intelligent initially, rapidly attains much greater intelligence through iterative self-modification.[1]