Why We Don’t Have Flying Cars And JetPacks
October 10th, 2009My PhD research makes use of CT scanning, so I’ve had to do a lot of research into that for the literature review. Here is some of the knowledge I’ve gained:
The mathematical framework that makes CT possible was all outlined in 1917 by Johann Radon. Then in the 50s, the mathematical framework was outlined again, differently, by Allan McLeod Cormack, who invented the CT scanner without having read Radon’s work. Then, in 1973, the CT scanner was invented by Godfrey Hounsfield, who hadn’t read Radon or Cormack’s work. For this, Cormack and Hounsfield won the Nobel Prize.
I’ll be honest, this somewhat undermines the importance of the literature review in my mind.
Only… I wonder what amazing stuff we’d have invented by now if we’d started inventing information technologies instead of pissing about with steam engines all that time. There should have been Discworld-style semaphore towers up and down the country in Tudor times at least. Why should a message take days to get across the country just because that’s how long paper takes? We could have had a CT scanner in the 30s, for a start. By now I’m totally convinced we’d have flying cars and moonbases.
And even given that, scientific knowledge is still trapped in PDF versions of paper journals, behind a myriad different paywalls and arbitrary institutional subscription lists. That’s a terrible system. It should be on a big database, searchable by any parameter you like. If I’ve got a question to which mankind has found an answer, I should be able to run a quick-and-dirty search and get a good idea what that answer is in about fifteen minutes.
If you want jetpacks, don’t invent the jetpack, reform scientific information handling. Because that way it’ll come with teleports and moving hologram projectors and sexy androids and other implausible future stuff.
Tags for this article: University
[?][More Help]
October 10th, 2009 at 17:34
Possibly the best description of why information technology is important I’ve seen – brilliant.
October 10th, 2009 at 20:29
I’m finding the same thing for my PhD research, you have to go all over the place to find anything out. There’s no real way to tell whether what you’re doing is novel or whether someone has already pointed out the theory is impossible.
October 10th, 2009 at 20:29
Very interesting and thought-provoking, though I suspect that the Industrial Revolution was necessary to free up all the time needed for modern scientific study. Otherwise, the mere struggle for survival would have occupied all of men’s efforts. Sharing and distributing more information would have had amazing results though, I’m sure. (And don’t forget, much ancient knowledge was actually lost, which didn’t exactly help much!)
Tim Berners-Lee said: “The Web as I envisaged it, we have not seen it yet. The future is still so much bigger than the past”! Let’s hope so!!
October 11th, 2009 at 01:17
On a related note: not quite sure why the German Chancellor thinks it’s her place to stop loads of out of print books becoming available… http://is.gd/4cx8x
October 11th, 2009 at 12:09
[...] Why we don’t have jetpacks. [...]
October 11th, 2009 at 19:36
Doug, I think she more opposes the thousands of books to which publishing houses still own rights. Even if they’re out of print they still have the rights to run one off and make a profit.
October 13th, 2009 at 05:45
That and the many centuries of science oppression by religious bodies.
November 6th, 2009 at 14:54
[...] across this blog post recently, written by Andrew Taylor, a PhD student, reflecting on his lit review. He made the very [...]