Chemist Once Accused of 'Quasi-Science' Wins Nobel For Quasicrystal Discovery

This is what makes true winners. Willing to break away from sheeplike thinking. Its not cause Einstein said so that it IS so.

Always question, doubt, investigate

Maybe the next time someone has an idea that seems "out of the norm" from what they were taught, they might just take a moment or 2 to actually look at the product rather than write it off instantly. Ignorate pricks. I'm glad this man stuck to his guns and is now laughing at everyone that thumbed his idea.

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

It’s funny because quasi-crystals have been spoken about and studied in the “alternative” community for years. Since the 90’s. And only just now it is becoming main stream. Probably because some new technology is about to be declassified. As usual we are ahead of the curve.

In your face Pauling!

Why is the scientific community still ousting it's peers for thinking outside the box in this day and age? It's sad that this discovery cost the man his job, and respect among his peers. You hear about this type of thing happening all the time. Your a crackpot scientist if you don't follow the heard. I'm glad he was finally acknowledged and awarded among his peers for his discovery. However it makes me wonder though how many great new discoveries are kept quite for fear of the backlash that comes from going against the grain and upsetting their peers!

MrGameTheory,
Sir, please expand upon what you are saying. I feel it is to brief and you must be much more verbose, thank you.

MrGameTheory,

Why plagiarize when google is so easy to use.

The comment comes for Of Grandeur by Stephen Takowsky. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35897672/Of-Grandeur

MrGame Theory,

You have no understanding of cellular biology with your references to the significance of DNA, genes and individual cells, or the proposed mechanisms of interaction. Your post is a verbose stream of nonsense.

Just because you have a metaphor for something doesn't make it true. No matter how beautiful and clear and obvious your conclusions must seem running through your mind, it has no correlation with reality (Though we'll give you a call when Voyager comes back).

If your "theoretical evidence" comes from similes based on similes, then it doesn't exist. I assume you posted this drivel here because of the feelings of acceptance in the comments about 'strange' ideas. I find it only apropos that you post here, because by all definitions, you are a quasi-scientist.

mrgametheory what did that post have to do with this page?

Gosh! Copy and past, I need to try that.
Just kidding, lol. ;)

The story of this guy just remember me of the story of

Felisa Wolfe-Simon presented on this site a few days ago.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/scientist-strange-land

There to much dogmatism is science.

People of science were once persecuted, even put to death for expressing an opposing view. You'd think they would be supportive of one another and at least tolerate opposing theories. Sadly, the research community is full of sociopaths ready to pounce on anyone who threatens their point of view. Science is not about obsessively pursuing a single course of reasoning against which deviating ideas are considered blasphemy. That is the platform of those who crucified the thinkers of antiquity. The community must speak up in defense of their colleagues when they're faced with this treatment, or we're no different than the crowd of bystanders who do nothing as an innocent person gets beaten to death.

Yep, Science is Settled. 'til it ain't.

Something has been missed here which is common in almost all walks of life. There is usually an accepted way of understanding or doing something ... and then a whole slew of crap from others that just want to present an opposing view or perhaps somehow feel they know better based on faulty thinking.

The folks that are in authority would be horribly wasted disproving all those 'alternatives' and would have no time to make progress in their chosen disciplines. Unfortunately this means that some ideas that truly are better are drowned out by all the bad ones. If there could be extensive teams assigned just for finding those correct new ideas, it would be liking looking for a needle in a haystack.

That is the world in which we live. There is an extreme pressure on the fellow with the new idea to show it somehow, clearing nearly impossible hurdles, because that is the only method that works. That person must bend over backwards to provide convincing proof!

The alternative, where anyone can formulate an idea (see above wordy comment) and everyone else has to expend enormous amounts of time, energy and money to disprove it, is not practical. The only system that works is the one that we all use even though it looks horrible when a great but ignored idea is 're-discovered'.

The simple fact is that the only reason a scientist is so heaviely rejected is for the simple fact that the science community is full of nerds. What do nerds do when they are challanged and backed into corners? The lash out its called nerd rage this is what happens day in and day out. Its pathetic. These are supposed to be the brightest and smartest people on the planet yet they act like a bunch of 12 year olds. Someone has a new idea and they scream farse without having any actual backing of it being a farse. PROVE IT is a farse before you call it a farse. Take the exact experiment the guy did and repeat it if you get the same result not a farse if you don't possibly. Its called being a SCIENTIST you know THE THING YOU CLAIM YOU ARE!! Pathetic man bunch of nerd raging 12 year olds. I get enough of this playing HALO on xbox getting tired of reading about it when I want to learn about new findings and new science.

(and yes I know i did not have perfect grammar or spelling don't QQ to me about it I don't really care.)

the term is zeitgeist its hard to break. Although i wish it was not. it is curious to think about all of the possible amazing discoveries that might have been off handely rejecting these discoveries

This article reminds me of what is currently going on with Andrea Rossi, the "cold fusion" scientist.

I only hope we have learned with out mistakes... Science is only right until someone proves it wrong.

"On October 6th of 2011, a very important test of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) will take place in the city of Bologna, Italy. Attending the test will be invited scientists from around the world, including staff from the University of Bologna.

This test may be the most important so far, due to the fact many of the issues that remain unresolved in previous tests, will potentially be resolved. For example, one issue that remained unresolved in tests earlier this year was the issue of steam quality. In this test, the quality of steam will not be an issue. This is because the output of the E-Cat will be a closed circuit, in that the water will be turned into steam, allowed to heat a second flow of water through a heat exchanger, be recycled, and then used again. By removing this issue, the most controversial subject of debate will be eliminated.

Additional issues are also expected to be resolved by this test.

- The E-Cat module will be taken apart (except for the reactor core) so the components can be measured and weighed.

- The test will last for 12 hours or longer.

- The E-Cat module will be allowed to operate in self sustain mode -- with no input power -- for an extended period of time.

- Better measurement and data acquisition techniques will be utilized."

@far out man,
This chemist was not a lunatic, he was a serious scientist and he add microsopy photographs to show. At worst the establishment could have said: "it's probably an artefact". Not so he was bashed and loosed he's job. Same thing about Felisa Wolfe-Simon. Science establishement is full of bigots.

Like I said scientific community is full of children. All it is...is a bunch of nerds that got picked on in school and now they get the change to be the bullies so they take that chance whenever they can its flipping pathetic.

Many of the comments expressed have validity but they still avoid the reality. I was not even talking about science because the general case is equally true. It is the only way the whole world can do work.

@Delkmotic
You seem to have some issue with scientists (and perhaps 'nerds' more generally). Is this 'nerd rage' an accepted psychological theory? ... or just another crap idea someone spewed out that must now be tested with all resources possible to determine it's validity. Assuming it is correct, perhaps you should marshal your efforts towards finding the cause and eliminating that. Problem solved!

@MrGameTheory
There is no way to argue against you because at this moment you are emotionally right. Every time we see the horror of the current system, it is easy for someone to step forward and say 'it shouldn't be this way'. You care not in the slightest whether there is a competing workable model. Come up with the new model first and then show that it works better ... and then stand up and proclaim the foolishness of the current one! Oh, sorry, perhaps that is too much work. This is not a black and white issue. There is plenty of effort made to peer review new ideas. There is a balance and the person developing a new idea must do a lot to help the reviewers out. As for conventional thinking, it is never accepted without question but remains strongly entrenched and even protected ... if it works!

@lanredneck
Good term ... but you make it sound like it's a bad thing. Chaos is a bad thing. At least as far as humans are concerned.

@atomicant
This is a good point, however I don't think we may realize (I certainly don't) how many hundreds of thousands of scientists there are out there (millions?). Additionally there have been some very well respected scientists that go over the deep end. This is probably quite common with intense pressures to produce and very focused 'special' minds. The fellow that claims that DNA can teleport itself comes to mind (yes MrGameTheory, I did not try to disprove it ... you are right again)!

@MrGameTheory
Attacks are unnecessary and pointless so I won't take part. Perhaps you took offense to my minor comments about your long post(s).

Regarding the 'emotionally right' statement, consider the analogy of an innocent person that is found guilty of a crime. Upon finding the truth, people are indignant and want changes made. At that moment, they don't want to consider that the current system works well (certainly not perfectly).

My immediate response while reading the article was perhaps similar to that of most readers. However, on reading the comments against the scientific community, I choose to balance the discussion.

Perhaps a reset is in order. Can you re-state your thoughts on the article in a few short sentences?

I will translate for MrGameTheory: "No, I can not!" (regarding a few short sentences about the article)

MrGameTheory already admitted to posting his verbose theories to incite a reactionary response (which he got)! He somehow felt it was appropriate to do so in this forum. Such is the nature of the world we live in. There are those that will try to drown out opinion with endless and meaningless banter. Unfortunately this is what scientists have to deal with also. They have to manage difficult personalities and less than ideal communications that drown out productive conversation.

@MrGameTheory
Am I too understand then that you know that Shechtman's discovery was rejected by a few bad apples ... or are your comments just not related to this article?

Far Out Man & MrGame

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics... Even if you win, you're still retarded.

Thank you copy/paste.

Oddly enough, as I was scrolling to get to the bottom of this article a little voice kept repeating in my head.

Are we there yet?

Are we there yet?

;)

@MrGameTheory
Conversation? No one seems to be interested in what you call conversation. You're comments killed this topic and apparently you don't understand this. To suggest that I consider myself an authority is foolishness. Please indicate where I say anything to that effect. You keep implying that I read your 'theories' when I did not, never claimed to and never will. To dump your writing here is proof enough for me that it is garbage. I really don't care what you think about my comment about your theories. If it had any value, you would go to an appropriate forum to introduce your ideas and have those ideas properly critiqued. By dumping them here and destroying the discussion about this article, you show yourself to be arrogant and antisocial. Why don't you stop blathering and say what you think in a concise way? If I'm wrong about you, you will manage.

If you read one of the linked articles, you will see that it generally agrees with my comments. For example:

"Shechtman is not prone to revolutionary fervor. He prefers to view his exploits through a prism of pure professionalism, as one who simultaneously exposed the weakness of science but also its strength. For decades, crystallography clung to a mistaken description of the physical world, which was presented as a solid, total truth. On the other hand, that same science was able to acknowledge its mistake and refute long-held basic assumptions within a relatively short time, once the theory was shown to be inconsistent with reality. Still, it was necessary to have someone who is capable of shouldering the revolution."