What do you think of the credibility of the Pauli effect?

(not the Pauli exclusion principle)





What do you know about it and would it make a good research topic for a paper of about 4000 words?|||I had to look it up in wikipedia - interesting theory, and I am not unfamiliar with the concept. However, for me, it usually works in reverse, as amoung my jobs, I have to fix things or make them work. Being exceptional at this sort of thing, machines tend to malfunction when I'm not around, yet work properly once l show up =8^)





But as the topic of a research paper? I'd say exactly on par with a research paper that investigates The Pharoh's Curse, for example. Interesting more academically than scientifically. But it's up to you....





Best Wishes,


Gary|||The "Pauli effect" was originally a humorous, tongue-in-cheek claim that whenever the wunderkind physics theorist Wolfgang Pauli walked into, or even went nearby a laboratory, some breakage or much worse disaster occurred. It effectively became one of those urban legends propagated around the world of physicists.





It's used nowadays as part of the banter that continually goes on between theorists and experimenters.





Like almost anything these days, you can look it up on Wikipedia, but I doubt that you could spin it out into a 4,000 word essay. Put if you perhaps used it to illustrate the tension that sometimes exists between the worlds of the theorist and the experimenter, you might be able to use it.





Another example of that tension was a statement made by the astrophysicist, cosmologist and general relativist Hermann Bondi, in the 1950s at a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society : "Fifty per cent of 'OBSERVATIONS' are INCORRECT!" Earlier, Sir Arthur Eddington proclaimed "No observation should be believed until it has been CONFIRMED by theory."





Live long and prosper.