Sometimes when I talk to experimentalists about their latest results they say something like, "We have this really interesting data. But we can't explain it and so we are not going to publish it until we can explain it." No doubt this is sometimes what referees say.
But, I disagree. The most interesting experimental results have no clear explaination!
Furthermore, many of the "explainations" I read in experimental papers seem to be either naive, wrong, or highly speculative.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A forgotten physicist: Amelia Frank (1906-1937)
In honour of International Women's Day, I bring to your attention a fascinating recent piece in The Conversation , Who was Amelia Frank?...
-
This week Nobel Prizes will be announced. I have not done predictions since 2020 . This is a fun exercise. It is also good to reflect on w... -
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro... -
Nitrogen fluoride (NF) seems like a very simple molecule and you would think it would very well understood, particularly as it is small enou...
Further, and worse, these "explanations" are often then cited as if they are "facts" "proven" by the data!
ReplyDeleteWe theorists do need something to do, after all!
ReplyDelete