We live in an age of unusually rapid fundamental discovery. This age cannot last long; it must soon slow down as we run out of basic things to discover. We may never run out of small things to discover, but there can be only so many big things.
You sure? Solving the problem of quantum gravity will probably result in "side effects" the same way relativity accurately predicted black holes even though Einstein had no data on them and didn't believe his own theory when he saw it. Those side-effects could include a way to manufacture room temperature superconductors, or a proof that room temperature superconductors cannot exist.
Cosmology was one motivation and one source for theory of relativity, what means as well, nuclear power engineering. Cosmology helped as well a bit with quantum mechanics development, what is basement of our computers.
So, I think, that useless cosmology is only apparent, not real. And on cosmology will be based probably the core of power engineering of our future civilization.
BTW, very often totally useless investigations appeared to be fundamental for future development of civilization. What about a toy like a car, electricity, what was only matter of useless curiosity first, and many others.
"A robust space based manufacturing infrastructure would put us in a much, much better position to a) gather information from distant galaxies, and b) put it to use on energy-intensive things like wormholes and interstellar travel."
Then investing in space based infrastructure simply becomes part of the cosmology budget in some way. I'd be fine with that, but bear in mind how cheap current cosmology is compared to a space based infrastructure, the vast majority is literally people on Earth working behind a desk.
The conventional wisdom has long been that the pursuit of pure science will almost be bound to have practical applications, even if we lack the slightest idea at the moment what those might be. If Robin intends to attack this conventional wisdom, he owes more than appeals to his own authority: 'it is unlikely that ...'
It has to be soon to matter, because otherwise there's no reason to spend on cosmology instead of directly on space based manufacturing in the near term.
A robust space based manufacturing infrastructure would put us in a much, much better position to a) gather information from distant galaxies, and b) put it to use on energy-intensive things like wormholes and interstellar travel.
Give some thought to the immense capabilities of using the sun's full output and the solar system's full mass, or even an appreciable fraction. This is considerably more than than any earth-based industry could ever hope to match.
In the long run, I'm happy to concede that these kinds of discoveries are valuable (they produce pleasure, wonder, and so forth, so they should be). But if they compete against the ability to extend lifespan and/or increase our overall (especially, space-based) infrastructure as quickly, that produces a tradeoff in terms of the ability to actually satisfy curiosity.
How many more questions could we resolve if we had a robust system of space based manufacturing, instead of having to launch our telescopes one at a time? It seems to me that even through the lens of someone whose only goal is to satisfy their own/humanity's curiosity, it is well worth questioning whether delaying cosmology would be a good thing (assuming no connection to practical applications can be found).
In addition to the discoveries mentioned by IMASBA, there are, off the top of my head: -Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding in the first place -cosmic inflation models as a resolution of multiple deep mysteries concerning the big bang, -dark matter and energy: we have been focusing on 5%, oblivious to the 95% -the numerous speculative multiverse scenarios which may explain fine-tuning mystery, massively expand our conception of reality, etc.
I suspect that you will be similarly unimpressed by this list, as your focus seems to be more exclusively on stuff w/ practical consequences than mine.
Practical benefits are IMO important (I am looking forward to reading Drexler's latest book for this reason). That said, I personally *also* find much value in understanding / trying to understand the world and our place in it, independently of whether that understanding yields practical benefits.
"Does cosmology boost the chances of discovering room temperature superconductors"
It actually might, yes.
"We're talking about high energy rays produced in conditions not found on earth."
That "not found on Earth" factor is precisely why cosmology is so important: relativity and quantum mechanics do not fit together nicely, at the extremes they produce contrary, sometimes even non-physical, predictions, only cosmology allows us to study these extremes and come up with a uniting theory that's required for future "holy grails" of science.
I didn't say anything about economic payoffs. I am pointing out that to "delay cosmology" you would have to do a lot more than stop looking at the sky. Even if you shut down all of experimental particle physics too, the subject will keep progressing, because we already have a lot of data that is not definitively explained, many ideas, and many theoretical leads. Basically, you would have to insist that people who already know the data must stop thinking about how to explain it.
You sure? Solving the problem of quantum gravity will probably result in "side effects" the same way relativity accurately predicted black holes even though Einstein had no data on them and didn't believe his own theory when he saw it. Those side-effects could include a way to manufacture room temperature superconductors, or a proof that room temperature superconductors cannot exist.
Cosmology was one motivation and one source for theory of relativity, what means as well, nuclear power engineering. Cosmology helped as well a bit with quantum mechanics development, what is basement of our computers.
So, I think, that useless cosmology is only apparent, not real. And on cosmology will be based probably the core of power engineering of our future civilization.
BTW, very often totally useless investigations appeared to be fundamental for future development of civilization. What about a toy like a car, electricity, what was only matter of useless curiosity first, and many others.
"A robust space based manufacturing infrastructure would put us in a much, much better position to a) gather information from distant galaxies, and b) put it to use on energy-intensive things like wormholes and interstellar travel."
Then investing in space based infrastructure simply becomes part of the cosmology budget in some way. I'd be fine with that, but bear in mind how cheap current cosmology is compared to a space based infrastructure, the vast majority is literally people on Earth working behind a desk.
Cosmology has applications to the Fermi paradox and hence to estimates of current existential risk, making (some of it) very relevant today.
Which is as good a time as any to pitch: http://www.sciencedirect.co...
I heard of peak oil but peak astrophysics?
The conventional wisdom has long been that the pursuit of pure science will almost be bound to have practical applications, even if we lack the slightest idea at the moment what those might be. If Robin intends to attack this conventional wisdom, he owes more than appeals to his own authority: 'it is unlikely that ...'
It has to be soon to matter, because otherwise there's no reason to spend on cosmology instead of directly on space based manufacturing in the near term.
A robust space based manufacturing infrastructure would put us in a much, much better position to a) gather information from distant galaxies, and b) put it to use on energy-intensive things like wormholes and interstellar travel.
Give some thought to the immense capabilities of using the sun's full output and the solar system's full mass, or even an appreciable fraction. This is considerably more than than any earth-based industry could ever hope to match.
In the long run, I'm happy to concede that these kinds of discoveries are valuable (they produce pleasure, wonder, and so forth, so they should be). But if they compete against the ability to extend lifespan and/or increase our overall (especially, space-based) infrastructure as quickly, that produces a tradeoff in terms of the ability to actually satisfy curiosity.
How many more questions could we resolve if we had a robust system of space based manufacturing, instead of having to launch our telescopes one at a time? It seems to me that even through the lens of someone whose only goal is to satisfy their own/humanity's curiosity, it is well worth questioning whether delaying cosmology would be a good thing (assuming no connection to practical applications can be found).
Luke,
In addition to the discoveries mentioned by IMASBA, there are, off the top of my head: -Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding in the first place -cosmic inflation models as a resolution of multiple deep mysteries concerning the big bang, -dark matter and energy: we have been focusing on 5%, oblivious to the 95% -the numerous speculative multiverse scenarios which may explain fine-tuning mystery, massively expand our conception of reality, etc.
I suspect that you will be similarly unimpressed by this list, as your focus seems to be more exclusively on stuff w/ practical consequences than mine.
Practical benefits are IMO important (I am looking forward to reading Drexler's latest book for this reason). That said, I personally *also* find much value in understanding / trying to understand the world and our place in it, independently of whether that understanding yields practical benefits.
Where did I say "soon"? There's no denying that if wormholes can be used, the field of cosmology will help us find out that it can be done and how.
No, cosmology has almost no chance of helping find room temp superconductors.
The odds we will learn to get use from wormholes anytime soon is extremely low.
"Does cosmology boost the chances of discovering room temperature superconductors"
It actually might, yes.
"We're talking about high energy rays produced in conditions not found on earth."
That "not found on Earth" factor is precisely why cosmology is so important: relativity and quantum mechanics do not fit together nicely, at the extremes they produce contrary, sometimes even non-physical, predictions, only cosmology allows us to study these extremes and come up with a uniting theory that's required for future "holy grails" of science.
I didn't say anything about economic payoffs. I am pointing out that to "delay cosmology" you would have to do a lot more than stop looking at the sky. Even if you shut down all of experimental particle physics too, the subject will keep progressing, because we already have a lot of data that is not definitively explained, many ideas, and many theoretical leads. Basically, you would have to insist that people who already know the data must stop thinking about how to explain it.
Robin, maybe you should delay your fundamental insights too !
Dear 2013 cosmologist,Find something else to do so that a 2093 cosmologist can have fun instead of you.Thanks,Discovery Rationing Committee