We have read many theories that are universally accepted, many theorists who proposed such theories are admired in their respective fields. Sometimes they are referred to have being contributed in other fields as well. While I was going through the many theories of motivation suggested by many ‘Researchers’, every theory different from the previous one in some aspect still there is a consistent need for new theory because group behaviour is such a complex process that you can not really put it in the framework of theories.
No, do not get afraid, I am not proposing a new theory for motivation. What I am thinking is that whenever I come across any big researcher, inventors, scientists etc. all those theories existed for a long time. Take an example, Newton Laws of motion, Ohm Law, Fick's law of diffusion, Bernoulli's principle etc. Pardon me for my engineering background, is that the reason! There are no new theory coming up, I am not saying that the research is not happening these days, the research is definitely happening and even at a faster rates but there are not breakthrough theories coming up, that are widely accepted and universally recognized. Well, you may disagree with me here because my knowledge may be very limited.
Still I am puzzled, is it that all the research that could have been done is already been done in all the fields at macro level and whatever research is currently being done is all at micro level for e.g. particle dynamics, nanotechnologies etc. So there are no theories of say solid mechanics or fluid mechanics or thermodynamics, conduction, convection, mass transfer etc. (Again pardon me for sounding a bit technical).
There is a huge scope of research if we go deeper and I believe that we are yet to find any universal principle at this micro/nano level that can be accepted as universal law. Every hypothesis gets refined every five year or so to improve on its applicability and accuracy. Is it what it should be or our research is actually not able to converge to one direction? Is it that while researching on these micro/nano aspects we ourselves are doing Brownian research (getting some inspiration from Brownian motion), and therefore it being happening in every direction and actually difficult to converge.
Or is it that the earlier scientist/theorists were well capable to take their research in one discrete direction and finally result in a universally acceptable law. Or is it that there were lack of scientist community to actually counter a theory proposed by someone. Or is it that there are no more theory left at the macro level that hasn’t been proposed yet and therefore we have successfully explained all macro level phenomenon.
I am sure that there are a lot more number of researchers/scientist today, with a lot more knowledge at their disposal, working on a lot more complex and efficient equipment and driven by a lot more funds and motivation. I am also sure there are a lot more technical papers published in international journals and this trend is going to be the same in the years to come.
Still, isn’t there is one macro level phenomenon that is not yet been discovered or observed and hence there is a scope of at least one new law that will be quickly accepted universally. I am definitely not the person who can comment on this question.
No comments:
Post a Comment