Why scientific inventions are more and more imminent? 1

Do you know Aristotle, regarded as “the First Teacher” by Islamic Civilization was one of the greatest polymath ever. Not only a philosopher his “science theory” were valid till only a couple 100 years ago, he was a contemporaneous of Alexander the Great. Aristotle was the “Dronacharga” of Alexander and in turn Plato was the teacher-philosopher of Aristotle and Socrates was the teacher-philosopher of Plato. So Aristotle was born about 400 years before Circa 0. It took about 2000 years before Newton completely overturned the Aristotelian Science. Even accuracy of Aristotle’s theory in ZOOLOGY was achieved in 19th century. He was therefore one of the most prolific and far reaching genius ever. After a 2000 year it took only 300 years for Einstein to overturn Newton. It took only 30 years before a group of genius (Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohr, Dirac et al and later Feynman, Fermi etal) who could revolutionarily modify the theories put forth by Einstein. Then it often oscillates anywhere between 3 to 100 years to see theories are overturned (or rather significantly modified) by successive group of scientists.

If you think there is no difference between a 2000 years or 3000 years of Aristotle, because there is nothing before that that we have talked so confidently as basis scientific concepts. SO its an order of 10 reduction in time before scientific ideas have been thoroughly illuminated in a refreshing way. Beginning from 3000 years through to 3 years. (Remember today is CV Raman’s birth day and his theory was “Raman effect” a leading pre-cursor to confirming the Quantum Mechanical laws of nature. His was one of the swiftest conceptualization, he had insights — followed by the then contemporaneous works, published his work and received a Nobel in Physics, all within 2 years).

It may be so that its kind of a reverse Moore Law of Computational Technology. Science of today is greatly dependent on what science is already known and that rapid-fires further scientific inventions thereby augmenting the chances of the seed of a new theory right into the body of an old theory. That gap is reduced as we go on making further progress.

correction: Not reverse Moore law, but directly LIKE Moore’s law. strictly speaking: above is semi-quantitative AND not best fit relation between these two laws, only qualitative !! The Moore’s Law says transistors will be doubled every 18 months, hence quadrupled every 3 years. The above is no such law for Physics. Its only saying there is a rapid, quantifiable, but we don’t know which law to take in place of transistor, but perhaps much more rapid than Moores law entails. In any case technology is a result of science. (and science feeds back on technology)

Moore’s Law is quadrupled given a particular parameter but the above law is like given a time frame how rapid is the possibility fo a new theory now? A probability factor. Moore’s Law is linear perhaps because its only considered in the present context and it takes only a  particular central parameter, say transistors. But the above law of science theory is “total history Vs Time  frame” without regard to any particular parameter which there are probably infinite or none depending on your taste.

The excessive increase of anything causes a reaction in the opposite direction.

— Plato
My insight:

Plato’s above is “A law of finiteness: Everything must be finite and the boundaries will be visible gradually to the end when it pushes us back.”

Compare with Newton’s;
Any change (therefore increase or decrease ) causes an equal and opposite change known as “Newton’s First law: every action has an equal and opposite reaction” {this if you can see right-away from its verbal nature is a Symmetry Principle}

This ought to be a “law of zero variation on every element to bring accountability, in other words a law of finiteness, finiteness which for every element must be zero if accounted” This is known as a “law of inertia”

So Plato gave the original law of inertia which was generalized by Newton after 2000 years.

One comment

  1. Pingback: Happy birthday Newton, but really? « Invariance Publishing House, mdashfoundation

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s