Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

DetlefK

(16,670 posts)
9. re
Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:59 AM
Jun 2012

1. I don't think anybody funding scientific projects will have his mind swayed either way by this kind of article. And for the goal to induce some scientific curiosity into the readers and society: Maybe the "it's-new-and-barely-understood"-factor is more important to the author/editor than the physics behind interesting examples which are already understood.
Sounds like sensationalism to me.

2. Science for science's sake? To be honest: That's the domain of mad scientists. (A mathematician working on the same abstract proof or theoreme for years, just because it's there...)
But your point is fair: Maybe the experiment will yield something that could be useful far down the road in a totally different discipline.
(For example: neutronium. It's just a bizzare thought-experiment about particle-physics and thermodynamics, until you take into account that neutron-stars are made of this and suddenly it becomes relevant in astronomy.)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Breakthru in quantum comp...»Reply #9