A few years ago, I went to a public interview/chat with Rainer Weiss in NYC. He described years of work in which the LIGO team found inventive ways to make their systems more precise. They just kept knocking down orders-of-magnitude. Still, after taking new measurements, they found nothing. No gravitational waves. Then the interviewer asked him if he was discouraged at this point in his career. I loved his response. He said, "No, it was a more meaningful zero."
It is interesting that you bring up LIGO. I actually had a formative experience in my career around a decade ago related to this. I worked on the project for a summer. During that period, I realized that the process of discovery in the dark is one where the seekers have no control over the treasures. I decided not to pursue a career in the field. My lotus of control could not handle dedicating my life's work to chance.
Rainer demonstrated a dedication and passion in that interview that not everyone can meet. I learned that I'm more passionate about effective/real world problem solving than I am about physics.
Those who have a true passion for physics have my complete support and admiration. You're doing great - keep at it :)
I know Ray and this is an accurate retelling of this line, but it's comparing apples to oranges in the context of this thread. He knew LIGO was rapidly approaching the necessary sensitivity to make great discoveries -- a threshold. The LHC experiments may already have the sensitivity necessary to make their great discoveries, and may just be chasing diminishing returns at this point. Big difference.
Heh, I think a barely different glyph introduces more ambiguity than it solves. On my screen it’s effectively the same glyph but now with “oh, well it’s actually different.”
I noticed that they are pretty similar in some fonts at small sizes, but in traditional math fonts and handwritten, these operators tend to be very "curly" and easy to distinguish.
