"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48dd7242$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> >>> 1) Radioactivity was not called "high energy physics" back then, nor
is
> > it
> >>> called that now.

> >> You're missing the point. (As you seem to have been for much of the
> >> discussion.)  It wasn't called that, but that's what it was,

> > No, it wasn't.

> Yes, it was. We can do this all day.

Is that a challenge? Then, no, it wasn't!

> > Moreover, radioactivity obviously *did* have an effect on everyday life.
> > That was how it was discovered (much like how magnetism or electricity
was
> > discovered in ancient times).

> That was not *how* it was discovered. Roentgen was not at all expecting
> to see anything like it. He was not looking for a new type of radiation.
> He was just doing something else and was, unknowingly, creating x-rays.
> He also just happened to have something in his setup that responded to
> x-rays. Total luck.

Actually I was thinking of Becquerel, who is the discoverer of
_radioactivity_ since that's what previous poster mentioned. Roentgen, as
you indicate, is the discoverer of x-rays.

Anyway, maybe calling uranium part of everyday life is a stretch, but my
point is, uranium had an observable effect when brough near a photographic
plate. Much the same as magnets have an observable effect when brought near
each other or ferrous material. When you observe a natural occurance like
that, you can bet there will be practical uses one way or another (if
nothing, you immediately have at your possession a detector of uranium
salts). Uranium is readily (relatively anyway) available, so are
photographic plates. So even though the mechanism is not understood, there's
an obvious effect that applies to "everyday" life.

Contrast this to, say, with the discovery of the top quark. With a mass ~180
times the proton, lifetime of ~1E-25 seconds, only produced by the handful
in most energetic collisions we could muster (that will change a little with
LHC), it's not going to have a use in practice in the foreseeable future.
One needs only undergraduate level physics to come to this conclusion.

Discovery of top quark was an intellectually interesting, but ultimately
useless feat. LHC will make  even more interesting, but at the same time,
even more useless discoveries.

> Specifically, he was *not* trying to investigate any effect specific to
> x-rays. He was investigating cathode rays.

That's not my point.

> > Unfortunately, not all discoveries will bear fruit in a lifetime or
twenty.
> > There's no such physical law. Some discoveries will remain academic for
a
> > long, long time.

> Yes, but you seem to have a notion that you know which will and which
> won't.

Physicists have a general but pretty good idea.

Post a reply to this message