I happened to see this comment of Kea's on a blog and thought it made good sense. Gil It is not at all reasonable to wait and see what happens at the LHC. Any responsible tax funded theoretician should be working their ass off to come up with quantitative predictions before 2009. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/...mbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=684#comment-38202 The strongest kind of scientific evidence is predicting an observation BEFORE the fact. "post-dicting" or "retro-dicting" doesn't count for much by comparison. Like when the Microwave Background was predicted in 1948 almost 20 years before it was first observed, and they (Alpher and Gamow) even got the temperature approximately right. That strongly validated the cosmology model from which the prediction was derived. In effect a theory bets its life on its prediction of a new phenomenon, which prior established theory doesn't predict. If that then shows up it is a big deal. And if not, the theory is discredited. there's risk. It's an important point and it gets overlooked. This is just to check if others are on board with this idea. NOW is the time for particle theorists to be publishing predictions of new phenomena not already expected from prior theory. The opening of the LHC is an expensive event of a sort that does not repeat. To really get your money's worth you need theorists to construct theories which make specific predictions of new stuff which LHC can see whether or not it happens. Theories which will be confirmed if it is seen and denied if it is not seen to happen. In other words theories which live or die based on LHC results. That's how it's been in the past with other experiments. Kea put the essential message concisely.