Ten years ago the trilobite molecule came into the Physics media, like Physics News, Physical Review focus etc. It reappeared about a year ago, in fact in Nature. I am planning to demonstrate here that the trilobite molecule is not at all trilobite-like, it is much more pine-cone like.
This is all quite nice story - but what it will be really about? There are many cousins of the trilobite molecule. There are chaperon molecules, and there are much more heavy weight relatives. Like the quantum numbers of the quarks - the color and flavor (or was it candy we talk about?) - or Heisenberg's uncertainty. In short - when is it good in science to use catchy words and when is it in fact rather confusing. Should scientific communication become again a bit more boring but understandable?
I am making this "announcement" for two purposes: first, this will hopefully help to force me to really write this story - and second, some of you can come with good suggestions while I am thinking about it.
I would like to put a picture of the trilobite molecule here, but most of those are copyrighted. But here is a link to the December 2000 Physics News www.aip.org/pnu/2000/split/pnu502-3.htm and the picture itself.
My pictures of the pine cone atomic states and more discussion of this topic will soon appear here - in the edited version.
