Technological development, accidental discovery or expoitation of theory?

[jomifl]

Until the modern era(?) technology was based on casual observations or discoveries which were developed empirically ( such as the wheel, pottery, powered flight). With the development of scientific thinking new technologies are based on theories developed by state or industry funded research (such as nuclear power or body scanners). At what approximate time in history did the change take place ? The answer must of necessity be a bit vague as there must be quite a large overlap.

[Old_Geezer]

I'd suspect there would be no obvious stepping point, that one blended into the other. Alchemists and that ilk would be doing research at the same time folk were improving things by casual observation. In fact even today one can get an idea by looking and spotting problems that can be fixed, and obtaining a patent for the solution. As for scientific thinking there are many ancients remembered for what can be seen to be similar processes. http://en.wikipedia.o...iki/Scientific_method gives some dates on the scientific method, if that is of use.

[beso]

Innovation has always been largely a combination of empirical observation, existing theory and hypotheses.

Modern lay people simply take for granted what we see as everyday knowledge because of the constant exposure to it. For example the theory of levers is something we deal with intuitively but it was a serious matter of research and development for the ancients. A multitude of inventions have been based on that theory in the centuries since whichis why it is so familiar.

The achievement of powered flight you mentioned is a great example.

Many people think of flight as the result of experiments by the Wright Brothers. In fact a comprehensive theory of flight had already been developed by George Cayley many decades before.

Cayley was a prolific inventor. Aside from his work with flight and among a multitude of other advancements, he conceived and developed tangentially spoked wheels which was probably the most important improvement in the wheel since its invention. No doubt he achieved this breakthough and many others not though random tinkering but a thorough comprehension of engineering theory.

The Wright Brother's critical contribution to flight was not aerodynamics per se but their design of a light-weight internal combustion engine. The aerodynamics of their machine was ultimately built on Cayley's work. To be sure their implimentation of control surfaces was highly skilled but it wasn't without precedent.

Cayley knew that the crucial element he lacked was an engine with a sufficient power to weight ratio and had he had access to the technology available to the Wright's there is little doubt he would have achieved powered flight.

Indeed Cayley worked on an internal combustion fueled by gunpowder. Unlike the Wright's he didn't have the benefit of a practical working engine produced by decades of developement undertaken by others.

The Wright's achievement was largely a product of their time built on the work of others. Very few inventions have been any but that for a very long time.

[Andyvon]

I think one key to scientific advance has been the changing attitude to religion. Before then the scientific community, as well as society in general, was happy to accept that most events and phenomena were "The work of God". I think fledgling scientists started to look at the world differently when they realised that there might be other explanations for thing other than them being the will of God. That was the start of the Renaissance - or 'rebirth' - the rediscovery of old ideas and science.

Good examples might be Galileo rediscovering the fact that the Earth orbits the sun and isn't the centre of the universe. Fossils were realised to be ancient creatures and not relic of the Flood, geology developed when people realised the Earth must be much older than previously thought, volcanoes, earthquakes and storms weren't the anger of God etc. Medicine developed the same way, astrophysics etc.

That point in time is vague as it took a long time to overcome the religious mindset which was 1500 years old. The Renaissance was the point when science started to advance again and rediscover much of the knowledge that was known to the Greeks, Romans and Arabs.

Hope that helps and makes sense Jomifl!

[jomifl]

Thanks everyone, yes Andy it does make sense, I was wondering mainly when the first technologies that derived directly from theory rather than using theory to improve an existing technology happened. I'm thinking that there must have been something that preceded lasers but then I'm not sure if that or every technology isn't based on an accidental discovery. Has anybody made a quantum computer that actually works?

[EDDIE51]

Lasers developed from Masers , Microwave Lasers, which were in turn a development on radio . Lasers were originally called Optical Masers.See link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser

[jomifl]

Thanks for the link Eddie, so it seems that the laser/maser was based on original theories developed by that Einstein chap. Any earlier examples of technologies not just developments of prevous ones?

[beso]

Michael Faraday: Electric motor, generator and transformer. 1821 to 1831

They we built on the theory of electromagnetism by Oersted who was researching the relationship between electric currents and magnetism. Oersted didn't produce a practical technology but his concept of the relationship was the foundation stone of electromagnetic technology.

Several scientists expected it would be possible to use this to produce a force but Faraday discovered the relationship between current, magnetism and force and built a device.

Faraday was also the first to suggest that electromagnetism extended into space so formed the basis for Maxwell's work.

Einstein's description of the photoelectric effect was built on early Quantum Theory as elucidated by Planck. However the first observations in the chain that ultimately led to it were by Faraday nearly a century earlier.

It is very hard for anyone to say they invented something entirely without some theoretical precedent but the first men to work with electricity would be about as close as you could get.

[jomifl]

Thanks Beso, this question stemmed from Khandro's questioning the merit of fundamental research into the theory of space /time/ matter. I think it would have taken a long time to discover an electric motor accidentally, unless the 'creator' had left one next to the watch which creationists keep finding. William Cullen built the first known pumped refrigerator in 1756, it seems to demonstrate the possibility of utilizing the theoretical principles. I know evaporative cooling had been known for a long time but the heat pump was developed from theory so it might be a contender. I am wondering if telescopes were developed from theory, it's probably more likely an accidental discovery though.

[Andyvon]

HI again,

Archimedes designed and built many machines from various theories of his own. The Archimedian screw to raise water for example and the giant grab which was used to pick up and smash attacking enemy ships in the defence of Syracuse. The Byzantines used a terrifying naphtha flame-thrower to destroy enemy ships which could only have been designed and built from theory. I'm also thinking of Leonardo da Vinci's various hydraulic and other engineering designs which he developed from theory.

I hope I'm not wandering off the point of the question but designs like those were all developed from theory without any precedent that I know of. So I suppose theory-based technologies have been there for millennia - it's just that technology has leapt forward in recent centuries once the shackles of religion were removed.

[beso]

The laws of refraction were elucidated accurately by Sahl in 984. Prior to that imperfect lenses had been made by trial and error but would not have been suitable for a practical telescope where precision is essential because of the two lenses.

Once again starting with experiment but only being perfected after the construction of a successful theory giuded further developement.

The photoelectric effect started with observation before it was nailed in theory. Without the observations there is no reason to suspect the need for a theory and no framework to contemplate upon.

Newton even attributed his First Law of Motion to antiquity and quoted Aristotle.