Talk:List of emerging technologies

Why is force field here?

Force fields are mostly a hypothetical technology, that is not being developed on much. It what world should force fields be here? Unless there is a good reason to keep them, I think we should remove it.

New entries

There have been two new additions, neither of which have linked WP articles, and I would be grateful for others' thoughts as to the merits of their inclusion as I am personally doubtful. The additions in question are:

1. Computational knowledge - this appears to be a marketing term used to describe the Wolfram Alpha search engine, but not otherwise to be in common useage, and certainly not to refer to an emerging technology per se: [1]

2. Algorithm discovery - It appears that this phrase is used in a number of different contexts, but I have been unable to identify a currently emerging technology by this name. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

These have since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Entries to add

3. I don't want to screw up the formatting by trying to enter it myself, but under Agriculture, development of drought, heat, and saline resistant crops, whether by genetic engineering or conventional breeding, should be included. It it not just "a nice thing", but will be mandatory, in the face of progressive global warming. Hsfrey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 28 January 2012

4. Ditto for Architecture designed for areas newly affected by heat waves, floods, and high energy hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. Hsfrey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 28 January 2012

@Hsfrey: Conventional breeding is not an emerging technology; GMO foods are, and they are already listed. Houses on stilts or rated for hurricanes are not an emerging technologies, as they are not new. Not sure what might be emerging that would fit this application. -- Beland (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ground effect

Why ground effect train is included but Ground effect vehicle not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.66.167 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Added. -- Beland (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This is OR

Unless a tech has a reference within the last 12 months that calls it an "Emerging technology" then it must be removed. Mtking (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

At the AfD over 2 years ago the vast majority of paticipents recomended a better definition of emerging technologies and refrances this has not happened and needs to. Mtking (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A 12 month period is completely arbitrary and I strongly oppose it. A technology can sometimes take not just years but in some cases decades to emerge. Requirement for the specific use of the words "emerging technology" is also wholly arbitrary and unnecessarily restrictive. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok so what is your proposal then to both make sure that this list is not WP:OR and that as tech moves into the main stream it is removed from here. - cos there is no way you can say that SSD's are emerging technology. Remember that the steam engine was at one point an "emerging technology" but know one would say that it should be on this list. Mtking (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As with WP articles in general, once an editor believes that a technology has emerged then they are free to remove it from the list. If other editors disagree then they can revert the change and a discussion on this page can establish a consensus. The standard WP editing procedures should be more than adequate. Of course no WP article is perfect and all rely on engaged editors to maintain quality. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is the small matter of WP:Verifiability, which states :

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

so consensus does not matter; (it goes on to say) as :

all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

So without a recent ref to support the claim of something being an emerging technology then it should not be on the page. Also have a read of the AfD on this from 2 years ago the point of needing ref's was made repeatedly. Mtking (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a separate point and I fully agree that entries in the list must be cited in some way, and have myself added citations to a large number of the entries. I don't agree that the words "emerging technology" must be used in the sources however. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well unless a source calls it one, then it is the editors view and not in keeping with WP:Verifiability. That still does not address the issue of removing out of date entries. Mtking (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No verifiability is not the same as a requirement that a precise and arbitrary wording has to be used in a source to establish a particular point. I have addressed the issue of removing out of date entries above. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if know one else is calling something "emerging technology" then how do we stick to WP:Verifiability ? I don't think you have addressed the issue of removing old tech, there needs to be a clear guideline be it 12 months or 24 months . Mtking (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If references establish that a technology meets the given definition for "emerging technology" (that it's new but not hypothetical and not mainstream) then that should be enough to verify that it is an emerging technology. Just the same as we accept that a source which says someone enrolled at a school is sufficient to support the claim that they were a student there. I don't think there needs to be any particular deadline for completion. If you want to start removing items unsupported by references, it's fine to start doing that now, but it would be unproductive to do so without checking for easily-found references in the linked Wikipedia article or doing a basic web search since the vast majority of items do seem to be included legitimately. -- Beland (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Reversible computing

can we add in a reference to reversible computing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.55.44 (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems one needs to know quite a lot about computing to be able to answer this question. I would therefore recommend to ask it at Talk:Reversible computing. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's anything other than hypothetical yet. Also, it's arguably an aspect of quantum computing, which is already listed. -- Beland (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Building / Permaculture / Agriculture

This list definitely needs a building technologies section. There are a lot of well documenting emerging technologies in building. Inhabitat [2], Worldchanging [3] and hundreds of other sources you can find searching "architecture", "permaculture", "landscape".

Many of the technologies exist to radically reduce energy or enable growing, tighten ecological feedback loops so that wastes are used immediately, make use of waste materials, cut water use, and so on. This is at least one of the most aggressive areas of innovation there is, and obviously very important socially and ecologically, so it needs due attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.94.114 (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps these are useful leads for someone interested in digging through them, but the technologies would also need to be notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, not merely be mentioned in ideas blogs. -- Beland (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Add 5G

5G cellular communication will come in the 2020s. Is it okay that I put it on this page tomorrow?

Anonymous173.57.37.111 (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not really new so much as an iterative improvement on 4G. -- Beland (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, maybe if there's some innovation in protocols. But 5G is already mainstreamish; the list now includes 6G (network). -- Beland (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Translations

Note: This should be translated into additional languages. Especially German, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Hebrew and Arabic. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Horst-schlaemma: You might be able to recruit volunteers from Wikipedia:Translation or from the Wikipedias written in the languages you mention. (I expect most of the editors reading here only speak English.) Though in general there are millions of articles that could use translation into other languages; it just takes someone with the skills willing to put in the time. -- Beland (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Page needs a basic criterion for inclusion

An emerging technology could be separable from a hypothetical invention on the early side of its development. Likewise, a technology could still be regarded as emerging when products exist, but are not yet widely taken up. This page lacks a clear standpoint of its scope. As a result it contains some ludicrous hypothetical inventions (which properly belong in Science Fiction plot devices) as well as some quite mature technologies.

I would personally suggest that it should be confined to TRL levels 2 through 6 for components and subsystems, or, for products at a higher level of integration, to those which can be placed in the first peak of the Gartner hype cycle.

--Matt Whyndham (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Matt Whyndham: I checked out technology readiness level, if that's what you're referring to. That appears to be a scale for aeronautic technology but not for technology in general. If you still see anything that belongs on List of hypothetical technologies, feel free to move stuff there, and drop items that are already mainstream. Both of those are listed in the intro of the article as excluded. -- Beland (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

There are lot of crappy links in this article. Without a criterion it is hard to remove. I reviewed Electrothermal-chemical technology and from the intro nothing since 1993. If it was just me, I'd say remove everything that hasn't had an update in 5-10 years. Or create a new article: really emerging tech. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy is Disputed

Several issues.

1. Status. There are a hodgepodge of assessments lacking consistency. A Technology readiness level should chosen and used throughout.

2. Field. The technology should be related to a field by a reference. Example: Claytronics is listed under Construction however the only reference is within Wikipedia and does not mention construction or indicate any relationship.

3. Categories. Depending on the field the categories can vary wildly while others reflect opinion of the wiki editor rather that some industry assessment. The following categories should be reviewed and a template should be considered: Potentially marginalized technologies, Replacing, Aim.

4. Definition of "Emerging Technology" should be stated and examples of what would qualify and what would not. For example: there is an entry for "Magnetic levitation" and "Maglev train, Vactrain." Maglev trains have been around for 30 years and the "Levicar" mentioned "was a concept car Ford displayed in 1959." There might be an article here for technologies that showed promise but failed to take off.

Jleipold (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jleipold: The current intro gives a reasonable definition - not hypothetical, not mainstream. I infer from that anything people are still working on deploying more widely (including maglev and vactrains - think Hyperloop) are emerging. Anything that turned out to be a fad that has passed (I'm thinking Segway) or which turned out not to be practical is no longer emerging. The article technology readiness level explains that is defined for aerospace technology, but not for technology in general. I moved claytronics to list of hypothetical technologies. For most emerging technologies, it's not clear that they would be directly replacing anything, and that's probably easier to know after they are mainstream. If there are any other specific examples that are concerning, feel free to bring them up here.

I added List of failed technologies to WP:RA because I would also find that interesting and it would be educational for future tinkerers. In the meantime, please enjoy List of obsolete technology and List of inventors killed by their own invention. -- Beland (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Recommender system

What do you think about added Reccomender system? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: These seem to be widely deployed rather than emerging? -- Beland (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Music software

Added music software? Dawid2009 (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: That's rather vague, but synthesis and composition software seems to be pretty mainstream among musicians and composers. Maybe something to add to History of music or History of technology. -- Beland (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Programmable Tooling

Not sure where this would go, but there is a new process called "programmable tooling" that has emerged in recent years. I did not see it in the article and believe it would benefit it to have it included.

"Programmable Tooling, as demonstrated on Collider’s proprietary Orchid machine, is a hybrid technology that brings together the benefits of continuous DLP technology and traditional plastic casting." - From this article

Please see this article from engineering.com as well.

This is my first time contributing to Wikipedia. Beehoyle (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Beehoyle: Fascinating find! Given this is a sort of application for 3D printing and doesn't seem big enough to merit its own article yet, I've added mention of it to 3D printing. I would sort of expect that to be listed here, but maybe that's too mainstream already? -- Beland (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for budging in, but...

Is there an expanded version of page history where one could find previously existing entries?

And does anybody know what happened to russian version over a year ago? Why was it completly removed? 93.84.30.67 (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@93.84.30.67: You'd have to ask somewhere on https://ru.wikipedia.org -- Beland (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

can we add a "projects" column to this?

it'd be cool to be able to show a list of open source projects and attempts being made by different groups around the world in each of these fields of emerging technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E24C:A700:C1A0:FBFD:BB7C:2A77 (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

If the projects have a Wikipedia article, they can certainly be listed; this is already happening in the "Related articles" column. -- Beland (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Entry Criterion

The list should be limited to specific technologies that can be named without resorting to brands or trademarks. As it is, it's too generic. An entry like "biometrics" isn't an emerging technology at all. It's an established technology. But if a company is developing a biometric sensor that can use someone's breath as an ID metric (this is just for example), this should be entered separately under a technical description (something like "pulmonary biometric sensor"), but not under its trademark name (ex: "RespiScan"). So for instance, Intel's drive acceleration SSD is called "Optane"; but it should be listed as something like "bulk variable resistance non-volatile memory." The description should explain it is for accelerating access to bulk storage volumes and give "Optane" as an example, even though it is the only existing example. This way, we have a list of technologies and not a list of fields of study or of products.

I would also limit the list to technologies that are or were being actively pursued by companies that are either listed in a major stock exchange or which are backed by a venture capital firm. This way, we can avoid fly-by-night groups that exist only on paper and claim extraordinary products that can't exist. This would also exclude GoFundMe projects like the infamous Aero Fontus water bottle since no serious VC would ever back a project like that.

I am going to insert a few of these technologies under "IT and communications." Anyone who wants to help, please contribute one or more entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouBloodyMook (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I propose a scheduled cleanup of page

As many of these technologies are theoretical, fictional, possible in wide-scale commercial usage no longer relating to Emerging technology field, we need to go through the page and remove or modify technologies that are no longer relevant. If someone want's to arrange a cleanup with myself, please notify me on my talk page please. SumeetJi (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@SumeetJi: Feel free to be bold and start cleaning up, or ask about specific technologies here without waiting for permission. -- Beland (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

green hydrogen

Can someone add green hydrogen to the Energy table? Thanks! :) --Eatthecrow (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Eatthecrow: Done; thanks for the suggestion! -- Beland (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"Emerging" criteria is vague and unprovable

The third criteria is "Not be widely used yet. Mainstream technologies cannot be considered emerging."

This is impossible to prove and makes this article nothing more than "technologies that Wikipedia editors think are cool". For instance, I would argue cryptocurrencies are "mainstream"--they've existed commercially for 10 years, I could buy one from my phone in minutes, and most people are likely aware of them. Multiple publicly traded companies are based on the technology. The same could be said for many things; virtual reality and augmented reality exist and are commercialized, speech recognition is on every phone, and Gyrobuses used flywheels for energy storage in the 1950s.

The counterargument to this is that in the future, perhaps these technologies will become even more mainstream. It's certainly possible, I can't rule it out for any of the above technologies. But this could be said for anything--if I'm a big believer in blimps, I might be justified in adding "airships" to this page, because I think that in 2050 they're going to have a huge resurgence. Because of that, I believe the decision whether to include something or not constitutes WP:NOR.

There are a few options:

1. This definition should be redone to something concrete and verifiable, like "Never in commercial use" (I'm sure there's better wording, this would have to be adapted for non-commercial technologies like the military and space categories. But the key being like, "prototypes can exist, but not something that's being depended on in the field".)
2. This definition should be tied to one or more external groups, and their subjective assessment of technologies, like NASA's technology readiness level. I'm not aware of any that would rank every item currently on this list, but if anybody is aware of one that might be the best solution.
3. Some other citable measure of the emerging-ness of the technology?

KenyonP (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed some of the elements I felt were most egregious. If somebody feels I removed one or more unjustly and wants to re-add them, feel free, but I'd ask you be specific about the *specific* technologies you feel are emerging--"what within VR is an emerging technology" versus "virtual reality as an industry is emerging". KenyonP (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Add description column?

How is going to know what li-fi is? Perhaps change the potential application column to description/applications. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Removed sections with unclear "emerging" status

@Hexatron93: I removed Nano Urea because [4] it seems like it might be pseudoscience, and LCSHR, Regional Rapid Transit System (RRTS) (These both seem like cool train systems, but it's unclear why they'd be considered emerging.) If you feel I made a mistake, feel free to re-add them (preferably with a clear indication of what makes them emerging) KenyonP (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@VeronicaEllinor: I removed Compositionally complex materials because the article doesn't exist and it has no citations. Again, feel free to re-add it (with a clear indication of what it is and citations for why it is considered emerging.)

@0mtwb9gd5wx: I removed Directional freezing because the article seems to mostly be about how to freeze clear ice and not about the applications listed. Again, feel free to re-add it (with a clear indication of what it is, and maybe fix up the article if you do?)

@202.52.150.20: I removed Suspension railway because the article says they've existed since the 1800s. Feel free to re-add it with a clear indication of why it's new and a citation that it's percieved as emerging.

@Xibalba333: Blockchain - I previously removed this (here) for violating criteria 3: "Not be widely used yet. Mainstream or extensively commercialized technologies can no longer be considered emerging." (There are bitcoin ads on the Superbowl.) I'm not deleting it because I think it being re-added means people think it should be here, but I'd prefer specific focus on means of what *specifically* is developing, and citations for that.

Active structure: Removed commercialization: either this is referring to tuned mass dampeners (common since the 1950s) or it needs a citation for what is being commercialized.

All of these are new since I last edited in 2022, and while I've left them for now, they'd be improved with a citation showing that they are perceived as emerging.

• Wetware computer
• Cashierless store
• Edible packaging
• DNA digital data storage
• Memory erasure
• Distributed propulsion
• Lockheed Martin X-59 Quesst
• Hybrid airship

KenyonP (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)