News on China's scientific and technological development.
- Thread starter Quickie
- Start date
I don't necessarily think that the afterlife belief system necessarily determines scientific literacy or vice versa, rather more on the process and weighting of empirical methodology over beliefs, which is why for example the Jesuits among the Catholics were far more learned about the scientific process than others orders in the Catholic system. As for the concept of afterlife itself, information (like energy) is neither created nor destroyed, and it's as true for people as it is for physical materials.
We called it pseudoscience
Chinese scientists developed a new ion membrane to harvest osmotic power with extremem high efficiency.
Osmotic power between sea water and fresh water is a very promising energy source. It is estimated that the total osmotic power at the river mouths around the global can be as high as 30 tera watts of which 2.6 tera watts can be practically collected.
This membrane create by the team from USTC can even be used in industrial waste water.
我学者实现高效率多形式盐差能发电
科技日报合肥9月4日电 （记者吴长锋）4日，记者从中国科学技术大学获悉，该校应用化学系徐铜文、杨正金团队研发了一种磺化的超微孔聚氧杂蒽基（SPX）离子膜，揭示了软物质限域下的离子传递特性，并利用膜内亚纳米的亲水微孔实现了极高的离子选择性，提高了盐差能发电的效率。该膜材料的设计理念也将盐差能发电的概念从海水—河水体系，拓展到无浓差盐溶液甚至工业废水体系。相关研究成果日前发表在《能源与环境科学》杂志上。
存在于河水与海水之间的盐差能是一种极具潜力的可再生能源。理论上，全球各河口区盐差能总储量高达30太瓦，可利用的有2.6太瓦。用于提取这种能量的方法主要有压力延迟渗透技术（PRO）和反向电渗析技术（RED）。尤其是RED技术使用离子交换膜，直接将化学势能转换为电能，具有投资成本更低、能量密度更高等优势。
但是RED过程存在两个主要挑战：一是缺乏能同时实现高功率密度和高转换效率的膜材料；二是盐差能提取的概念仅限于具有明显渗透压差、盐度差海水和河水的体系，从工业废水等其他水源中提取能源的研究很少，急需开发出不受复杂盐组成、溶液pH、温度等影响的能量提取过程，实现多种形式的盐差能提取。
基于上述两大挑战，团队设计了一种磺化的超微孔聚合物膜SPX，用于提取储存在不同浓度溶液中的渗透能。SPX膜具有大小为5—9埃的亲水微孔，表现出受表面电荷控制的离子传输和优异的阳离子选择性。在模拟海水和河水混合的情形下，能量转换效率保持在38.5%以上。利用热梯度和浓度梯度的协同作用，该盐差能提取装置的能量转换效率进一步提高到48.7%，接近50%理论上限。这是目前为止在50倍氯化钠梯度下报告的最高效率。
该研究也揭示了亚纳米通道内的尺寸筛分效应，拓展了盐差能发电的概念。基于SPX膜的盐差能提取装置在连续运行模式下具有良好的长期稳定性。该研究成果将盐差发电的概念拓展到扩散发电，未来或可用于从工业废水中提取能量。
Osmotic power between sea water and fresh water is a very promising energy source. It is estimated that the total osmotic power at the river mouths around the global can be as high as 30 tera watts of which 2.6 tera watts can be practically collected.
This membrane create by the team from USTC can even be used in industrial waste water.
我学者实现高效率多形式盐差能发电
科技日报合肥9月4日电 （记者吴长锋）4日，记者从中国科学技术大学获悉，该校应用化学系徐铜文、杨正金团队研发了一种磺化的超微孔聚氧杂蒽基（SPX）离子膜，揭示了软物质限域下的离子传递特性，并利用膜内亚纳米的亲水微孔实现了极高的离子选择性，提高了盐差能发电的效率。该膜材料的设计理念也将盐差能发电的概念从海水—河水体系，拓展到无浓差盐溶液甚至工业废水体系。相关研究成果日前发表在《能源与环境科学》杂志上。
存在于河水与海水之间的盐差能是一种极具潜力的可再生能源。理论上，全球各河口区盐差能总储量高达30太瓦，可利用的有2.6太瓦。用于提取这种能量的方法主要有压力延迟渗透技术（PRO）和反向电渗析技术（RED）。尤其是RED技术使用离子交换膜，直接将化学势能转换为电能，具有投资成本更低、能量密度更高等优势。
但是RED过程存在两个主要挑战：一是缺乏能同时实现高功率密度和高转换效率的膜材料；二是盐差能提取的概念仅限于具有明显渗透压差、盐度差海水和河水的体系，从工业废水等其他水源中提取能源的研究很少，急需开发出不受复杂盐组成、溶液pH、温度等影响的能量提取过程，实现多种形式的盐差能提取。
基于上述两大挑战，团队设计了一种磺化的超微孔聚合物膜SPX，用于提取储存在不同浓度溶液中的渗透能。SPX膜具有大小为5—9埃的亲水微孔，表现出受表面电荷控制的离子传输和优异的阳离子选择性。在模拟海水和河水混合的情形下，能量转换效率保持在38.5%以上。利用热梯度和浓度梯度的协同作用，该盐差能提取装置的能量转换效率进一步提高到48.7%，接近50%理论上限。这是目前为止在50倍氯化钠梯度下报告的最高效率。
该研究也揭示了亚纳米通道内的尺寸筛分效应，拓展了盐差能发电的概念。基于SPX膜的盐差能提取装置在连续运行模式下具有良好的长期稳定性。该研究成果将盐差发电的概念拓展到扩散发电，未来或可用于从工业废水中提取能量。
Quantum mechanics and AI will make the picture clearer to put it mildly.
On a practical applied level, it's the marriage of capital and technology and then scaling it all up that usually carried the day. China pretty much failed it before, but learned it by heart and burnt it into institutional memory. Hence the state involvement, nurture, and promotion in almost all major undertakings. This time around, the bottleneck is that Chinese public doesn't know what to do with their savings and money, in a way demanding a give and take with traditional Chinese state led model, which has a strong culture laden with all the customary mandarin overtone of official oversight, accountability and anti-corruption, carried down from millennia of history, hence the degree and speed of big tech , big money crackdown that should entail no surprise given the long histroy. That's where China can learn from Western system, corrupt as some might say it may be, and graft the stuff that works into institutional memory. Otherwise, one foot would still be dragging while the other got somewhat fixed.
This is the right thread.@FairAndUnbiased
The blogger continued:
"Ok, I'm not talking about how long it will take to do it, but when the country, society and the world's human beings need this thing. Let me give an example. The theory of the large collider does not exist at all, because I just mentioned that the standard model of high-energy physics was created in 1974, and there is basically no theory that surpasses it. Of all the particles in the Standard Model, the last one to be discovered is Higgs, which was discovered in 2012. You have to build a new large collider, which obviously has no theoretical basis, let alone it has no application value at all.
For this kind of thing, I think a very simple criterion is whether it has application value within 50 years. If not, you have no application value at all. If there is no application value at all, it is not that you cannot invest, but that you want Compare it with other basic scientific research that has absolutely no application value, right?
You need hundreds of billions for this thing, others only need 100,000 yuan. When Zhang Yitang made a major breakthrough in mathematics once every 10 years, his annual salary was about 100,000 (RMB), and he was just a freshman calculus lecturer, using his (free) time in the library There is a breakthrough in it. Is the basic scientific research of your large collider as important as Zhang Yitang's research? No, absolutely not, but you are a million times more expensive than him, how to explain? You have to explain why the same thing has no application value, and the papers published by others are only one-millionth as important as yours. This is a question they must (answer). But every time I questioned, they said I was insulting basic research. No, even basic scientific research still has priorities and still has cost-effectiveness. It is more cost-effective than these, right?
You have to compare the cost-effectiveness fairly, because in fact, something like a large collider is a combination of 1,000 people in the entire industry, using 1,000 times the political energy of ordinary (individual) basic researchers to defraud 10 to the 6th power is 100 10,000 times the funding, but the research he did is actually (the same level), right? The importance of these papers, the importance of a paper made of hundreds of billions of dollars is the same as the importance of a paper made of 100,000 yuan, but it takes 1,000 times of manpower and 1 million times of money. .
You say this, are they representing basic scientific research, or are they harming basic scientific research? I think it's jeopardizing basic research. Because if you put money in, there will be 1 million other basic scientific researches that cannot get money. If you put in manpower, there will be 1,000 other basic scientific researches without doctors and talents (for R&D).
So I think the biggest problem of the "big" in the false big sky is that it makes the country make wrong investment decisions. The solution to this exaggeration is to be honest (reviewing individual research programs) on the importance (and timing) of the country's needs. That is, the embodiment of the country's needs. The first hurdle is 50 years. Can it be made (actual contribution) within 50 years? Colliders are useless for 1,000 or 10,000 years. I just explained this.
............
Many mathematics, or biology, or chemistry, or other physics (subjects), they only need 100,000, millions, tens of millions to make good basic research, you need billions, tens of billions, a few With hundreds of billions of dollars, the resulting papers are not thousands or hundreds of times better than others. How can you ask for thousands or tens of thousands of times the amount of money? So this is what I think is an exaggeration about science, a very bad effect.
............
As for things like aircraft engines, large aircraft, semiconductor manufacturing, or things like Huawei being strangled by others, this kind of country's needs and its applications are not even in the future, but in the past. You can say that in 30 Things that were needed years ago have not yet caught up with the first echelon. Should this kind of thing be wasted on other things? It shouldn't be at all, there's no need to even mention such a thing.
We are repaying debts now, and we need to pay back what we need in the past, and everyone has to consider. I actually mentioned that the resources we are discussing now are not only money, but also talents. The real first-class talents are very scarce and very important. They have to be used on the edge of the knife. If they are all sent into colliders, like the European collider LHC, for example, with 6,000 Ph.Ds, most of them Europeans, how much damage will these talents do to Europe? It may be the more than 20 billion euros he spent, compared to the waste of 6,000 talents.
I know a lot of people think that if the country has money anyway, just throw the money everywhere. This is not the case. In the 1950s and 1960s, when the United States was the dominant family, it used to account for 70% of the world's R&D (total investment), but in the 1980s, they were in trouble, (like) Their semiconductor (industry) was disgraced by Japan, but in the 1990s, they began to review the waste of investment in the past, that is, when they did not use the good standard I just said to review the investment direction, they collided their big The machine was cut off. In 1993, I left the high-energy physics world because it was cut off, so I was in real pain.
And I was in Weinberg Weinberg's team at that time, Weinberg was the most important pusher at that time (the American Large Collider SSC), so I knew everything about it. He reports to us twice a week on the progress, and I really heard internally how he wants to fool the country. At that time, I thought it was very strange. You are wasting the wealth of the country and the human world entirely for the benefit of the small industry group. How can you be worthy of your conscience?
Later in the United States, other Nobel Prize winners came forward and offended people for the sake of public welfare. Culturally, China doesn't like to offend people, and it doesn't like to tell the truth, right? This is a bigger question, right? Ma Baoguo's attitude is very common in academia, and this will be an important factor that hinders China to become the world's leading science and technology country.
So I think it should be shared and discussed with everyone. Because I think the so-called superiority of nationality lies in the nationality of this country, whether ordinary citizens take the rise and fall of the country as their own responsibility, and are willing to stand up and tell the truth when they see the public welfare being damaged. This is (judging) the so-called nationality. standard. If we allow these large groups of research with no application value to use their political energy to occupy public relations and media channels, exaggerate or even create something out of nothing, (create out of thin air) the so-called application value and contribution to the country. Then you will invest wrongly, then you will replicate the mistakes of the US in the 1960s and 1970s.
After the United States conducted a review in the 1990s, it cut off the Large Collider and saved 20 billion US dollars. (It also cut off nuclear fusion power generation, at the same time period) Where did he put the money? He only released a few (billion), and established a semi-official organization for the semiconductor manufacturing industry. The semi-official organization stopped the (U.S.) semiconductor industry within 5 years, and then (further) established the next twenty The U.S. has dominated semiconductor manufacturing equipment for a few years, and this can only give him the cost of strangling China in the past two years. (Among them used in manufacturing equipment, only about) tens of millions.
If he wastes those tens of billions and hundreds of billions in other areas, the United States (the technology industry) will be completely collapsed long ago. At the beginning, what he relied on was the ability and willingness (people) who were willing to do things for the country. Even if there was not much money, he was still willing (with all his energy and wisdom) to make long-term contributions to the country; on the other hand, some people were willing to come forward to offend people, Tell the state that you can't waste money on these things. With the cooperation of these two kinds of people, the United States only had that turning point in the 1990s, and made a little effort to revive and save its own economic future.
China is still far from being a global leader in technology. If you want to have that status, you can't rely on the fact that the United States was in WWII (post) because all the other advanced industrial countries crippled themselves, right? We are now in a long-term peaceful environment. If China wants to rise peacefully, it must rely on being superior to others. Where is the superiority? Superiority lies in your technological development ability. What does the ability of technological development depend on? academia. What does academia depend on? Investment in human and financial and material resources. These investments must be used on the edge of the knife, you don't put on the edge of the knife, the serious consequences are very obvious."
The blogger continued:
"Ok, I'm not talking about how long it will take to do it, but when the country, society and the world's human beings need this thing. Let me give an example. The theory of the large collider does not exist at all, because I just mentioned that the standard model of high-energy physics was created in 1974, and there is basically no theory that surpasses it. Of all the particles in the Standard Model, the last one to be discovered is Higgs, which was discovered in 2012. You have to build a new large collider, which obviously has no theoretical basis, let alone it has no application value at all.
For this kind of thing, I think a very simple criterion is whether it has application value within 50 years. If not, you have no application value at all. If there is no application value at all, it is not that you cannot invest, but that you want Compare it with other basic scientific research that has absolutely no application value, right?
You need hundreds of billions for this thing, others only need 100,000 yuan. When Zhang Yitang made a major breakthrough in mathematics once every 10 years, his annual salary was about 100,000 (RMB), and he was just a freshman calculus lecturer, using his (free) time in the library There is a breakthrough in it. Is the basic scientific research of your large collider as important as Zhang Yitang's research? No, absolutely not, but you are a million times more expensive than him, how to explain? You have to explain why the same thing has no application value, and the papers published by others are only one-millionth as important as yours. This is a question they must (answer). But every time I questioned, they said I was insulting basic research. No, even basic scientific research still has priorities and still has cost-effectiveness. It is more cost-effective than these, right?
You have to compare the cost-effectiveness fairly, because in fact, something like a large collider is a combination of 1,000 people in the entire industry, using 1,000 times the political energy of ordinary (individual) basic researchers to defraud 10 to the 6th power is 100 10,000 times the funding, but the research he did is actually (the same level), right? The importance of these papers, the importance of a paper made of hundreds of billions of dollars is the same as the importance of a paper made of 100,000 yuan, but it takes 1,000 times of manpower and 1 million times of money. .
You say this, are they representing basic scientific research, or are they harming basic scientific research? I think it's jeopardizing basic research. Because if you put money in, there will be 1 million other basic scientific researches that cannot get money. If you put in manpower, there will be 1,000 other basic scientific researches without doctors and talents (for R&D).
So I think the biggest problem of the "big" in the false big sky is that it makes the country make wrong investment decisions. The solution to this exaggeration is to be honest (reviewing individual research programs) on the importance (and timing) of the country's needs. That is, the embodiment of the country's needs. The first hurdle is 50 years. Can it be made (actual contribution) within 50 years? Colliders are useless for 1,000 or 10,000 years. I just explained this.
............
Many mathematics, or biology, or chemistry, or other physics (subjects), they only need 100,000, millions, tens of millions to make good basic research, you need billions, tens of billions, a few With hundreds of billions of dollars, the resulting papers are not thousands or hundreds of times better than others. How can you ask for thousands or tens of thousands of times the amount of money? So this is what I think is an exaggeration about science, a very bad effect.
............
As for things like aircraft engines, large aircraft, semiconductor manufacturing, or things like Huawei being strangled by others, this kind of country's needs and its applications are not even in the future, but in the past. You can say that in 30 Things that were needed years ago have not yet caught up with the first echelon. Should this kind of thing be wasted on other things? It shouldn't be at all, there's no need to even mention such a thing.
We are repaying debts now, and we need to pay back what we need in the past, and everyone has to consider. I actually mentioned that the resources we are discussing now are not only money, but also talents. The real first-class talents are very scarce and very important. They have to be used on the edge of the knife. If they are all sent into colliders, like the European collider LHC, for example, with 6,000 Ph.Ds, most of them Europeans, how much damage will these talents do to Europe? It may be the more than 20 billion euros he spent, compared to the waste of 6,000 talents.
I know a lot of people think that if the country has money anyway, just throw the money everywhere. This is not the case. In the 1950s and 1960s, when the United States was the dominant family, it used to account for 70% of the world's R&D (total investment), but in the 1980s, they were in trouble, (like) Their semiconductor (industry) was disgraced by Japan, but in the 1990s, they began to review the waste of investment in the past, that is, when they did not use the good standard I just said to review the investment direction, they collided their big The machine was cut off. In 1993, I left the high-energy physics world because it was cut off, so I was in real pain.
And I was in Weinberg Weinberg's team at that time, Weinberg was the most important pusher at that time (the American Large Collider SSC), so I knew everything about it. He reports to us twice a week on the progress, and I really heard internally how he wants to fool the country. At that time, I thought it was very strange. You are wasting the wealth of the country and the human world entirely for the benefit of the small industry group. How can you be worthy of your conscience?
Later in the United States, other Nobel Prize winners came forward and offended people for the sake of public welfare. Culturally, China doesn't like to offend people, and it doesn't like to tell the truth, right? This is a bigger question, right? Ma Baoguo's attitude is very common in academia, and this will be an important factor that hinders China to become the world's leading science and technology country.
So I think it should be shared and discussed with everyone. Because I think the so-called superiority of nationality lies in the nationality of this country, whether ordinary citizens take the rise and fall of the country as their own responsibility, and are willing to stand up and tell the truth when they see the public welfare being damaged. This is (judging) the so-called nationality. standard. If we allow these large groups of research with no application value to use their political energy to occupy public relations and media channels, exaggerate or even create something out of nothing, (create out of thin air) the so-called application value and contribution to the country. Then you will invest wrongly, then you will replicate the mistakes of the US in the 1960s and 1970s.
After the United States conducted a review in the 1990s, it cut off the Large Collider and saved 20 billion US dollars. (It also cut off nuclear fusion power generation, at the same time period) Where did he put the money? He only released a few (billion), and established a semi-official organization for the semiconductor manufacturing industry. The semi-official organization stopped the (U.S.) semiconductor industry within 5 years, and then (further) established the next twenty The U.S. has dominated semiconductor manufacturing equipment for a few years, and this can only give him the cost of strangling China in the past two years. (Among them used in manufacturing equipment, only about) tens of millions.
If he wastes those tens of billions and hundreds of billions in other areas, the United States (the technology industry) will be completely collapsed long ago. At the beginning, what he relied on was the ability and willingness (people) who were willing to do things for the country. Even if there was not much money, he was still willing (with all his energy and wisdom) to make long-term contributions to the country; on the other hand, some people were willing to come forward to offend people, Tell the state that you can't waste money on these things. With the cooperation of these two kinds of people, the United States only had that turning point in the 1990s, and made a little effort to revive and save its own economic future.
China is still far from being a global leader in technology. If you want to have that status, you can't rely on the fact that the United States was in WWII (post) because all the other advanced industrial countries crippled themselves, right? We are now in a long-term peaceful environment. If China wants to rise peacefully, it must rely on being superior to others. Where is the superiority? Superiority lies in your technological development ability. What does the ability of technological development depend on? academia. What does academia depend on? Investment in human and financial and material resources. These investments must be used on the edge of the knife, you don't put on the edge of the knife, the serious consequences are very obvious."
If you think this is not good will but some anti-China nonsense, then I have nothing to say.@FairAndUnbiased
"China has a government with far the highest executive power in the world. After 10 years of rectification by Xi Jinping, it is even more disciplined. The key policies decided by the central government seem to have no reason to fail, but the CCP’s system, organization and principles have a fatal weakness; That is academic management. It is precisely because of the lack of academic management that many "scholars" and "experts" have been thoroughly brainwashed by Western propaganda, resulting in excessive macroeconomic regulation in 2009 and miscalculation of Trump's strategic intentions in 2017. In recent years, with the continuous introduction of new reforms by Xi Jinping, some of the problems are gradually getting rid of, but the selection of scientific and technological routes and resource allocation are still serious.
I have been trying my best to discuss the difficulties in academic management in China from a simple and direct perspective, but I must remind everyone that this problem is very deep and broad, and it is not just a fake, flooded reverse elimination, or a few The mountain of interest is defrauding public funds and wasting national strength. Although these phenomena limit the efficiency of independent research and development, greatly increase the difficulty of industrial upgrading and catching up with advanced countries, and thus lower the living standards of countless practitioners, but they are logically the manifestation of another more basic contradiction. That is, the absolute conflict between the current Chinese academic management philosophy and the idea of rational governance.
One of the most fundamental principles of the CCP's rational governance policy since Deng Xiaoping is that power must respect science and reason, and the latter often comes from professional opinions in practice. This principle itself is not wrong, but it also originated from Deng Xiaoping. It was gradually misunderstood and distorted into that power must respect professional bosses, and then further evolved into that power must be given to academics. Of course, such a conclusion can only be established if it is first assumed that scientific achievements are equal to personality intelligence, but the facts are often completely contrary to that assumption: for example, the husband of Lila Gleitman, one of the founders of Psycholinguistics in the 20th century, also felt it: "Great scientists are often not great men." (Lila's answer is: "Yeah. For instance, I'm not a great man." Henry Gleitman, like his wife, is also a professor in the Department of Psychology at U Penn. Lila, however, has a similar level of humor. For example, he once said "God must have loved the C students, because he made so many of them.") This has not taken into account the so-called first-class scientists ("academicians") in China. Internationally, it may not be considered second-rate (see the list of leaders of the Institute of High Energy; some readers may find it rude to say this, but I don't think it is polite to those who are traitors).
These bigwigs have occupied the right to speak on professional issues all over the world, and China has given more political status and management functions. The benign checks and balances of the original Chinese-style huge and powerful bureaucracy can only come from science and rationality (including anti-corruption, which Why is Xi Jinping's Disciplinary Committee extremely strict in collecting evidence?) However, these academic leaders have both political power and professional authority. They not only have absolute and completely unchecked decision-making power on relevant policies, but can also use political energy to further their efforts. Improve professional prestige (for example, through the Central Propaganda Department to suppress criticism and brag about their achievements, and monopolize scientific research budgets to conduct experiments that foreign teams cannot afford but have little scientific significance), and then use professional prestige to deceive more There is a lot of political energy in such an infinite loop; in the process, you can also open some companies by the way, and harvest leeks in the stock market through the boasting of the official media. This is a source of large extra money that political bureaucrats can’t even imagine.
I have said time and again that the goal of politics is the maximization of the public good, and the basis of its practice is rational and professional attitude. Although the CCP is the government with the highest degree of rationality in human society, this logical fallacy that confuses scientific facts with professional authority is a great worry; if it is not corrected as soon as possible, the political and scientific discourse power will be separated. , then there are bound to be more and more outrageous scholars who are selfish and stealing the country. Several fake future technologies that I have criticized for a long time have become the key investment targets of the 14th Five-Year Plan, but this is actually only the inevitable result of the above-mentioned fallacy. cause increasing blood loss. It is urgent to clear the source of the original.
............
The blog has been expecting the sophistry used by vested interests to include Straw Man Fallacy since the early years of trying to debunk fake basic scientific research (such as the Great Collider) and fake future technologies (hydrogen economy, nuclear fusion) that have no real value. (Another target, change the topic), that is to pretend that my criticism is aimed at all basic scientific research and future technology,so the blog post has always provided a comparison in the right direction that is really worth investing in. However, due to political reasons in quantum computing, it was not until this article four months ago that I had enough time to tell the truth, and it was too late to make a complete discussion."
"China has a government with far the highest executive power in the world. After 10 years of rectification by Xi Jinping, it is even more disciplined. The key policies decided by the central government seem to have no reason to fail, but the CCP’s system, organization and principles have a fatal weakness; That is academic management. It is precisely because of the lack of academic management that many "scholars" and "experts" have been thoroughly brainwashed by Western propaganda, resulting in excessive macroeconomic regulation in 2009 and miscalculation of Trump's strategic intentions in 2017. In recent years, with the continuous introduction of new reforms by Xi Jinping, some of the problems are gradually getting rid of, but the selection of scientific and technological routes and resource allocation are still serious.
I have been trying my best to discuss the difficulties in academic management in China from a simple and direct perspective, but I must remind everyone that this problem is very deep and broad, and it is not just a fake, flooded reverse elimination, or a few The mountain of interest is defrauding public funds and wasting national strength. Although these phenomena limit the efficiency of independent research and development, greatly increase the difficulty of industrial upgrading and catching up with advanced countries, and thus lower the living standards of countless practitioners, but they are logically the manifestation of another more basic contradiction. That is, the absolute conflict between the current Chinese academic management philosophy and the idea of rational governance.
One of the most fundamental principles of the CCP's rational governance policy since Deng Xiaoping is that power must respect science and reason, and the latter often comes from professional opinions in practice. This principle itself is not wrong, but it also originated from Deng Xiaoping. It was gradually misunderstood and distorted into that power must respect professional bosses, and then further evolved into that power must be given to academics. Of course, such a conclusion can only be established if it is first assumed that scientific achievements are equal to personality intelligence, but the facts are often completely contrary to that assumption: for example, the husband of Lila Gleitman, one of the founders of Psycholinguistics in the 20th century, also felt it: "Great scientists are often not great men." (Lila's answer is: "Yeah. For instance, I'm not a great man." Henry Gleitman, like his wife, is also a professor in the Department of Psychology at U Penn. Lila, however, has a similar level of humor. For example, he once said "God must have loved the C students, because he made so many of them.") This has not taken into account the so-called first-class scientists ("academicians") in China. Internationally, it may not be considered second-rate (see the list of leaders of the Institute of High Energy; some readers may find it rude to say this, but I don't think it is polite to those who are traitors).
These bigwigs have occupied the right to speak on professional issues all over the world, and China has given more political status and management functions. The benign checks and balances of the original Chinese-style huge and powerful bureaucracy can only come from science and rationality (including anti-corruption, which Why is Xi Jinping's Disciplinary Committee extremely strict in collecting evidence?) However, these academic leaders have both political power and professional authority. They not only have absolute and completely unchecked decision-making power on relevant policies, but can also use political energy to further their efforts. Improve professional prestige (for example, through the Central Propaganda Department to suppress criticism and brag about their achievements, and monopolize scientific research budgets to conduct experiments that foreign teams cannot afford but have little scientific significance), and then use professional prestige to deceive more There is a lot of political energy in such an infinite loop; in the process, you can also open some companies by the way, and harvest leeks in the stock market through the boasting of the official media. This is a source of large extra money that political bureaucrats can’t even imagine.
I have said time and again that the goal of politics is the maximization of the public good, and the basis of its practice is rational and professional attitude. Although the CCP is the government with the highest degree of rationality in human society, this logical fallacy that confuses scientific facts with professional authority is a great worry; if it is not corrected as soon as possible, the political and scientific discourse power will be separated. , then there are bound to be more and more outrageous scholars who are selfish and stealing the country. Several fake future technologies that I have criticized for a long time have become the key investment targets of the 14th Five-Year Plan, but this is actually only the inevitable result of the above-mentioned fallacy. cause increasing blood loss. It is urgent to clear the source of the original.
............
The blog has been expecting the sophistry used by vested interests to include Straw Man Fallacy since the early years of trying to debunk fake basic scientific research (such as the Great Collider) and fake future technologies (hydrogen economy, nuclear fusion) that have no real value. (Another target, change the topic), that is to pretend that my criticism is aimed at all basic scientific research and future technology,so the blog post has always provided a comparison in the right direction that is really worth investing in. However, due to political reasons in quantum computing, it was not until this article four months ago that I had enough time to tell the truth, and it was too late to make a complete discussion."
this is extremely offensive. I believe in life after death. Does this make me a moron or not believing in science?
@mostonhel how much experience do you have with the quantum industry and Academia, not just from reading that High Energy Physics guy's blog? Pan's work with the satellite QKD is probably one of the most practical applications of quantum communication/computing technologies in the past decade.
Post-quantum crypto and QKD both have their uses, 1 is software, 1 is hardware. Software locks are good, but hardware locks redundancy is even better against snooping. If I was an adversary (e.g., US) and I wanted to snoop in on the communication over the Beijing - Shanghai relay line, I'd probably find a software exploit on the endpoints, or find a way to infiltrate the relay stations. If satellite QKD gets bigger, think QKD relays on satellites, then there is one less avenue for attackers to exploit. There is no perfect security, but QKD can greatly increase the (maybe perceived) deterrence and costs associated with spying on the protected network, regardless of the realization of usable quantum computers.
If you are a non-believer in quantum tech you can argue Pan "scammed" hundreds of millions of dollars, but how is this any different from US quantum computing companies which pitch even more hyped technologies? Pan's prestige (from his Mozi and optical quantum work) attracted many top talents back to China (most were probably ethnic Chinese anyways), this in itself is probably his biggest contribution to China. Otherwise, those well-trained ethnic PhD/postdocs would just be wasting away at other silicon valley companies, not utilizing their full potential (for their homeland also).
Even within the quantum community, IMO China's allocation of research funding is pretty good. Take a look at the hundreds of millions/billions Europe/US/Canada/Aus spends, are they spending it wiser than China? Every country is trying to nurture its scientific talents, there is no way to bypass dumping billions into basic research. To reduce public spending, most countries also encourage private investment (i.e., scamming rich capitalists) like Pan's company to offset some of the costs associated with employing the well educated workforce.
Although currently quantum communication and quantum computation research have very little practical stuff to show for, it is still a way better investment (for China and for humanity) than dumping billions into Accelerators, and Telescopes (e.g., LHC, JWST). This is all within experimental physics mind you, don't get me started on the wasted funding into certain theoretical physics areas, or even disciplines like social science
.
If you really want to complain about misallocation of research funding in Chinese physics, you should start with those large accelerators China is planning to build, that's a real waste of money with nothing to show for. Otherwise, you should propose a better area of experimental physics that deserves that funding.
Post-quantum crypto and QKD both have their uses, 1 is software, 1 is hardware. Software locks are good, but hardware locks redundancy is even better against snooping. If I was an adversary (e.g., US) and I wanted to snoop in on the communication over the Beijing - Shanghai relay line, I'd probably find a software exploit on the endpoints, or find a way to infiltrate the relay stations. If satellite QKD gets bigger, think QKD relays on satellites, then there is one less avenue for attackers to exploit. There is no perfect security, but QKD can greatly increase the (maybe perceived) deterrence and costs associated with spying on the protected network, regardless of the realization of usable quantum computers.
If you are a non-believer in quantum tech you can argue Pan "scammed" hundreds of millions of dollars, but how is this any different from US quantum computing companies which pitch even more hyped technologies? Pan's prestige (from his Mozi and optical quantum work) attracted many top talents back to China (most were probably ethnic Chinese anyways), this in itself is probably his biggest contribution to China. Otherwise, those well-trained ethnic PhD/postdocs would just be wasting away at other silicon valley companies, not utilizing their full potential (for their homeland also).
Even within the quantum community, IMO China's allocation of research funding is pretty good. Take a look at the hundreds of millions/billions Europe/US/Canada/Aus spends, are they spending it wiser than China? Every country is trying to nurture its scientific talents, there is no way to bypass dumping billions into basic research. To reduce public spending, most countries also encourage private investment (i.e., scamming rich capitalists) like Pan's company to offset some of the costs associated with employing the well educated workforce.
Although currently quantum communication and quantum computation research have very little practical stuff to show for, it is still a way better investment (for China and for humanity) than dumping billions into Accelerators, and Telescopes (e.g., LHC, JWST). This is all within experimental physics mind you, don't get me started on the wasted funding into certain theoretical physics areas, or even disciplines like social science
.If you really want to complain about misallocation of research funding in Chinese physics, you should start with those large accelerators China is planning to build, that's a real waste of money with nothing to show for. Otherwise, you should propose a better area of experimental physics that deserves that funding.
Last edited: