Comments on: Most Exciting Discovery Revealed

By: MobyDikc

MobyDikc — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:34:54 +0000

Ahem… amen…

Just kidding. Because that kindof of “high-five” would be the exact kind of political BS I’m detesting in modern theory.

Though, I would have to think, Planck knows alot more about how knowledge propogates (can anyone here say “memetics”) than any proponet of 20th century physics.

There will be another Bohr/Heisenberg/Einstein/Planck …. but it won’t come from acadamia…. sorry.

By: ahem

ahem — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:36:18 +0000

“A new Scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
Planck

…just helpng out Mobydikc

By: hack

hack — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:24:56 +0000

What a punt.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:12:25 +0000

But isn’t the Randall-Sundrum scenario dual to a theory of technicolor?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:40:52 +0000

You concluded that extra dimensions are the second most likely discovery at the LHC? What was this committee smoking?

I like holography as much as the next guy, but give me a break. Had today’s phenomenology community been around back when the rho meson was discovered, would it have been dubbed a KK photon?

It’s just absurdly implausible that extra dimensions will be discovered at the LHC. It might be nice, but it’s not the second most likely scenario. Far more likely is that technicolor will be found and incorrectly judged extra dimensions.

By: Ben L

Ben L — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:25:40 +0000

Sure, take the easy answer.

Actually, I really like this. Having read a lot recently about the intelligent design debate, I think it’s worth repeating many times that the most exciting scientific result is *always* the one that is completely unexpected and counter to our previous experience.

By: Plato

Plato — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:17:16 +0000

First that would indicate anomalistic indications( and these would be paradigmic breaking revolutions ), not just in physics. But in that philsophy as well. If we had wanted to phrase Skakespeare properly, it should have to been, To E+ or not to E-, that is the question, and the basis, of what nature has to impart? Non? By calormetric design, we are looking for that beginning and philosophically the idea of a trigger, had to encourage such a philsphical statement that I would substitute instead of the the one the panel used. It is better then simply saying, "we do not know":)? Smolin would have to agree, and all so those working on the S matrix?

By: MobyDikc

MobyDikc — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:11:11 +0000

Planck said that revolutionary ideas in science don’t show up by winning over converts one by one based on scientific merits; instead its more political, and proponents of old ideas eventually die out.

The discoveries have most likely been made, and the answers are out there.

They’ve happend in our lifetime.

They just won’t catch on until all the old thinkers die out.

By: JoAnne

JoAnne — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 06:56:01 +0000

Aaron, we already covered the stuff that we expect to discover in the answers to the other 14 questions…(not to mention the 45 page document we wrote for them on the physics of the International Linear Collider). The real point is that what we presently consider to be completely absurd would be the most exciting! And, totally absurb things have been discovered in the past. We should be so lucky for it to happen to us during our lifetime.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 06:40:26 +0000

Well, sure, but would’t it have been more useful to infer that they meant the answer to be something that had been considered and wasn’t completely absurd?