Disclosure.

[Eddie Haskell]

Had governments for seen the implications of Einsteins theories, I doubt the information would have been made public. Will the next physics breakthrough be publicly disclosed, or has it already been classified? Have we reached a point where new knowledge is just too dangerous to release?

[SheilaT]

1. This country has long maintained

a policy of open sharing of scientific knowledge. The era of the Manhattan Project was something of an anomaly. Also, it can be incredibly difficult to predict just what the consequences of new knowledge, or any new discovery will be.

Unfortunately, many connected to our government and military have a mindset that leads them to want to classify everything possible. That's not how you actually foster innovation and technological or scientific progress.

[Eddie Haskell]

2. I agree that sharing info brings progress, but

it's been a long time since the Manhattan Project and things can change. If anything, I feel our government has become more secretive than ever.

[Posteritatis]

3. The United States government does not have a monopoly on basic research. (nt)

[Eddie Haskell]

4. Yes, but there are ways to discredit new theories.

Progress sure seems to have slowed.

[laconicsax]

5. You seem to not know what you're talking about. n/t

[Posteritatis]

6. Seriously. (nt)

[Occulus]

10. I think I see where he's trying to take this

Imagine some seriously 'disruptive' new technology- for example, fusion power. Suppose, somewhere in the US, one of those multiple fusion power projects actually succeeds and moves past the break-even point, just barely. Further suppose that we can draw DC power from the result and feed it directly into the grid (as would be the case with, again for example, the Polywell fusion project).

Now, most of us would see this as a Very Good Thing. Producing a star in a bottle would, for all intents and purpose, propel humanity as a whole into a new technological era. However, such a technology would make oil, coal, and natural gas (thankfully) obsolete for power generation, propulsion (as in cars and trains), and other 'dirty' uses. How much would it be worth for these industries to stop the project cold? If something were to be developed that would allow us to tell the House of Saud to go pound sand, wouldn't Big Oil want to choke off that possibility?

True, these technologies are being researched as openly as possible; the Polywell project I mentioned is being researched with input and funds from the Navy and other sources, and their findings are being reported all over the internet (when there is anything to report). But I think the question he's asking here is whether those projects would be allowed to continue to commercial viability. Would companies and governments with a vested financial interest in maintaining the status quo of current energy technologies allow their replacements to grow to maturity without a serious fight?

It's a legitimate question, and one we will have to confront sooner or later.

[Eddie Haskell]

11. That's a great example.

This isn't physics, but pharmaceuticals is another area where big money interests can make it very difficult for new technologies (treatments) to emerge. I recently watched "Burzynski" a documentary about a cancer treatment center that the FDA has been hounding for decades. It's a must see.

http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/

When it comes to cancer and heart disease, diet may be the best treatment available but it doesn't get much press.

My concern is that we may be kept in the dark for any number of reasons related to money and power.

[qazplm]

7. huh?

Slowed? Wow...just wow.

[Eddie Haskell]

8. I'm an engineer talking theoretical physics.

You're right ... I don't know what I'm talking about. That's why I asked the question. But, I do know we've been all tied up by string theory for decades and have no good way of testing the theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics

I think it's time we try other directions, but I understand it's difficult to get funding. What concerns me is that those who control the funding, control the research and to a large extent the results.

[qazplm]

9. well then perhaps you should qualify

your statements next time to say "slowed down progress in theoretical physics" instead of what you typed.

[caraher]

12. String theory is a very special case

Smolin's book is fascinating and it's crystal-clear from reading it that what's slowing progress in that kind of theoretical physics is not a matter of some government conspiracy. To the extent that brilliant new ideas don't get a hearing it's more due to the sociological aspects of that community Smolin outlines than anything else. And in any case, the employment situation Smolin talked about has changed since 2006 (which is I think when he book came out); there's less of a monopoly in hiring working against those exploring approaches to quantum gravity other than string theory.

[sofa king]

13. The historical record is rife with such examples.

The crossbow, for example, appeared in China thousands of years ago, was copied or accidentally duplicated in ancient Rome, and then was discretely "forgotten" for over a thousand years for the simple reason that nobody wanted a peasant to be able to drop a lord so easily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire">Greek fire was a miraculous flame-throwing weapon system that spontaneously ignited, floated on the water, and sustained its own pressure so that it could be sprayed from hoses upon enemy ships attempting to board. It kept the Byzantines rulers of the waves for 500 years, but then the family that kept its secret died out, and while it took awhile, so did the Byzantine Empire. Some of its secrets remain elusive today.

But those examples come from the days when scientists concealed their knowledge at all costs, to prevent someone else from stealing it and the food it bought. Would we do such a thing today?

Of course we would! It's called DARPA, and you're reading this on a modified version of ARPANET. Although even Walt Disney made a movie about it six years before it was fully operational, ARPANET's purpose was to allow for the transfer of information regarding classified defense-related research projects, and was overseen by the Department of Defense. (It wasn't designed to survive a nuclear attack, either; it was designed to avoid airports, since previously defense researchers had to fly from wherever they were to the handful of computers in the country that could do serious computation.)

The entire purpose of ARPA (later DARPA) was and still is to stay ahead of the technology game, so that no more Sputniks can surprise and embarrass us. The best way to stay ahead, of course, is to not tell anyone what you know, leaving everyone else to duplicate the work in your wake with less money and worse people.

Once you know what the nasty surprises are going to be, the logical second step would be to quash, poison, derail or discredit public research which threatens to arrive at conclusions which, for national security reasons (which is also the given explanation for every other reason), you don't want them to have.

Some of DARPA's research, and its results, are undisclosed. Which means that for sure, some of the best-funded research from some of the brightest people in the world is under lock and key. Certainly there must be technologies kept secret which could be used for groundbreaking peaceful uses, but which might also be used for purposes so nefarious they must be guarded.

Yet, having said that, I cannot name a single reliable example of public research being interfered with by government forces. (That crazy Canadian guy who started building a V3 for Saddam Hussein doesn't count.) Maybe just staying ahead is enough, forewarned being fore-armed.

The forces that more routinely interfere are market forces--automakers and oil companies are the most noted in urban legend--which have a deep-seated interest in acquiring technologies which can potentially disrupt their profit margins. There are too many examples of that to list, as everyone with an Android phone probably knows by now.