Discussion
Started 20th Oct, 2022
  • Montenegrin Risk Management Association.

Can science and technology save the world?

There are 10 planetary boundaries, some of which have already been breached. It is the climate change, the rate of loss of biological diversity, nitrogen cycle, weakening of the ozone layer, ocean acidity, lack of drinking water, intensive use of soil, growth of aerosols in the atmosphere, chemical pollution.
Can science and technology save the world?

Most recent answer

27th Jan, 2023
Vadim S. Gorshkov
No
Of course no. In modern Russian folklore there is an expression "minced meat cannot be turned back", the same is the situation with technological development. Science, as has been noted many times, works for money and a lot of money that is not paid by "people" directly, so they do not decide anything (and are not able to solve it globally). The current trend will, of course, stop, but this will be an unplanned event, while science is developing technology to maintain profits, not excluding the so-called "green technologies". And the pursuit of two goals at the same time (preserving the habitat and ensuring profit) is impossible in my opinion (There is a proverb in Russian "If you chase two hares [simultaneously], you won't catch a single one"). I would agree with Dr. Jiří Kroc, if not his strange hope for "rich benefactors".
4 Recommendations

Popular replies (1)

22nd Oct, 2022
Jiří Kroc
Independent Researcher
The simple answer is: "Fully independent, morally clean, absolutely honest, and scientifically deep science can save the world easily by interfering with it as little as possible. The question is where is such science?"
There are existing two proverbs related to this fundamental question in the Czech language. The first one. An apprentice is telling to his master: "Master, what to do? I am cutting this board again and again, and it is still short."
The second one: "The way into the hell is paved by good intentions."
The science is paid by industry, which interest is only and only profit. How do we want to expect from science, under such circumstances, to solve any problem it caused under such guidance.
It is a kind of the problem called: Head 22, isn't it? Another proverb: "Carps will never release water from their own pond."
The difficulty with science and technology is that it is serving to wrong goals, or better to say to wrong tiny groups of people. We see this tendency across all disciplines. It seems to be that the only bearers of true, honest, and helpful science are independent researchers and researchers from institutions, which give the absolute freedom to researchers, there are existing a few such institutions and states support them.
Currently, it is so easy to demonetize any research when it doesn't fit the official narrative. This is even more true, when the research starts to demonstrate some faulty results or approaches of the official narrative. Currently, we are witnessing such behavior within cosmology, particle physics, climatology, medicine, natural sciences, and virtually within all scientific fields.
The only way out is independent researchers, enabling them to do their research, and allow them to publish their independent, not confirming the official narrative research without any obstacles.
Hopefully, there are clever, rich benefactors who care about the future of the humanity and will support independent researchers who are telling us the way out of this very dangerous situation, which humanity created to itself, the Nature, and the whole Mother Earth in the first place.
Let us pray for humanity that it will realize the dangers it is facing now, take a step or more back, and redefine its main purpose of its existence. 🙏
8 Recommendations

All replies (35)

20th Oct, 2022
Egbo Philips Nnajiofor
Enugu State University of Science and Technology
Science and Technology have been making concerted efforts aimed at finding lasting solutions to pollution. In the atmosphere, air pollutants from various sources abound viz, carbon emissions, aerosols, biodegraders and etc.
Reduction/ elimination of gas flaring is an awesome measure against carbon emissions. Going green is also a wonderful scientific innovation aimed at pollution reduction.
2 Recommendations
20th Oct, 2022
Vadim S. Gorshkov
No
Of course no. Efforts in the directions mentioned by the author are many times less than the negative impact of already existing technologies that have brought the world to its current mournful state.
3 Recommendations
21st Oct, 2022
Reinaldo Araujo Gregoldo
conselho federal de química
Save is a bit of a strong word! I would say they can interchange some possible answers and show many paths, bad and good ones. But the ideal choice would come along human historical decision-making processes!
3 Recommendations
21st Oct, 2022
Victor Torvich
"Subsurface History of Humanity: Direction of History" book
>"Can science and technology save the world?"
There are two sub-questions here. First, Can science and technology save humankind? And secondly, would the world be better without humankind if humanity killed itself?
>"Can science and technology save humankind?" - The answer is No. One example is enough. Science and technology could not undo knowledge about nuclear arms and the existence of those arms, and the means of their delivery in a world. And nuclear war could wipe out humankind.
>"would the world be better without humankind if humanity killed itself?" - Nobody knows. But it is possible. Just look at the dangers humankind created for the planet. One example, like a potential nuclear disaster, is enough.
3 Recommendations
21st Oct, 2022
Egbo Philips Nnajiofor
Enugu State University of Science and Technology
It's strange if Victor could not see the connect between science and technology with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are scientific inventions of mass destruction no doubt. However, we must not be unmindful of anti nuclear weapons, also made manifest by science and technology to counter nuclear disaster. Accepted that science and technology has created unimaginable environmental problems, it (science and technology,) remains the only hope if humanity can attempt at righting those man made
environmental woes.
2 Recommendations
21st Oct, 2022
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Whether science and technology can save the world will become clear in a few decades, when we will know whether a global climate catastrophe has been avoided by what remains to be done in terms of carrying out a pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the classic growth brown linear economy of excess to a sustainable green zero-carbon growth and closed loop economy. It is to be hoped that this will happen, that through science and new green technologies and eco-innovations we will build a world without greenhouse gas emissions, halt the progressive process of global warming, prevent the occurrence of a global climate catastrophe and save the world.
Regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
3 Recommendations
21st Oct, 2022
Rumani Dey
Dayananda Sagar Institutions
Spirituality is unexplored science.
Nature is 90% more capable than human intelligence and science.
So, science cannot save the world.
Nature when gets imbalanced does create calamities to balance back.
Man made hazards are yet highly tolerated by nature.
Spirituality can yet save the world but number of people practicing spirituality aren't enough .
3 Recommendations
22nd Oct, 2022
Jiří Kroc
Independent Researcher
The simple answer is: "Fully independent, morally clean, absolutely honest, and scientifically deep science can save the world easily by interfering with it as little as possible. The question is where is such science?"
There are existing two proverbs related to this fundamental question in the Czech language. The first one. An apprentice is telling to his master: "Master, what to do? I am cutting this board again and again, and it is still short."
The second one: "The way into the hell is paved by good intentions."
The science is paid by industry, which interest is only and only profit. How do we want to expect from science, under such circumstances, to solve any problem it caused under such guidance.
It is a kind of the problem called: Head 22, isn't it? Another proverb: "Carps will never release water from their own pond."
The difficulty with science and technology is that it is serving to wrong goals, or better to say to wrong tiny groups of people. We see this tendency across all disciplines. It seems to be that the only bearers of true, honest, and helpful science are independent researchers and researchers from institutions, which give the absolute freedom to researchers, there are existing a few such institutions and states support them.
Currently, it is so easy to demonetize any research when it doesn't fit the official narrative. This is even more true, when the research starts to demonstrate some faulty results or approaches of the official narrative. Currently, we are witnessing such behavior within cosmology, particle physics, climatology, medicine, natural sciences, and virtually within all scientific fields.
The only way out is independent researchers, enabling them to do their research, and allow them to publish their independent, not confirming the official narrative research without any obstacles.
Hopefully, there are clever, rich benefactors who care about the future of the humanity and will support independent researchers who are telling us the way out of this very dangerous situation, which humanity created to itself, the Nature, and the whole Mother Earth in the first place.
Let us pray for humanity that it will realize the dangers it is facing now, take a step or more back, and redefine its main purpose of its existence. 🙏
8 Recommendations
22nd Oct, 2022
Joseph C Lee
Queensland Health
I think the answer to the question “can science…” is yes. I also think that many humans (regular people and leaders) do not have the will.
4 Recommendations
22nd Oct, 2022
Mirna Leko-Šimić
University of Osijek
When done and used right! What else can save the world???
3 Recommendations
23rd Oct, 2022
Anthony St. John
Independent Scholar
23 October MMXXII
No...
Cordially...
ASJ
8 Recommendations
24th Oct, 2022
Janice Cox
World Federation for Animals
Human systems have brought the earth to the current state of near-collapse, with multiple environmental crises, human inequality, and immense human and animal suffering. What we need is transformative change - a deep and systemic change which addresses the underlying drivers and root causes of our many interconnected problems (including lack of human values and ethics, lack of empathy, care and justice; replaced by greed, materialism and consumerism). We are in real trouble if we begin to think that we can carry on with business as usual because science and technology will provide a silver bullet. That doesn't mean that there are not some positive scientific and technological advances that will be helpful (i would, for example, include cellular meat and seafood in this category), but far more is needed if we are not going to simply overlay further problems in the future - making a humane and sustainable future an impossibility.
5 Recommendations
25th Oct, 2022
Harold Chike
University of Nigeria
Yes and no .
1. Yes, if science and technology are geared towards harmless use and modifications of creation for human improvement.
2. No , if Science are technology engage in the current reckless modifications of creation without regard for environmental and social consequences.
Science and technology themselves are supposed to facilitate in
the solution of the problems of mankind.
They are knowledge and skills given as gifts to mankind.
The nature of their application is the problem.
3 Recommendations
25th Oct, 2022
Vadim S. Gorshkov
No
The question is quite incorrect, which can be answered with the words from a joke: "It can, but who will allow to it?" In fact, it is wrong to consider science as a kind of independent phenomenon, science only gives methods/opportunities to the economy, i.e. is only an instrument, not an actor.
3 Recommendations
15th Nov, 2022
Kenneth Loebel
Judson University
No, science cannot "save the world".
People can save the world. People may use political science (Wuhan bioweapon lab) to further evil, or people may risk using science (VAERS reports, data, analysis) to push back against evil.
People used science to create the atomic bomb, energy magnetic pulse weapons, biased algorithms to censor free speech, programmable digital currency that can be shut off by corrupt central banks, etc.
Science is observation.
Action is what is needed. Not observation. Science postulates about the past, as if it were real (20,000,000 years ago).
Such fallacy and delusional juxtaposition diminishes the true value of science.
"Science" is no longer pure analytics, but it is politicized information manipulation that is abused to rationalize actions, and as much as it can be used for good, don't be fooled... it can destroy the world when militarized and weaponized.
3 Recommendations
22nd Dec, 2022
Saeed Ullah Jan
Govt College Wari (Dir Upper) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan
Absolutely Not
3 Recommendations
29th Dec, 2022
Gioacchino de Candia
Studio de Candia
No.
Science itself is neutral: it depends on who operates and by whom and how they use it.
4 Recommendations
29th Dec, 2022
Arvydas Guogis
Mykolas Romeris University
Without faith, morality and transparency science and technology have not a sufficient impact to save the world. It is really an open question to mankind why technologies are developing much faster than humanitarian, social matters.
7 Recommendations
29th Dec, 2022
Sheriff Lamidi
Lagos State University of Science and Technology
Science and Technology will not come with absolute safety for the world or mankind.
Science and Technology has brought us creative destruction.
For every invention brought about two or more problems for another invention(s) and the cycle continues till tomorrow. The invention of refrigerants,internal combustion engines have serious impact on our environment...
2 Recommendations
30th Dec, 2022
Anthony St. John
Independent Scholar
30 December MMXXII
No.
Cordially...
ASJ
7 Recommendations
10th Jan, 2023
Stephen I. Ternyik
Although we are living in a science & technology-based civilization***, dear Dragoljub Šarović , am in line with Gioacchino de Candia
Rational and ethical systems of morality, time-tested by evolutionary procedures, are still needed to cope with existential questions and tensions of how to apply our growing potential of production vs. destruction.
———-—
***
5 Recommendations
10th Jan, 2023
Olabisi O. Ogunleye
Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University
It ought to but state actors keep manipulating scientists all over the world on climatic changes
2 Recommendations
11th Jan, 2023
Anthony St. John
Independent Scholar
11 January MMXXIII
No.
Cordially...
ASJ
8 Recommendations
11th Jan, 2023
Christer Hans Olavi Sundqvist
Christer's Academy
ChatGPT is using truly groundbreaking AI technology. I am pretty amazed how wisely it was tackling this important question:
"Science and technology have the potential to make significant contributions towards solving some of the world's most pressing challenges, such as climate change, poverty, and access to healthcare. Scientific research has led to advancements in renewable energy, efficient agriculture, and disease prevention and treatment. Technology has also played a major role in connecting people around the world, and providing access to information and resources.
However, it's important to note that science and technology are not a panacea and it's necessary to address the root causes of problems, such as economic inequality, lack of education and political instability. Also, science and technology alone can't solve all of the world's problems, as most of them are complex and intertwined. Moreover, there is a risk of unintended consequences and ethics dilemmas that can arise from the application of certain technologies.
In short, science and technology can certainly be powerful tools to help address some of the world's problems, but they are not a solution on their own. They need to be used in conjunction with other efforts, such as policy changes and social innovation, to have a real impact."
Have you tried ChatGTP?
Christer Sundqvist
PhD, Helsinki, Finland
2 Recommendations
12th Jan, 2023
Ljubomir Jacić
Technical College Požarevac
Earth’s protective ozone layer is slowly but noticeably healing at a pace that would fully mend the hole over Antarctica in about 43 years, a new United Nations report says.
A once-every-four-years scientific assessment found recovery in progress, more than 35 years after every nation in the world agreed to stop producing chemicals that chomp on the layer of ozone in Earth’s atmosphere that shields the planet from harmful radiation linked to skin cancer, cataracts and crop damage...
4 Recommendations
12th Jan, 2023
Harold Chike
University of Nigeria
@Prof Ljubmir Jacic, thank you for your input. This is indeed a welcome development.
Was there provision to ensure that every nation imust comply strictly with the ozone reduction agreement ?
This is where the human factor aspect of scientists nd technologists comes into play.
The ultimate authority that can save the world is the ONE that created it.
2 Recommendations
18th Jan, 2023
Ljubomir Jacić
Technical College Požarevac
Dear Rk Naresh , I have asked you so many times to bring relevant sources to your answers (copy/paste) in order to avoid plagiarism and to enrich your contribution. You do not do it yet!!!
In this answer, you have copied from some sources, I do bring one of them:
4 Recommendations
18th Jan, 2023
Lou Schmitt
University of Gothenburg
No, only a change within the social symbol system can save the world.
Lou
2 Recommendations
18th Jan, 2023
Swaminathan C.
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
Science is 'basic' & Technology is 'application of science'. The natural science, which is not intervened by us, can save the world. Science is Good but Technology is .......
2 Recommendations
18th Jan, 2023
Amboka Asumwa Agustine
Institute of Energy studies &Research,Nairobi Kenya.
Dragoljub Šarović I want to believe so, that indeed science and technology applied from the context of research and innovation can save the world in the context of humanity by lowering the cost of living . Its not far fetched that creative disruptive technology(ICT) through research and innovations is getting rid of tasks that in the past were too labor intensive especially in areas of computation, cashiering and quality control that required many hands. Ensuing researched ICT solutions have significantly lowered the cost of production, increasing efficiency , quality and in effect impacting positively towards lowering the cost of living (read the amount of goods and services available in the given economy) . To this extent therefore I see science and technology playing acritical role in saving the world by lowering the cost of living.
1 Recommendation
26th Jan, 2023
Lou Schmitt
University of Gothenburg
We can never know the truth; only what works, or not.
Lou
1 Recommendation
26th Jan, 2023
Vadim S. Gorshkov
No
Save the world from what? From science?
4 Recommendations
27th Jan, 2023
Dragoljub Šarović
Montenegrin Risk Management Association.
To Vadim,
Can people save the world from themselves by developing technology?
Kind regards.
2 Recommendations
27th Jan, 2023
Vadim S. Gorshkov
No
Of course no. In modern Russian folklore there is an expression "minced meat cannot be turned back", the same is the situation with technological development. Science, as has been noted many times, works for money and a lot of money that is not paid by "people" directly, so they do not decide anything (and are not able to solve it globally). The current trend will, of course, stop, but this will be an unplanned event, while science is developing technology to maintain profits, not excluding the so-called "green technologies". And the pursuit of two goals at the same time (preserving the habitat and ensuring profit) is impossible in my opinion (There is a proverb in Russian "If you chase two hares [simultaneously], you won't catch a single one"). I would agree with Dr. Jiří Kroc, if not his strange hope for "rich benefactors".
4 Recommendations

Similar questions and discussions

Is it time we shift emphasis from technological solutions to climate change & focus on the 'Human Dimension'?
Question
6895 answers
  • Raveendra Nath YasarapuRaveendra Nath Yasarapu
Isn't the obvious solution and the elephant-in-the-room 'BETTER HUMAN BEINGS'? Shouldn't the focus be on better human beings rather than better technology? Why is it that everyone wants to develop better technology rather than focus on better humanity? Because no one has the answers and no one wants to change themselves? In environmental degradation, is it not obvious that nature can heal itself, if only left alone, and it is we humans who need regulation? Many natural parks managers do just that; seal off the area from human interference to let nature heal and recover. It is classified as 'Strict Nature Reserve"by IUCN. Complacency and inaction are not advocated here, as many have misunderstood, but the shifting of focus from technology to the human being. As technology is no match for human greed, isn't introspection & restraining ourselves more relevant than developing more technology, which caused the mess in the first place, by making it easy for a few to consume more? Since technology is only a short term quick fix which fails after a short time, isn't the real problem our addiction to material consumption & our lack of understanding about human nature? Isn't developing more technology sustaining the addiction instead of correcting it, leading to more complex problems later on, needing more complex technological quick fixes like higher drug dosages, more ground troops & equipment, (along with their debilitating side effects) in the future? Isn't this the vicious addiction circle we are trapped in? As researchers, do we merely buy more time with technology OR go to the very root of the problem, the human being?
A lot of hue and cry is made about climate change and the environment in general. Public and private money is poured into research to study its effects on the environment, sustainability etc. Should we study nature or ourselves?
" Our studies must begin with our selves and not with the heavens. "-Ouspensky
Human activities have been found to have a direct correlation to climate change and its impact on the environment(I=P x A x T, the Ehrlich and Holdren equation), in spite of what some complacent sections say to protect their own self interests.
We hardly know about Human nature. We can scarcely predict human behavior. We need to find out why we think like we do and why we do what we do and why, in spite of all knowledge and wisdom, consume more than what we need, in the form of addictions to consumption and imbalance not only ourselves but also the family, society and environment around us..
Humanity is directly responsible for all the unnatural imbalances occurring on the planet. Yet we refuse to take responsibility and instead focus on climate change, or fool the public exchequer with a 'breakthrough in renewable energy just around the corner'. We scarcely know what drives human beings. If we had known, all the imbalances around us would have had solutions by now, given the amount of money plowed into finding such solutions. Are we blindly groping in the dark of climate change because we don't know the answers to our own nature?
Is it not high time we focus on what makes us human, correct our consumptive behavior and leave nature to take care of climate change? Why focus effort on 'externals' when the problem is 'internal'- 'me'?
Aren't we addicts denying our addiction and blaming everything else but ourselves?
" We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts, we make the world." - Buddha 
IMHO, We don't need to save the World. It is enough if we save ourselves from ourselves. The need of the hour is not vain glorious interventions, but self-restraint and self-correction!
The Mind is the Final frontier.
Scientists Support Ukraine
Discussion
Be the first to reply
  • Ijad MadischIjad Madisch
Like so many, I am shocked and saddened at seeing war break out in Europe. My thoughts – and those of the ResearchGate team – are with the people of Ukraine and everyone affected.
ResearchGate is an international company, whose purpose is to enable scientists across the world to work together openly and collaboratively, regardless of borders or nationality. We have people from over 40 countries on our staff of around 200, and being based in Berlin, we are profoundly aware of the human cost of conflicts, the echoes of which have shaped and scarred our home city. We join with the international community in condemning the actions of the Russian state.
We have been asking ourselves: What can we do?
From today, we will offer free advertising space worth $2.5 million on our network to humanitarian organizations working to respond to the crisis. ResearchGate benefits from over 50 million visitors every month, and we hope this initiative can help raise funds and awareness for those organizations that are having direct impact and need support.
We also want to use our platform to highlight the response from the scientific community. Personally, I have found the messages of support from scientists everywhere to be truly heartfelt, and I would like to highlight some of the community initiatives I’ve seen here:
Additionally, I’m posting here some of the organizations responding to the crisis and actively soliciting donations:
To help gather more support for these initiatives, please consider sharing this post further (you don’t need a ResearchGate account to see it), and I will continue to update it with other initiatives as I find them. You can also click “Recommend” below to help others in your ResearchGate network see it. And if you know of any other community initiatives that we can share here please let us know via this form: https://forms.gle/e37EHouWXFLyhYE8A
-Ijad Madisch, CEO & Co-Founder of ResearchGate
-----
Update 03/07:
This list outlines country-level initiatives from various academic institutions and research organizations, with a focus on programs and sponsorship for Ukrainian researchers:
What is Physics and what is Metaphysics?
Discussion
44 replies
  • Abdul MalekAbdul Malek
Galileo, Newton, Einstein vs (dialectically corresponding) Kepler, Leibniz, Hegel: Which group was on the right side of science, but got the wrong side of history?
After Copernicus abolished medieval Geocentric cosmology; is modern cosmology of Newton and Einstein anything other than a Geocentric one?
What is at the root of the crisis in modern theoretical physics and cosmology?
Was Hegel justified when he said, “Newton gave physics an express warning to beware of metaphysics, it is true; but to his own honour, be it said, he did not obey his own warning”.
[As would be shown below, Newtonian metaphysics, assuming the same perfect circular orbits of planets like Galileo and Ptolemy; in essence brought back Geocentric cosmology with his law of universal gravitational attraction and Einstein just perfected this wrong notion with his general relativity (GR) - the epitome of all metaphysics!]
Galileo vs, Kepler:
After the Copernican revolution that overthrew the medieval cosmology of Ptolemaic Epicycles; Kepler’s laws of the planetary system involving elliptical orbits and based on the tedious empirical observation of Tycho Brahe; could be the only scientific basis for any cosmology. But it was not to be!
Galileo, is recognized as the father of modern cosmology and his inverse square law of “Free Fall” is universally valid on or near the surface of a cosmic body like earth. Galileo was persecuted by the Inquisition for his stance against Geocentric cosmology under feudal rule in Europe. But even Galileo rejected Kepler’s elliptical orbits in favour of ideal circular orbits of the planets; because there could be no imperfection in God creation. Please see the following references and the criticism of Galileo’s stance of perfect circular orbits, even by some modern-day clerics! Contrary to popular belief, the wrong turn in cosmology ironically originated with our hero, Galileo!
"An Astronomer's Astronomer: Kepler's Revolutionary Achievements in 1609 Rival Galileo's“
“Galileo and Kepler”
Dave Armstrong:
Newton vs, Leibniz:
The long dispute of Newton’s law of “universal gravitational attraction” (Free Fall of Galileo), circular orbits of the planetary system as opposed to Leibniz’s ‘vis viva’, centrifugal force and the support of Kepler’s elliptical orbits; as well as the dispute over the authorship of infinitesimal calculus is well known. The following publication (refused to be recognized by official physics), shows what a profound implication ensued after the rejection of Kepler’s elliptical orbits by Galileo and Newton. Newton extended Galileo’s inverse square law of “Free Fall” valid only on or near the surface of earth; totally disregarded Kepler’s first and second law, assumed a perfect circle like Ptolemy and Galileo as the orbit of the planets and used his theory of unidirectional universal gravitational attraction observed on earth, using a perfectly fitting centrifugal force, perfectly balancing the gravitational pull inwards such that there is zero outward force producing a perfect equilibrium. Newton simply put the proportionality constant (4 pi^2/GM) in Kepler’s third law to get his formula P^2 = (4 pi^2/GM) a^3, where G is the gravitational constant and M is the mass of the sun. Newton imposed his wrong and one-sided formulation of plenary gravitation with the help of the British imperial power, Royal Society and the Church and against the vehement opposition from Leibniz. The rest is history, leading up to the present time! All the Fairy Tales and the Cosmic Monsters arise from Newton’s unidirectional and universal gravitational attraction” without any countering force! If Leibniz’s vis viva equation (7) and specially the potential PE as shown in equation (10) in the following publication, prevailed; cosmology could have avoided the Fairy Tales of the Big/Dark/Black Cosmic Monsters and the crises and bankruptcy it now faces!
"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas" :
Einstein vs. Hegel:
Recognition of the quantum phenomena and the break down of causality (the backbone of theology and class rule) at the turn of the 20th century brought a crisis in Newtonian theoretical physics and cosmology that ruled for few centuries. In efforts to deny the “spooky quanta”, Einstein made a radical change of the Newtonian concept of space and time, with his theories of relativity. Space and time for Einstein became a unified single entity of four dimensional “spacetime” – an abstract geometrical construct, purportedly with tangible and sensuous mechanical, material and metrical attributes. But long before the recognition of the quantum phenomena, Hegel in his philosophy of space and time; already anticipated the quantum phenomena and antimatter (a revolutionary new form of matter) that could not even be dreamt of, before its discovery!
"The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology"
"The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?"
Newton and Einstein:
The Status of modern Theoretical Physics and Cosmology:
"Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's Metaphysics to Einstein's Theology!:

Related Publications

Article
Although President Donald Trump gave several nods to science and U.S. energy dominance in his State of the Union (SOTU) address on Tuesday evening, he never addressed climate change.
Research
Full-text available
In our article “Science counts – but what counts in science?” we discussed the collective interests of very different scientific disciplines. Therefore, we talked with leading researchers about their scientific aspirations and their confidence in scientific knowledge. Scientific findings and results are the basis for far-reaching decisions – whethe...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.