Yes, I hope that too. To think "again" will be always the right attitude. There is hope in it.
Also, I liked the bet. $100 against the billions. weniger ist mehr On Sep 10, 5:14 am, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hawking: > > "The LHC will increase the energy at which we can study particle > interactions by a factor of four. According to present thinking, this should > be enough to discover the Higgs particle,". > > "I think it will be much more exciting if we don't find the Higgs. That will > show something is wrong, and we need to think again. I have a bet of 100 > dollars that we won't find the Higgs," > > . That "something is wrong, and we need to think > again" we know since the birth of the rationality. Any > scientific model gets obsolete at the moment of its > formulation - a challenge for its successor. > > That in general. In particular we know that there is > something wrong in particle physics since Dirac said: > > "When you get a number turning out to be infinite which > ought to be finite, you should admit that there is > something wrong with your equations, and not hope that > you can get a good theory just by doctoring up that > number." > (We need) "some fundamental change in our ideas, > probably a change just as fundamental as the passage > from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics." > > Higgs' "God's Particle" omnipresent but never observed > recalls the billiard balls of Aether and I join my hope > with that of Hawking that it will go down the same drain. > > Georges. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
