Theory Development [Archive]

ZapperZ

Mar31-05, 02:11 PM

ZapperZ
The public have many misconceptions about science, as i am a
member of this group i am one of them,i have read many of the
threads you have contributed to, you come across as a knowledgable
no nonsense type, which i like, but how do you define a crackpot?
some of them are intelligent well read people who just want attention,
some may believe in there theories but can not get them past peer
review, and then there are the religious crackpots who refuse to
listen to logic.
I support getting rid of miss guiding science or just wrong science
but where do you draw the line?

Honestly, unlike some grey area of knowledge, in 95% of the time, such distinction is OBVIOUS, at least to anyone who has had any training in physics. I can spot a quack 10 miles away... at the age of 8!

Here's what you can use as a measuring stick: Check if that person has produced any peer-reviewed paper, especially in the area that he/she is trying to sell. If no, then this person has no business in espousing any personal theory. PERIOD. This is an automatic quackery.

However, if you care to use a more "gentile" scale, then you are welcome to go to either of these two sites:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Have fun!

Zz.

ZapperZ

Mar31-05, 02:14 PM

Zapper's right, TD is a misnomer. We used to call it Theory Development in a sort of tongue-in-cheek, condescendingly-polite way. On the other hand, I don't really want to call it "Crackpot Crap" or similar, because it has been said before that our forum is already rather intimidating to those who are new to science, and I want to avoid furthering that image. We intend to warmly welcome people with all levels of experience, and asking questions, even quite silly ones, is a great way to learn.

- Warren

Then can we at least shove it down the display chain a bit so that it isn't THAT obvious, especially when it is listed above the General Physics section? I think having it listed in the PF lounge is a fair compromise, don't you think?

Zz.

wolram

Mar31-05, 02:46 PM

Chroot, zapper z, i think you are talking along the right lines, please
do away with all the crap that miss guides all the non profesionals,
but please leave the improbale but possible.

Greg Bernhardt

Mar31-05, 04:21 PM

marlon

Mar31-05, 04:30 PM

Chroot has pretty much explained why we have it and how we try to maintain a diplomatic balance with it. For the meantime I did see something we could change to highlight it less, I took down the link on the homepage pointing to it under the sub-forum links for the physics forum.

Indeed, i think we should leave things as they are, since it's just fine like this. Moving TD to the PF-Lounge is a bit useless to me because it won't change nothing about the 'content' and that is the only thing that really 'matters'. Indeed most of the TD-content is just a clear manifestation of lack of physical knowledge but who is gonna care whether subforum it is in, really ??? If you don't like it, then don't visit it...'Point final'

regards
marlon

Gokul43201

Mar31-05, 06:21 PM

Indeed, i think we should leave things as they are, since it's just fine like this. Moving TD to the PF-Lounge is a bit useless to me because it won't change nothing about the 'content' and that is the only thing that really 'matters'. Indeed most of the TD-content is just a clear manifestation of lack of physical knowledge but who is gonna care whether subforum it is in, really ??? If you don't like it, then don't visit it...'Point final'

regards
marlon
There are actually cranks out there that will find it insulting to post what they believe is genuine science in a non-science section of the forum. I wouldn't be surprised to find crackpottery dying some by moving TD to a less "serious" place.

Moonbear

Mar31-05, 11:41 PM

There are actually cranks out there that will find it insulting to post what they believe is genuine science in a non-science section of the forum. I wouldn't be surprised to find crackpottery dying some by moving TD to a less "serious" place.

Of course the feedback forum would then become a very popular place as they all ran over here to complain (or had their complaints in other forums moved here). They get a bit miffed when you pull back the curtain and reveal them for the crackpots they are. :rolleyes:

arildno

Apr1-05, 01:23 AM

PF has, compared to most openly accessible science-interested sites I have seen, just about the lowest activity of pot-cracking.
This is the result of good mentorship at PF.

While TD remains an irritant, I found chroot's post particularly relevant here:
Suppose a young guy comes along who has some questions or ideas about science:
If he sees that unconventional posts are summarily deleted with no one even answering them, would we scare off a person who might be genuinely science interested, but still has not developed sufficient knowledge/understanding to sift the bad from the good?

If, however, TD remains open for view, with mostly closed threads as it is today, that young person has the opportunity to COMPARE the quality of posts in TD with the quality of posts elsewhere on PF.
He may come to understand WHY those threads have been closed.

Chronos

Apr1-05, 01:37 AM

I doubt any mentor would summarily dismiss a genuinely interesting post on regular forums. Besides, some of us enjoy torturing prisoners before executing them.

Reshma

Apr1-05, 04:44 AM

Anyway most members don't have sufficient privileges to post a thread in the 'Theory and Development forum'.

dextercioby

Apr1-05, 05:22 AM

It would be quite interesting (read "abnormal"),if one of the staff members were to open a thread in TD (just because he/she can),wouldn't u say...?

Daniel.

dextercioby

Apr1-05, 05:31 AM

I don't have a clue what you're talking about...Could u provide the mortals with a link to the non peer-reviewed article...?:bugeye:

Daniel.

arildno

Apr1-05, 05:32 AM

I don't have a clue what you're talking about...Could u provide the mortals with a link to the non peer-reviewed article...?:bugeye:

Daniel.
Nope, I don't have that.

dextercioby

Apr1-05, 05:35 AM

Then u diserve at least a warning.:tongue:

Daniel.

EDIT:Lucky i didn't quote you... :tongue2: We'll see... :uhh: :tongue2:

arildno

Apr1-05, 05:39 AM

Then u diserve at least a warning.:tongue:

Daniel.
I have too many, I didn't dare to invoke Integral's wrath on this, so I removed the offending post before he could see it..
(I hope he doesn't have rights to see deleted posts..)

ZapperZ

Apr1-05, 06:57 AM

If he sees that unconventional posts are summarily deleted with no one even answering them, would we scare off a person who might be genuinely science interested, but still has not developed sufficient knowledge/understanding to sift the bad from the good?

There are two distinct issues here:

1. A genuine question is NOT the same as spewing off a theory out of ignorance. Someone coming in here and asking "Look, I think I have this idea of moving faster than c, but can you tell me why this can't work?" is differnt than "I have a unified theory of physics using the same principle as the mechanics of grooming cat hairs". I have seen both types (and I'm guessing you have too), and I believe they have been handled accordingly. I just wish the latter is labelled for what it is into a section that would clearly indicates that it is quackery and not given some esoteric name. New members just don't know that "Theory Development" is our polite term for "losers". (well, wolram DID say that I'm the "no nonsense" type of person) :)

2. How many cases do we have where someone got scared off because such posts were deleted? I have seen similar types of arguments being put forth by the quacks when their posts are deleted. They're claiming that we MIGHT be cutting off something that could be fruitful. When I ask them to show even ONE single instance where something produced entirely outside the realm of peer-reviewed journals within the past 100 years or so that has produced any significant advancement in physics, they balk and suddenly became "deaf, dumb, and blind". We can't speculate ad nauseum of all the possible things that could happen to try to cater to everyone. That is just not possible.

I see PF as an extremely valuable physics resource with a very high signal-to-noise ratio. I'm just offering a simple suggestion in trying to increase this ratio by lowering the noise.

Zz.

cronxeh

Apr1-05, 07:25 AM

hehe.. my first ever theory in HS was..

IF E=m*c^2 and F=m*a, then E=(F*c^2)/a. Obviously my HS teacher was pissed at me for about 5 minutes trying to explain why its incorrect :rofl:

ZapperZ

Apr1-05, 07:30 AM

hehe.. my first ever theory in HS was..

IF E=m*c^2 and F=m*a, then E=(F*c^2)/a. Obviously my HS teacher was pissed at me for about 5 minutes trying to explain why its incorrect :rofl:

I'm surprised that your teacher didn't move you into a "Theory Development" class! :)

Zz.

Gokul43201

Apr1-05, 09:58 AM

I see PF as an extremely valuable physics resource with a very high signal-to-noise ratio.
Beautiful ! Spoken like a true experimentalist ! :approve:

Tom Mattson

Apr2-05, 01:01 AM

I have too many,

What are you talking about? Your warning count is zero.

I didn't dare to invoke Integral's wrath on this, so I removed the offending post before he could see it..
(I hope he doesn't have rights to see deleted posts..)

He does, and so do the rest of us. Muhahahahahaha! :devil:

Davorak

Apr2-05, 03:58 AM

Yeah I remember the first time I saw theory development in General Physics. Now I was in general impressed by the quality of posts and the signal to nose ratio on physicsforums. So when I saw TD I thought to myself how in hell can you have serious theory development on a public online forum.

After glancing at a few threads I thought oh, “theory development.”

If TD was a gathering place for crackpots and other ne’er-do-wells then it would most defiantly need to be removed, but as it is, it is not.

In my mind getting rid of TD and deleting quackeries on site would perhaps attract a more experienced crowd while scaring off some of the inexperienced younger crowd.

From what I have seen I think the current set up strikes a good balance.

I think I understand you sentiment ZapperZ I am sure every one here would agree that it would be horrible for people to come along and connect what is in TD to solid science. The experienced crowd knows what TD is and would never connect what is there to legitimate physics. The inexperienced younger crowd however may not always be able to separate the legitimate physics and the quackeries.

Even though the younger crowd may no always be able to tell the difference, the number of closed threads and the mentors note at the end of each thread will leave the impression that this quackeries are not looked highly upon. This will also nude them gently to a more skeptical view point.

Critical and skeptical thinking is a learned behavior and exposure to quackeries, with the proper environment, fosters a skeptical view point rather then breading more quackeries. The proper environment in this case would be the rest of physics forums full of “knowledgeable no nonsense” types.

That’s my opinion anyway.

arildno

Apr2-05, 05:26 AM

What are you talking about? Your warning count is zero.

Is it?
Am I good boy, then?
Oh dear..

jtbell

Apr2-05, 02:25 PM

I like the idea of renaming Theory Development to more accurately describe its content. But we don't have to call it Crackpot's Corner or something like that. Surely we can come up with a description that's relatively neutral in tone. How about Speculative Ideas?

Uno Lee

Apr2-05, 06:31 PM

ZapperZ

Apr2-05, 07:51 PM

How can we (you) develope new theories without theory development? Sure, you will always get crackpots (like me?) but they may cause you (us) to think latterly.
Who was that crackpot that came up with the theory of the Earth going around the sun? Wasn't he forced to recant his ideas because of attitudes like some of the ones on this thread?

You must obviously be a new member. If you care to do a search in this section of PF, your argument by bringing up Galileo as an example has been done and addressed on here. By equating what and HOW galileo did his work with crackpot, you are insulting him. And by doing this, you are providing a clear example of what I had said earlier, that some people cannot tell the difference between quackery and legitimate work.

Zz.

Uno Lee

Apr2-05, 09:35 PM

ZapperZ

Apr3-05, 10:11 AM

I was thinking, wrongly, of Copernicus and I was not meaning in any way to speak ill of the dead. I think it is difficult for new ideas to surface in a climate of repression. Every idea, right or wrong could lead to another. A couple of years ago, people thought oil and water (on Earth) did not mix, turns out they do, if you de-gas them first. Could this new knowledge be applied to mixing liquid metals? What does immiscible mean any more? I am new here and still learning not learned...yet.

All you need to do is, as I have repeatedly mentioned on here and elsewhere, is to show an example from within the past 100 years, of an idea that never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal that has made a significant advancement in the body of knowledge of physics.

If you can't, then what you just did is making a speculation of what MIGHT happen without any proof that such a thing CAN actually happen. I can take the pieces of a broken vase, and throw it onto the floor. Now there's a very miniscule chance that the vase can spontaneously reassemble itself into its original form. But I can tell you that I am not (and the society isn't) designed to operate around such possibility. What you just did was to speculate a scenario that has NEVER happened.

If someone has a brilliant idea, an open physics forum is NOT the place to do it. Find a knowledgeable person in that subject area, and get his/her review of that idea. Then if it passes that test, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. The fact that there are many different tiers of journals means if something has any smell of validity, it WILL get published somewhere even if it doesn't have the same caliber as Science, Nature, or PRL. If something has cranky as the Podkletnov's antigravity and Fleishman-Pons cold fusion can get published, then there's no excuse.

Zz.

Uno Lee

Apr3-05, 02:57 PM

Thank you for your valuable time and advice.

Andre

Apr3-05, 05:54 PM

ZapperZ

Apr3-05, 06:02 PM

So where does Afred Wegener(plate tectonics) fit in? and Michael Mann?

Wegener formulated the very obvious about the shapes of the continents fitting into each other. I don't recall a peer reviewed publication about that. Nevertheless acceptance of that idea took a few decades even though the hypothesis did not kill any pet idea of any leading "pope"-geologist.

Then we have "pope" Michael Mann, proposing the Hockeystick, disdaining the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Accepted by the IPCC with great joy within seconds, then in 1999. This was ultimately causing the enforcement of the Kyoto treaty and doomed the signees in the process. Mann´s work was highly biased and utterly falsified, however it did not make any difference, because this kind of science is politics and whatever politics require, science will produce.

As much as I wish to take up the whole burden of SCIENCE in general, I will not. I specficially asked for ideas in PHYSICS (in case people read TOO fast and miss that). I will not pretend to espouse any knowledge on how things are done in other fields of science.

I have asked that same question towards the quacks for almost 15 years, ever since the early days of the Usenet, and till now. Not even once has there been any example (not even one) given to contradict that rule.

Zz.

Telos

Apr3-05, 09:54 PM

ZapperZ

Apr4-05, 06:45 AM

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but scientific journals (including physics journals) are published and survive based on economic principles. A journal is more marketable the more it satisfies the consumer's demands.

What are those demands? Do physicists want more articles about string-theory than they do about twistor theory? String theory wasn't very marketable a few decades ago. How much of peer review is governed by "fashion" and ordinary market forces?

Is there "peer pressure" in physics? If so, how much?

What scientific journals did you have in mind? Science, all the Physical Reviews, all the IoP journals, etc. are all published by NON-PROFIT organizations. The Physical Reviews, for example, are published by the American Physical Society, which is the professional society for physicists in the US. They, more than anyone else, want to make sure the journals integrety are preserved.

I am one of the referrees for PRL, PRB, and J. Elect. Spect. I have NEVER seen any so-called "economic pressure" in deciding what paper I should accept or reject, or how I should review certain papers.

But more than anything else, people are forgetting that Nature really do not care about politics. You cannot make something to be valid when it isn't! This isn't some human social theory or ideas in which reproducibility isn't necessary.

Zz.

NoTime

Apr4-05, 07:48 AM

ZapperZ

Apr4-05, 08:59 AM

I'd be interested in some ideas you do consider to be significant advancements in the body of knowledge of physics.

Sure. Here they are:

1. All of Einstein's 1905 papers
2. BCS Theory
3. All of the PRL papers listed in the PRL Top 10 citations (see my Journal entry on all of them)
4. The high-Tc discovery of Bednorz and Muller + the MgB2 discovery by Akimitsu and Co.
5. Fractional quantum hall effect
6. All of the papers listed in http://fangio.magnet.fsu.edu/~vlad/pr100/100yrs/html/chap14_toc.htm
7. etc.

Zz.

Telos

Apr4-05, 12:15 PM

What scientific journals did you have in mind? Science, all the Physical Reviews, all the IoP journals, etc. are all published by NON-PROFIT organizations. The Physical Reviews, for example, are published by the American Physical Society, which is the professional society for physicists in the US. They, more than anyone else, want to make sure the journals integrety are preserved.

I am one of the referrees for PRL, PRB, and J. Elect. Spect. I have NEVER seen any so-called "economic pressure" in deciding what paper I should accept or reject, or how I should review certain papers.

But more than anything else, people are forgetting that Nature really do not care about politics. You cannot make something to be valid when it isn't! This isn't some human social theory or ideas in which reproducibility isn't necessary.

Zz.

Thank you for the reply, and forgive me for not writing my post very clearly. As an Econ student, I forget that others are not automatically familiar with what I mean by "economic principles."

Non-profit organizations are subjected to the same kind of analysis from economists as for-profit organizations. Basically, the principle is "choice due to scarcity." For example, physicists have scarce (read "finite") resources and cannot engage in every theory or proposal that exists in the marketplace of ideas. No matter the motive, ideas will always cost time and money (read "resources"). So decisions must be made on which ideas will be examined.

I am not questioning the "impartiality" of the decision-making process, but the factors that drive it. It does not make much sense to an economist to examine whether or not people are partial or impartial - they will always be partial. There most certainly cannot be impartiality because we must be partial to handful of ideas - because we cannot explore them all at once. Resources are scarce. We cannot have everything all at once. We have to make a decision.

I have problems with this "axiom of scarcity," because it seems to close the door on significant explorations of human behavior and whether or not scarcity really matters. Nonetheless, it is the origin from whence my question comes.

I didn't mean to ask about "economic pressure," (and to be fair I didn't actually say that!) but to ask how close does "peer review" come to "peer pressure?" Of course, the best theories are those that work and can be demonstrably proven, but what guides the process of "work?" People! Since people are the agents who drive theoretical development, they necessarily involve themselves in a social dynamic (one that includes a desire for an objective mathematical description of the universe).

I did not mean to denigrate peer review or the fine people that engage in it. But can we dismiss theories simply because they do not find themselves in peer review journals? Or, in other words, can we dismiss theories simply because other people have dismissed them?

Is the "objectiveness" of a theory intimately entwined with its degree of social acceptability?

Maybe social acceptability determines what we mean by "objectiveness," and not the other way around as we currently assume? I cannot pretend to know the answer.

It is not acceptable to combine "F=ma" and "E=mc^2." The differences in the equations are semiotic. The symbols in one are interpreted differently than in the other, even though they can be calculated using the same mathematical rules. But, then, they both make efficient use of space, and even more efficient use of calculation. Both can be simply applied, without the use of a high amount of resources, which are scarce.
Even though they're incompatible with each other, we choose to keep them both.

What does that say about our approach to theory development and acceptance? Why do we appear to have a tendency to accept theories of big and small that directly oppose one another?

Sorry, I am after all just a frustrated student. o:)

ZapperZ

Apr4-05, 01:29 PM

Telos

Apr4-05, 02:32 PM

Thanks again.

Looks like I'm just going to have to become a physicist.

Moonbear

Apr4-05, 04:06 PM

Non-profit organizations are subjected to the same kind of analysis from economists as for-profit organizations. Basically, the principle is "choice due to scarcity." For example, physicists have scarce (read "finite") resources and cannot engage in every theory or proposal that exists in the marketplace of ideas. No matter the motive, ideas will always cost time and money (read "resources"). So decisions must be made on which ideas will be examined.

This is more a factor when it comes to obtaining funding for research, not an issue when it comes time for publication. Some high impact journals (Science, for example) will be selective about what manuscripts get sent out for full review, but most journals send every manuscript out to reviewers. The reviewers do not need to decide anything about whether the journal has room for all the articles, what other articles will be published in the same issue, or anything else that may be economically driven. They simply evaluate the merit of the work in terms of the quality of science and appropriateness of methods, novelty (a really novel idea that is addressed well actually has a better chance of getting published in a high impact journal than something that just puts a new twist on an old idea, or that only adds a small amount of information), and how thoroughly existing literature has been accounted for in the discussion.

There most certainly cannot be impartiality because we must be partial to handful of ideas - because we cannot explore them all at once. Resources are scarce. We cannot have everything all at once. We have to make a decision.

The decision stage is in whether to do the research or not. If the research is done and the paper is written, and if it is written well (see my above comments), there will be a journal somewhere for it. You'd be amazed at the variety of journals available for publication. There are journals that are very specialized and only accept papers that fit within a very small niche area of research, and others that are very general, some that a huge volume of submissions and become very selective that only the most novel, highest impact work gets accepted, while others will take almost anything as long as it doesn't have any methodological flaws.

I didn't mean to ask about "economic pressure," (and to be fair I didn't actually say that!) but to ask how close does "peer review" come to "peer pressure?"
This is the reason peer review is done anonymously. The authors are never informed who their reviewers are. This gives the reviewer the leeway to be completely candid in their review without fear of repercussions from the author. Manuscripts are also not reviewed by just a single person, but by two or three reviewers. Editors also can request more reviewers at their discretion if there is a large discrepancy among the opinions of the initial reviewers.

I did not mean to denigrate peer review or the fine people that engage in it. But can we dismiss theories simply because they do not find themselves in peer review journals? Or, in other words, can we dismiss theories simply because other people have dismissed them?

Yes and no. One can even dismiss a theory that has been peer reviewed. Afterall, you publish taking into account all of the information that is available to you at the time you write and submit your publication and provide your best interpretation at that time. It is possible that after publication, new information becomes available that disproves your theory, rendering even a peer-reviewed publication wrong. If something does not get accepted for publication in any peer-reviewed journal, it typically means there is a major flaw that the reviewers have identified. Even in the true sense of theory development (not the PF definition), a theory that is unpublished is still a work in progress. It may still be untrue, and it would still lack sufficient evidence to be publishable. Once sufficient evidence is obtained to support it, it can be published. No person in their right mind would discuss such a theory on an open forum such as this lest someone in a bigger and better funded lab scoop the project and beat you to the publication. Scientists do share these ideas with each other at this early stage, but it is done in scientific meetings accompanied by published abstracts that offer some protection that the original idea is yours.

What does that say about our approach to theory development and acceptance? Why do we appear to have a tendency to accept theories of big and small that directly oppose one another?

I don't understand what you're asking here. Do you really mean acceptance or proposal of theories? When there are gaps in our knowledge of something, until those gaps are filled, sometimes seemingly opposing theories can both explain the data currently available. It doesn't mean either theory is accepted, but that controversy is present about which theory is correct. Scientists love controversy, it spices up life and gives us something to argue about, and arguing is what we do best. :smile: The challenge then becomes testing both theories and pitting them against one another to find out which one is correct and which gets tossed out, or perhaps both get tossed out. Acknowledging the limitations of a theory is quite different from hatching up an entirely unfounded theory because it sounds good to the untrained.

Now, if you come up with a new theory that really challenges a currently accepted theory, you may need to jump through a number of extra hoops to gain acceptance, but if it is sound and holds up to critique, eventually it will get published and gain acceptance. The type of posts we have in theory development on PF are not those types of theories. They have glaring omissions, are unsubstantiated by experimental evidence, and often use little more than textbook physics or math as background (you're not going to develop the TOE based on nothing more than introductory textbook physics; a single 1000 page text is not a substitute for a library full of published works).

Integral

Apr4-05, 04:26 PM

If you want to read a well written description of the trials and tribulations of the development of a non standard theory take a look at Faster then the Speed of Light by Joao Magueijo

NoTime

Apr5-05, 11:26 PM

Sure. Here they are:

1. All of Einstein's 1905 papers
2. BCS Theory
3. All of the PRL papers listed in the PRL Top 10 citations (see my Journal entry on all of them)
4. The high-Tc discovery of Bednorz and Muller + the MgB2 discovery by Akimitsu and Co.
5. Fractional quantum hall effect
6. All of the papers listed in http://fangio.magnet.fsu.edu/~vlad/pr100/100yrs/html/chap14_toc.htm
7. etc.

Zz.
Interesting, nice list. Don't think 1905 is within 100 years though :rofl:

All in all, I think this site is nicely managed.
Most reasonable questions and discussions stay in the main lines until hopelesly lost.

However, my biggest gripe about science is that it is very difficult (or impossible) to find information on ideas that didn't quite work out. Or how they fail.
I think the TD forum can fill a void in this regard.

So, my personal opinion.
The TD forum can be useful learning tool, if properly managed.
Particularly if the flames are kept to a minimum. :smile:

All you need to do is, as I have repeatedly mentioned on here and elsewhere, is to show an example from within the past 100 years, of an idea that never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal that has made a significant advancement in the body of knowledge of physics.
Ok, I'm no science history buff, but...

How about all the cranks who built their own transistors prior to 1948.

Also Chester Carlson probably deserves mention for his photoelectric work.
He couldn't sell his crank idea until he made a working model in his basement.

ZapperZ

Apr6-05, 06:48 AM

Interesting, nice list. Don't think 1905 is within 100 years though :rofl:

All in all, I think this site is nicely managed.
Most reasonable questions and discussions stay in the main lines until hopelesly lost.

However, my biggest gripe about science is that it is very difficult (or impossible) to find information on ideas that didn't quite work out. Or how they fail.
I think the TD forum can fill a void in this regard.

Er... if you want science ideas that failed, look in any physics journal! Or may I recommend you read Bob Park's book "Voodoo Science". He explored several physics ideas that didn't make it. I wouldn't call the garbage you get in TD as "science".

Ok, I'm no science history buff, but...

How about all the cranks who built their own transistors prior to 1948.

Whoa! You mean people were already making transistors before Bardeen, Brittain, and Shockley invented it? What a travesty! You need to report this to the Nobel prize committee immediately so that we can yank away the imposters' Nobel prizes!

Also Chester Carlson probably deserves mention for his photoelectric work.
He couldn't sell his crank idea until he made a working model in his basement.

Er... who? What kind of "photelectric work" did he exactly do? The photoelectric effect was well-known well before the 1900's and became a thorn in the side of classical physics. So if you're claiming that 1905 is way outside my 100 year span.....

Zz.

jtbell

Apr6-05, 08:34 AM

Also Chester Carlson probably deserves mention for his photoelectric work.
He couldn't sell his crank idea until he made a working model in his basement.
Er... who? What kind of "photelectric work" did he exactly do?

Carlson invented the photocopier, which of course finally ended up at Xerox. An important invention, to be sure, but not fundamental science like we're discussing here. I don't think any new physical principles were involved.

I remember his name mainly because I'm a stamp collector, and the U.S. issued a postage stamp honoring Carlson some years ago. When the stamp was announced, there was quite a bit of head-scratching. "Chester who?" :bugeye:

Remember Rutherford's remark about physics? Something like "All science is really physics; the rest is just stamp collecting." I belong to both APS's (American Physical Society and American Philatelic Society) so I guess I can claim to know everything! :rofl:

ZapperZ

Apr6-05, 09:04 AM

Carlson invented the photocopier, which of course finally ended up at Xerox. An important invention, to be sure, but not fundamental science like we're discussing here. I don't think any new physical principles were involved.

I remember his name mainly because I'm a stamp collector, and the U.S. issued a postage stamp honoring Carlson some years ago. When the stamp was announced, there was quite a bit of head-scratching. "Chester who?" :bugeye:

Remember Rutherford's remark about physics? Something like "All science is really physics; the rest is just stamp collecting." I belong to both APS's (American Physical Society and American Philatelic Society) so I guess I can claim to know everything! :rofl:

That would explain why the name isn't familiar to me. :)

I wish people would restrict themselves to the confines of my challenge. Last time I posed that elsewhere, I get examples from biology and medicine, etc.

BTW, I think Rutherfords quote goes more along the lines of "All science is either physics or stamp-collecting". But don't quote me on that! :)

Zz.

dextercioby

Apr6-05, 09:19 AM

No offense,but it would be nice,if people were to remember quotes in their original form.

<<All science is either physics or stamp collecting>>
Ernest Rutherford, in J. B. Birks "Rutherford at Manchester" (1962)
British chemist & physicist (1871 - 1937)

Daniel.

jtbell

Apr6-05, 10:54 AM

<<All science is either physics or stamp collecting>>
Ernest Rutherford, in J. B. Birks "Rutherford at Manchester" (1962)
British chemist & physicist (1871 - 1937)

Thanks! I'm going to make a little sign out of that right now and tape it up on the wall above my desk. :smile:

By the way, a better candidate for the "knows everything" claim would have been the late Hans Bethe. Some years ago, the American Philatelist magazine had a short writeup about him and his son when they joined the American Philatelic Society. I think at that point Bethe had just retired from full-time status at Cornell and was planning to spend more time on his stamp collection.

NoTime

Apr6-05, 12:05 PM

Er... if you want science ideas that failed, look in any physics journal! Or may I recommend you read Bob Park's book "Voodoo Science". He explored several physics ideas that didn't make it. I wouldn't call the garbage you get in TD as "science".
I'm not disagreeing with you.
However, I think that mistakes can be more educational than success.
Simply think TD could be made to serve a useful purpose.

Whoa! You mean people were already making transistors before Bardeen, Brittain, and Shockley invented it? What a travesty! You need to report this to the Nobel prize committee immediately so that we can yank away the imposters' Nobel prizes!
Just recalling a very old magazine I read as a kid in the 50's.
I would imagine that repeatability was just about zero, since natural crystals were used.
So I would have to say that Bardeen, Brittain, and Shockley deserve the prize if only for fixing that.

Er... who? What kind of "photelectric work" did he exactly do? The photoelectric effect was well-known well before the 1900's and became a thorn in the side of classical physics. So if you're claiming that 1905 is way outside my 100 year span.....
Zz.
I'm inclined to say that your question, as written, forms a logical null.
So I choose to interpret it as people who were considered cranks that made good on their claims.
Since a number of the papers you listed are material science, I think the Xerox process constitutes a major advance in that area.

ZapperZ

Apr6-05, 01:33 PM

I'm not disagreeing with you.
However, I think that mistakes can be more educational than success.
Simply think TD could be made to serve a useful purpose.

I disagree. Think of the TONS of postings one has to go through line-by-line. Would YOU like to do this day in and day out? And not only that, explain it to deaf ears of the originators who simply have decided that THEY hold the key to understanding the universe?

I suggest you go to Crank Dot Net and pick out one to start on.

Just recalling a very old magazine I read as a kid in the 50's.
I would imagine that repeatability was just about zero, since natural crystals were used.
So I would have to say that Bardeen, Brittain, and Shockley deserve the prize if only for fixing that.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place? It has no relevance to what I was asking for.

I'm inclined to say that your question, as written, forms a logical null.
So I choose to interpret it as people who were considered cranks that made good on their claims.
Since a number of the papers you listed are material science, I think the Xerox process constitutes a major advance in that area.

I don't believe it is. Most of the papers I listed was in CONDENSED MATTER physics. It is the study of the physics of material. Not one of those had to deal with the APPLICATION of the material (in the real of Material Science). I'm not saying it isn't important, but unless I'm missing something, I am emphasizing the body of knowledge in physics. I know people want to tag biology, medicine, etc. etc. to my claim, but I won't be forced to play that game.

Zz.

Moonbear

Apr6-05, 01:49 PM

However, my biggest gripe about science is that it is very difficult (or impossible) to find information on ideas that didn't quite work out. Or how they fail.
I think the TD forum can fill a void in this regard.

First, TD is not going to address that question. TD does not contain posts with ideas that didn't "quite" work out; they are just plain wrong.

To address that question, though, as has been mentioned, old journals are FULL of articles about work that has been later found to be wrong. Another great source for this information is to look through old abstracts of work presented at conferences and do a follow-up on that author's publications to see what never made it to a full article. Conferences are for sharing preliminary ideas for discussion with peers.

There can be many reasons why things don't work out. Some examples are: 1) Some sort of technical barrier was run into where something just could not be done due to lack of technology to do it. 2) A flaw in the experiment was identified. 3) Funding got cut and the project was dropped. 4) The researcher changed directions and lost interest. Of course I'm talking about legitimate work and ideas here, not the sort of things that get tossed into TD.

NoTime

Apr6-05, 10:57 PM

I disagree. Think of the TONS of postings one has to go through line-by-line. Would YOU like to do this day in and day out? And not only that, explain it to deaf ears of the originators who simply have decided that THEY hold the key to understanding the universe?
Oh, I agree it would be a LOT of work.
I was really just suggesting a slightly different direction, not the same as keep TD as is.
As I noted before, the threads with reasonable discussion going on generally stay in the main line forums.
It is the ones that start out with some sort of rational thought and then loose it, that I was thinking of.
Was that because the idea was invalid? (likely :biggrin: )
Or was it because the poster ran out of personal resources and took an unfortunate approach?

Anyway once again I think this is an excellent site. :approve:

I don't believe it is. Most of the papers I listed was in CONDENSED MATTER physics. It is the study of the physics of material. Not one of those had to deal with the APPLICATION of the material (in the real of Material Science). I'm not saying it isn't important, but unless I'm missing something, I am emphasizing the body of knowledge in physics. I know people want to tag biology, medicine, etc. etc. to my claim, but I won't be forced to play that game.
Alas, I put that badly. My bad. :redface:
What is the physics of the material that makes Xerox work?
My guess is that it is more easily understood than the high-Tc ceramic you listed.
However, is that just a difference in degree of difficulty or somehow a difference in kind?
That would seem to be the key as to you being allowed to discard the data. :smile:

I'm just attempting to provide potential data points.
It is, after all, your proposed theory, not mine. :wink:

NoTime

Apr7-05, 12:53 AM

To address that question, though, as has been mentioned, old journals are FULL of articles about work that has been later found to be wrong. Another great source for this information is to look through old abstracts of work presented at conferences and do a follow-up on that author's publications to see what never made it to a full article. Conferences are for sharing preliminary ideas for discussion with peers.
Ah Moonbear, you have a real knack for making things clear. :smile:
I wish I had a little more of your talent.

I was kind of thinking of how life seems to work.
The bad things that happen tend to make you appreciate the good things more.
If all you get to eat is chocolate cake then you might get sick of it pretty quick.
Ok, maybe not :biggrin:

Usenet seems to have turned into a combat zone with the flame warriors and the cranks who intentionally yank their chain.
Many (most?) actually do not believe the things they are saying.
I have talked to a few of these so called cranks backchannel and been explicitly told this.
They just want to argue, for whatever amusement this gives them.

I agree that the people who end up in TD belong there.
Some of this group are chain yankers. These should simply be deleted.
Others just seem to run out of personal resources.
Or have not learned to present an idea in a clear unambiguous way.
As in what you read was not what I wrote.
Something I am often guilty of :redface:

Anyway, I do think there is some instructional value in TD.
Even if that has nothing to do with physics.
For example: Things you don't want to do when posting here.

Perhaps you disagree. I don't know.

ZapperZ

Apr7-05, 07:04 AM

Alas, I put that badly. My bad. :redface:
What is the physics of the material that makes Xerox work?
My guess is that it is more easily understood than the high-Tc ceramic you listed.
However, is that just a difference in degree of difficulty or somehow a difference in kind?
That would seem to be the key as to you being allowed to discard the data. :smile:

I'm just attempting to provide potential data points.
It is, after all, your proposed theory, not mine. :wink:

Not the difference in "degree of difficulty", but degree of "newness". There's no new physics in the photocopy technique, important as it is. There's new "engineering" knowledge, but that's not what I'm asking, is it?

Zz.

NoTime

Apr7-05, 06:45 PM

Not the difference in "degree of difficulty", but degree of "newness". There's no new physics in the photocopy technique, important as it is. There's new "engineering" knowledge, but that's not what I'm asking, is it?

Zz.
I don't know enough about the amorphous semiconductor involved to say.
I suspect it would get published if discovered today.

So where is the physics in
4. The high-Tc discovery of Bednorz and Muller + the MgB2 discovery by Akimitsu and Co.
These are discoveries.
The first the original discovery.
The second was an attempt to find out if a similar physical arrangement would do the same thing.
Just "engineering" knowledge on how to build particular ceramics.
Important as it is.

I will accept your objection if you show that he used cookbook knowledge for an existing material, rather than develop his material himself.

ZapperZ

Apr7-05, 09:04 PM

I don't know enough about the amorphous semiconductor involved to say.
I suspect it would get published if discovered today.

So where is the physics in
4. The high-Tc discovery of Bednorz and Muller + the MgB2 discovery by Akimitsu and Co.
These are discoveries.
The first the original discovery.
The second was an attempt to find out if a similar physical arrangement would do the same thing.
Just "engineering" knowledge on how to build particular ceramics.
Important as it is.

There are SEVERAL important PHYSICS advancement here, especially the high-Tc discovery (or else it does not warrant the Nobel Prize). First, it was a discovery of superconductivity in perovskite ceramics, a family of material that was NOT known to be superconducting. Second, it was achived out of a parent material that was INSULATING, unlike other known superconductors at that time that starts off as being metallic. Third, it broke the "35K barrier" that was thought to be the theoretical limit for superconductivity.

That discovery caused the major revolution in physics - the 1987 APS March Meeting in NY was dubbed the Woodstock of physics especially after a similar compound, the YBCO123 broke the LN2 temperature barrier. Since then, condensed matter physics had never been the same, and the area of strongly-correlated system just exploded with such a rich variety of new physical phenomena.

The Akimitsu discovery of MgB2, if it was discovered before the high-Tc superconductors, would surely warrent a Nobel Prize. The major physics here is that MgB2 is now thought to be a conventional superconductor with phonon-mediated pairings, but it has a Tc of >40K, something that phonons were not expected to achieve. This has caused the theorists to literrally go back and try to rewrite the theory of phonons in solids. This material achieves a high Tc without the same mechanism as the high-Tc superconductors and without the same structure and compounds. So there are more new physics here.

I will accept your objection if you show that he used cookbook knowledge for an existing material, rather than develop his material himself.

Go look in Journal of Applied physics, or any material science journal. There are many of such "new" materials being synthesized. New materials does not ALWAYS mean "new physics". If you believe that he has advanced the body knowledge of physics, PROVE IT!

Zz.

NoTime

Apr7-05, 10:38 PM

The Akimitsu discovery of MgB2... The major physics here is that MgB2 is now thought to be a conventional superconductor with phonon-mediated pairings, but it has a Tc of >40K, something that phonons were not expected to achieve.
Interesting. I read the original papers when they came out, but haven't kept up. Although I have heard that there is some evidence for Cooper pairing, I don't recall hearing that anybody has proved it yet.

The fact remains that it was an accidental result.
One that was so outrageous, at the time, that they repeated it a few times before publishing, least they end up like Pons/Fleischmann.

PROVE IT!
Its your theory. Not mine.

ZapperZ

Apr8-05, 07:21 AM

Interesting. I read the original papers when they came out, but haven't kept up. Although I have heard that there is some evidence for Cooper pairing, I don't recall hearing that anybody has proved it yet.

The fact remains that it was an accidental result.
One that was so outrageous, at the time, that they repeated it a few times before publishing, least they end up like Pons/Fleischmann.

I will not even touch the "evidence for Cooper pairing" part because it isn't even an issue here. However, when you said it was "so outrageous", that's the WHOLE point! It IS surprising and highly unexpected - thus, a NEW entry in the body of knowledge of physics where one wasn't thought to be possible. It really is completely irrelevant if it was "accidental" or not. That has NEVER been a criteria for something being new and significant in physics.

Its your theory. Not mine.

No, you're arguing that photocopying technology should be considered in my criteria of "significant advancement in the body of knowledge of physics". I disagree and asked you to prove YOUR point, rather than having me to prove why it isn't. I have already stated that from what I have read the last few days, it is a technological advancement, not a physics advancement. You have made no case why it should also be considered as an advancement in physics. Material scientists and condensed matter physicists may study the same material, and their work may even overlap. But their aim and focus are on two very different areas of knowledge. You should not confuse the two.

Zz.

russ_watters

Apr8-05, 10:52 AM

Anyway, I do think there is some instructional value in TD.
Even if that has nothing to do with physics.
For example: Things you don't want to do when posting here.

Perhaps you disagree. I don't know. We do agree that there is some instructional value in TD. But we have decided that its not enough of a positive to outweigh its negatives.

NoTime

Apr8-05, 06:08 PM

We do agree that there is some instructional value in TD. But we have decided that its not enough of a positive to outweigh its negatives.
Thanks.
You moderators are the ones that have to do all the work.
Once again, I think you all are doing a fine job.

Cheers

NoTime

Apr8-05, 07:29 PM

However, when you said it was "so outrageous", that's the WHOLE point! It IS surprising and highly unexpected - thus, a NEW entry in the body of knowledge of physics where one wasn't thought to be possible. It really is completely irrelevant if it was "accidental" or not.

Personally, I think the significant thing that Bednorz and Muller did was to show that BCS theory was wrong or incomplete. That's new science! How they did it is not particularly relevant, imo.
Akimitsu and Co. baked up a whole bunch of different ceramics. Most showed no activity at all. One came up better than the one Bednorz and Muller found.
Not the same class at all. No significant science here. Just new data.
But, I will agree with you that it is significant physics.

For one http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/research/brochure/tms.html says there is interesting science in amorphous silicon.

My understanding is that Chester Carlson made his own special amorphous silicon.
I think that puts him in the same class as Akimitsu and Co.

ZapperZ

Apr8-05, 08:19 PM

Personally, I think the significant thing that Bednorz and Muller did was to show that BCS theory was wrong or incomplete. That's new science! How they did it is not particularly relevant, imo.

And who brought up the issue of "how they did it"? Why is this even discussed here?

Akimitsu and Co. baked up a whole bunch of different ceramics. Most showed no activity at all. One came up better than the one Bednorz and Muller found.
Not the same class at all. No significant science here. Just new data.
But, I will agree with you that it is significant physics.

Hello? MgB2 is a well-known material! It was sitting in my lab the day I heard about the Akimitsu reporting this at a conference (it appeared in Nature MONTHS later). In fact, almost EVERYONE had this thing already. It wasn't invented by Akimitsu at all! It was a common, well-known stuff! So who was claiming that this is "new physics" in terms of "materials invention" or discovery? I certainly didn't!

No significant science? The fact that it broke the possible phonon limit for superconductivity isn't significant science? The fact that it was the first 2-band superconductor isn't significant science? The fact that it spurned a whole new family of superconductors isn't significant science? Have you seen how many papers on MgB2 were published in Nature and PRL, especially the first couple of months after the Akimitsu's Nature paper? Were you there at Seattle, WA for the APS March Meeting in 2001 that were dubbed "Woodstock West" for the late evening session at a huge, packed, ballroom devoted entirely on the MgB2 compound?

You will understand if I find it incredulous that you would claim that there's no new "science" associated with this.

Zz.

NoTime

Apr9-05, 12:58 AM

Zz.
The findings you list are not contained in the referenced paper.
They are all subsequent work from this paper.
People are writing papers from Carlson's discovery as well.
The physics poster I pointed you at references amorphous semiconductor as found in xerox copiers.
Not just any photocopier, but explicitly xerox.
That would be Chester Carlson's discovery.

ZapperZ

Apr9-05, 07:37 AM

The findings you list are not contained in the referenced paper.
They are all subsequent work from this paper.

So? All the importance of high-Tc superconductors were not contained in Bednorz-Muller paper either. That, again, is besides the point. Unless you have forgotten, I asked for papers that made significant CONTRIBUTION to the advancement of the body of knowledge in physics. You seem to be looking for one paper that contains everything. That would be absurd and even *I* didn't ask for it. I'd say that being the paper that started it all is a damn good criteria for making a significant contribution.

People are writing papers from Carlson's discovery as well.
The physics poster I pointed you at references amorphous semiconductor as found in xerox copiers.
Not just any photocopier, but explicitly xerox.
That would be Chester Carlson's discovery.

Well, good for them. People are writing tons of stuff in Journal of Applied Physics also that, even while they are useful, are not considered as significant advancement in physics. So what's your point? Are you saying that he was the FIRST person to discover amorphous semiconductor, AND that such a discovery is a major advancement of knowledge in not just material science/technology, but also physics? And it is so because of what? What "new" physics has it spawned?

Zz.

NoTime

Apr10-05, 06:50 AM

A reference to your work is a reference to your work.
That means that someone thought it is somehow significant.

ZapperZ

Apr10-05, 07:32 AM

A reference to your work is a reference to your work.
That means that someone thought it is somehow significant.

.. and it is why we have so many different physics journals, and so many different tiers of physics journals. Each one has its place and purpose. Just because something appears in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean it HAS to be a paper of significance in the body of knowledge of physics. It can easily be useful for a particular technology, or to a specific field. This is the case for MOST physics papers published. 95 percent of physics papers do not have the criteria to be accepted into Science, Nature, and Phys. Rev. Lett., even if they are of importance to a particular application or field.

You have not presented the case why this one in particular made a significant advancement in physics. If you are claiming that he was the first person to discover and studied amorphous semiconductor, then I'd say you may have a leg to stand on. But you are not even claiming this (and neither does he from what I have gathered).

Zz.

NoTime

Apr12-05, 05:46 AM

The citation is the standard for significance in science.

Oh well, I guess you are just trying to make your case regarding TD.
I will admit that you are making some progress with that.

Cheers

ZapperZ

Apr12-05, 06:30 AM

The citation is the standard for significance in science.

And you think I don't know that?

That would be VERY strange considering that I highlighted the 10 most cited papers from PRL. But just because something is cited doesn't mean it has made my criteria of being "significant". The Podkletnov paper from Physica B has also been cited, but for the WRONG reasons.

Zz.

marlon

Apr12-05, 07:48 AM

Although I have heard that there is some evidence for Cooper pairing, I don't recall hearing that anybody has proved it yet.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:uhh:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

marlon

edit : i think it's time to move this TD-thread to the TD-section. Maybe it can become a sticky there :wink:

NoTime

Apr13-05, 04:29 AM

edit : i think it's time to move this TD-thread to the TD-section. Maybe it can become a sticky there :wink:
I did take the trouble to look that up :smile:
So for a sample of one, there was some educational value to this thread :surprised
Cheers :biggrin:

Gokul43201

Apr13-05, 09:21 AM

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:uhh:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

marlon

edit : i think it's time to move this TD-thread to the TD-section. Maybe it can become a sticky there :wink:In all fairness marlon, I think that comment was made in the context of MgB2. But that makes it only a tad bit less preposterous ! :wink: (no ill intended here)

marlon

Apr13-05, 02:56 PM

In all fairness marlon, I think that comment was made in the context of MgB2. But that makes it only a tad bit less preposterous ! :wink: (no ill intended here)

In that case, should i apologize ? If so, i will

regards
marlon

NoTime

Apr14-05, 07:13 AM

In that case, should i apologize ? If so, i will

regards
marlon
Thanks. No offense taken.
I did realize why you selected the quote. :smile:
As I noted in the original post, the information was out of date.
People do not always read what I thought I wrote.
I consider this to be a personal failure. :redface:

I found Lanzara, Gweon and Lee to be quite interesting.
Well worth the price of the trip. :rofl:

BTW, ignorance is curable.
Perhaps my main objection to the demise of TD.

Enjoy

ZapperZ

Apr14-05, 07:41 AM

Thanks. No offense taken.
I did realize why you selected the quote. :smile:
As I noted in the original post, the information was out of date.
People do not always read what I thought I wrote.
I consider this to be a personal failure. :redface:

I found Lanzara, Gweon and Lee to be quite interesting.
Well worth the price of the trip. :rofl:

It was seriously out-of-date because cooper pairing has to occur in superconductivity AND this is plainly obvious for MgB2 within a month of the Akimitsu paper since that's how long it took for the first tunneling experiment on the critter to appear.

Not sure why you bring out Lanzara and co. What their phonon picture for High-Tc superconductors have anything to do with this escapes me.

Zz.

Nereid

Apr15-05, 01:05 AM

Since I first read Zapper's challenge, I've had an eye out for something that would show 'he woz rong', and thought it would be fairly easy ... Zapper won't be at all surprised to hear that I haven't come across anything yet.

There is a small boundary issue - "physics", yes; "astrophysics", yes; "cosmology", maybe?; "geophysics", maybe?; "biophysics", maybe not; "astronomy", maybe not; ... Andre's comment about continental drift (a.k.a. plate tectonics) and Wegener points us towards 'planetary science', much of which has been 'physics' from Day 1, but much is (still) very clearly 'geology'.

It's been mentioned a few times already, but deserves repeating ... there are thousands upon thousands of papers published in peer reviewed journals that we would today say are 'wrong' - there's a rather sobering asymmetry when you spend some time reading a random selection of threads here in PF's TD!

One grey area is 'curiosity, poorly expressed' - I feel that helping someone who's curious work through their thinking and approach is one of the things we try to do here in PF; it's sometimes difficult, partly because the thickets of misunderstanding and 'physics by press release' may addle the brain. Partly for this reason, I try not to be too hasty about moving a thread or a post off to TD.

Finally, what about renaming TD 'Pseudoscience'? I feel TD's greatest educational value is to help give PF readers a better sense of what distinguishes 'science' from 'pseudoscience' (after all, merely repeating '... self-consistent, consistent with good observational and experimental results in its domain of applicability, ...' is dry - to learn often involves looking at good examples and counter-examples). Perhaps we could put it together with the 'Credible Anomalies Awaiting Proper Investigation' part of S&D?

marlon

Apr15-05, 07:01 AM

I think we should call the TD-section : Personal Science Philosophy

:)

marlon

ZapperZ

Apr15-05, 07:08 AM

Since I first read Zapper's challenge, I've had an eye out for something that would show 'he woz rong', and thought it would be fairly easy ... Zapper won't be at all surprised to hear that I haven't come across anything yet.

.. and I'm sure many people will continue to scour all over to prove me wrong. :)

There is a small boundary issue - "physics", yes; "astrophysics", yes; "cosmology", maybe?; "geophysics", maybe?; "biophysics", maybe not; "astronomy", maybe not; ... Andre's comment about continental drift (a.k.a. plate tectonics) and Wegener points us towards 'planetary science', much of which has been 'physics' from Day 1, but much is (still) very clearly 'geology'.

While I don't consider "planetary science" within the same traditional boundaries of physics, it certainly does make use of physics. Furthermore, journals like PRL, Science, and Nature would count it as a "physical science" subject and would categorize it as such. I just do not include it in my counting simply because I am ignorant of that area of study and haven't paid much attention to it. Thus, my challenge is limited to within the body of knowledge of physics in the traditional sense since that is what I have "data" for.

It's been mentioned a few times already, but deserves repeating ... there are thousands upon thousands of papers published in peer reviewed journals that we would today say are 'wrong' - there's a rather sobering asymmetry when you spend some time reading a random selection of threads here in PF's TD!

Exactly. I've said this often, that even AFTER a paper is published, there is no guarantee that it will amount to anything. Publishing isn't a sign for "validity". It isn't a necessary and sufficient criteria. However, it certainly is a NECESSARY criteria for it to eventually make a significant impact in physics.

One grey area is 'curiosity, poorly expressed' - I feel that helping someone who's curious work through their thinking and approach is one of the things we try to do here in PF; it's sometimes difficult, partly because the thickets of misunderstanding and 'physics by press release' may addle the brain. Partly for this reason, I try not to be too hasty about moving a thread or a post off to TD.

Finally, what about renaming TD 'Pseudoscience'? I feel TD's greatest educational value is to help give PF readers a better sense of what distinguishes 'science' from 'pseudoscience' (after all, merely repeating '... self-consistent, consistent with good observational and experimental results in its domain of applicability, ...' is dry - to learn often involves looking at good examples and counter-examples). Perhaps we could put it together with the 'Credible Anomalies Awaiting Proper Investigation' part of S&D?

I could go for that Pseudoscience name. It certainly is more accurately descriptive than "Theory Development".

Zz.

arildno

Apr15-05, 07:26 AM

Now, I think the Wegener case might be a typical case in which scientifically sound results may be overlooked/rejected at first:

A somewhat "obscure", or at least non-mainstream area in physics in which there are actually very few scientists at work, so that there really isn't a peer community which can evaluate a piece of unfamiliar work properly.
(It would at least be interesting to test this on the Wegener case; who, and how many scientists at his time were actually sufficiently familiar with/interested in the issues to give his work a proper evaluation?)

It is quite indicative of crackpots that they are not interested in "minor", very specialized areas in physics; rather, they want to prove Einstein wrong or QM wrong, or, occasionally, to prove old Isaac wrong.

NoTime

Apr15-05, 05:04 PM

One grey area is 'curiosity, poorly expressed' - I feel that helping someone who's curious work through their thinking and approach is one of the things we try to do here in PF; it's sometimes difficult, partly because the thickets of misunderstanding and 'physics by press release' may addle the brain. Partly for this reason, I try not to be too hasty about moving a thread or a post off to TD.

Finally, what about renaming TD 'Pseudoscience'? I feel TD's greatest educational value is to help give PF readers a better sense of what distinguishes 'science' from 'pseudoscience' (after all, merely repeating '... self-consistent, consistent with good observational and experimental results in its domain of applicability, ...' is dry - to learn often involves looking at good examples and counter-examples). Perhaps we could put it together with the 'Credible Anomalies Awaiting Proper Investigation' part of S&D?
Nice :smile:
I like Marlon's name better though :biggrin:

Reshma

Apr16-05, 05:50 AM

There are more "guesses" than theories, and there's barely anything "developing" other than making its way into oblivion.

I could go for that Pseudoscience name. It certainly is more accurately descriptive than "Theory Development".

I think Zapper's indeed being correct about the stuff posted in Theory Development. You cannot propose any new theory unless there is a strong experimental evidence supporting it. For students like me though it is difficult to distinguish between the 'genuinely' good theories from pseudo-ones. This might lead to furthur confusion between the facts and the hoaxes.

To put in cruder or rather harsher terms, no matter how intriguing, fascinating or convincing a theory sounds, IF it lacks experimental evidence, it HAS to be chucked out!

NoTime

Apr16-05, 07:40 AM

For students like me though it is difficult to distinguish between the 'genuinely' good theories from pseudo-ones. This might lead to furthur confusion between the facts and the hoaxes.
Don't know about that. For me it just led to a lot of trips to the library researching the various claims.

IF it lacks experimental evidence, it HAS to be chucked out!
Like the various string and quantum gravity theories?

Reshma

Apr16-05, 08:48 AM

Don't know about that. For me it just led to a lot of trips to the library researching the various claims.

I was searching the net hoping to find some answers.

Like the various string and quantum gravity theories?
OK..I agree, in the realm of theoretical physics it is difficult to come up with experimental evidence. The problem is that relativity and the quantum theory are precise opposites.

General relativity is a theory of the very large: galaxies, quasars, black holes, and even the Big Bang. It is based on bending the beautiful four dimensional fabric of space and time.

The quantum theory, by contrast, is a theory which deals with the sub-atomic world. It is based on discrete, tiny packets of energy called quanta.

BUT, over the past 50 years, many attempts have been tried to unite these polar opposites, and have failed. The road to the Unified Field Theory, the Theory of Everything, is littered with the corpses of failed attempts.
By far the only successful theory is QED. The rest according to me are highly speculative and dubious by nature.

Zanket

May13-05, 10:13 PM

Even in the true sense of theory development (not the PF definition), a theory that is unpublished is still a work in progress. It may still be untrue, and it would still lack sufficient evidence to be publishable. Once sufficient evidence is obtained to support it, it can be published. No person in their right mind would discuss such a theory on an open forum such as this lest someone in a bigger and better funded lab scoop the project and beat you to the publication. Scientists do share these ideas with each other at this early stage, but it is done in scientific meetings accompanied by published abstracts that offer some protection that the original idea is yours.

Why wouldn’t a copyright provide the same or better level of protection? Unpublished works can be registered for a copyright. An unpublished work is no more or less protected than a published work. It seems to me that a “bigger and better funded lab” would lose credibility hence future funding if it tried to retain originator status for work legally held as prior by a copyright registration, so they wouldn’t do it. Then it seems that discussing such a copyrighted theory in an open forum such as this is no more a risk (and probably less risk) than discussing such an uncopyrighted theory in a scientific meeting accompanied by a published abstract. What do you think?

Also, anything discussed in this forum is published to an audience in electronic form, which is recognized as a valid form of publishing hence copyrighted by default by the US copyright office. The advantage to registering is primarily to get a government-issued timestamp in advance. But if someone discussed an original idea here, and it was subsequently scooped by a big lab, US courts would defer to the prior work if the forum timestamp were deemed reliable (a bigger if than I’d rely on).

Zanket

May13-05, 10:45 PM

If someone has a brilliant idea, an open physics forum is NOT the place to do it. Find a knowledgeable person in that subject area, and get his/her review of that idea. Then if it passes that test, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal.

For a good idea, I don’t see the big advantage of the peer-reviewed journal over the open forum (see my post to Moonbear immediately above). Seems like a lot more work to jump through the hoops (formatting, submitting, publishing delay, other bureaucracy) of the journal. Can you elaborate? A semi-open forum (i.e. limited moderation) seems to me to be the best place overall to submit. Arxiv is the best I’ve seen for those with the ability to post there. I agree on passing the test of review by those in the know.

ZapperZ

May14-05, 06:53 AM

For a good idea, I don’t see the big advantage of the peer-reviewed journal over the open forum (see my post to Moonbear immediately above). Seems like a lot more work to jump through the hoops (formatting, submitting, publishing delay, other bureaucracy) of the journal. Can you elaborate? A semi-open forum (i.e. limited moderation) seems to me to be the best place overall to submit. Arxiv is the best I’ve seen for those with the ability to post there. I agree on passing the test of review by those in the know.

You are forgetting that I have a rather obvious and tested evidence: the advancement of physics so far (at least within the past 100 years) have come SOLELY via the communication through peer-reviewed journals!

The arxiv has its purpose. I have several preprints uploaded there. But for most of us in this field, that's the major use of that site - to upload preprints as a quick way to inform others of a paper that is going through the review process. I read them as I would read a newspaper, but I do not use them as I would use a physics textbook. I will still wait till the final version appear in a peer-reviewed journal, and trust me, a manuscript can change, and change A LOT by the time it gets to its final form!

The arxiv is the quickest way to know what people are up to, especially your competitors in the field. It, however, is not the source that one wants to use to base one's entire set of knowledge. Again, I will challenge anyone to show where something that has only appeared in such a medium has made any significant impact in advancing the body of knowledge. Till that can be shown, I don't see how it can rivaled, even anywhere near, the peer-reviewed system.

Zz.

Monique

May14-05, 07:48 AM

The arxiv has its purpose. I have several preprints uploaded there. But for most of us in this field, that's the major use of that site - to upload preprints as a quick way to inform others of a paper that is going through the review process. I don't understand this: so you are in the process of publishing a paper and then you put the 'unreviewed' preprint online? Is that not against the guidelines of the journal you are aiming to publish in: you are not supposed to have published the work in any form, except at meetings, or have it in review by another journal. You sign away the copyright of the text to the journal you are publishing in, so how can you put it online in an open source?

ZapperZ

May14-05, 08:00 AM

I don't understand this: so you are in the process of publishing a paper and then you put the 'unreviewed' preprint online? Is that not against the guidelines of the journal you are aiming to publish in: you are not supposed to have published the work in any form, except at meetings, or have it in review by another journal. You sign away the copyright of the text to the journal you are publishing in, so how can you put it online in an open source?

Nope. In fact, if you are submitting to any of the Physical Review journals, you can upload to them AND the arxiv server simultaneously. They even accept "pointer" to the arxiv server. Furthermore, both Nature and Science have indicated that their embargo does NOT include arxiv and scientific conference presentation. The only risk here being that if a commercial media picked up the results you're presenting and reported it in print, then you have violated their embargo.

I believe that most physics journals do not have any restrictions on preprints appearing in arxiv. It has become the leading source for the community to get the fastest info on what is going on.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v390/n6659/full/390427b0_fs.html

Zz.

Monique

May14-05, 08:34 AM

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v390/n6659/full/390427b0_fs.html That is the first time I see that, I never quite got the concept of Arxiv as in biology it is not used; the guidelines are as I described. The link explains: In other areas, where the communities are larger and the variability in quality and sheer volume of preprinted material somewhat daunting, preprint servers are active but appear to be considered less useful for those reasons. Scientific communication is speeded up with the fact that journals now publish electronic pre-prints several days after a manuscript has been accepted. There are some unfortunate cases where manuscripts are rejected by grumpy reviewers, but I'd hesitate to dive into unreviewed archives.

ZapperZ

May14-05, 08:43 AM

Scientific communication is speeded up with the fact that journals now publish electronic pre-prints several days after a manuscript has been accepted. There are some unfortunate cases where manuscripts are rejected by grumpy reviewers, but I'd hesitate to dive into unreviewed archives.

I don't use the unreviewed preprints in the arxiv servers as "references" in terms of scientific content, unless I already know the authors or groups that those work came from. In those cases, I can usually tell the "validity" of the work and how careful results coming from such a group are usually obtained. This is where knowing the history of the subject area is important. But most people do not have such knowledge on deciding which is which. I also do not use as references articles from people I am not familiar with and would certain wait till that particular manuscript appears in print.

The exception so far to this rule is those in the String/Superstring/etc. area where the Arxiv has almost taken over as the prefered means to communicate. Maybe it's due to the nature of the field or the fact that a lot of "conjectures" are being made, but the arxiv is a very common citation references in many of such papers and presentation. However, keep in mind that this is a VERY small section of physics [I will refrain on giving my personal opinion on that subject area].

The moral of the story is, people who don't know any better should NOT rely on Arxiv as their source of information. It is more suited for those who are working in the subject area.

Zz.

Zanket

May14-05, 12:41 PM

You are forgetting that I have a rather obvious and tested evidence: the advancement of physics so far (at least within the past 100 years) have come SOLELY via the communication through peer-reviewed journals!

I don’t dispute that, but it seems irrelevant unless I take it to mean that, because of that, a paper published outside of a peer-reviewed journal has a nil chance of being read by physicists. Is that what you mean?

The arxiv is the quickest way to know what people are up to, especially your competitors in the field. It, however, is not the source that one wants to use to base one's entire set of knowledge.

It seems that arxiv just needs to add journal-quality peer-reviewed sections to satisfy your need and put the journals out of business.

Again, I will challenge anyone to show where something that has only appeared in such a medium has made any significant impact in advancing the body of knowledge. Till that can be shown, I don't see how it can rivaled, even anywhere near, the peer-reviewed system.

That’s putting the cart before the horse. If someone had an idea and didn’t have the credentials even for arxiv, it seems to me that forums like this one are decent places to post it. Even forums like this, being that some professional physicists (or impending ones) are here, are a form of peer review. Just look at how fast the bad ideas are shot down here, saving the poster the bureaucracy and long wait of a journal.

ZapperZ

May14-05, 01:01 PM

I don’t dispute that, but it seems irrelevant unless I take it to mean that, because of that, a paper published outside of a peer-reviewed journal has a nil chance of being read by physicists. Is that what you mean?

That, and a whole lot of others. A paper outside of peer-reviewed journals has NEVER, in the last 100 years, made ANY significant contributions to the advancement in the physics body of knowledge. So why would I want to waste my time reading something that would amount to nothing? If it has any relevance, or any CHANCE to even be considered to be either valid or any signficance, it would have appeared in a peer-reviewed journals. Just think of how many papers a typical physicist read, and figure out of one wants to waste time reading something that is not even published, especially considering the historical records.

It seems that arxiv just needs to add journal-quality peer-reviewed sections to satisfy your need and put the journals out of business.

Then this is no different than any peer-reviewed journals! Most physics journals already put their stuff out on the web. Adding peer-reviewed to Arxiv would make then no different.

You are also forgetting that journals such as PRL, Nature, and Science not just select and publish "high-impact" papers, they also have their publicity machines that advertizes and highlights some of the papers that they publish. It is why those 3 journals are the most sought-after publications for physics. A medium for publication just doesn't get the prestigue and respect overnight out of nothing.

That’s putting the cart before the horse. If someone had an idea and didn’t have the credentials even for arxiv, it seems to me that forums like this one are decent places to post it. Even forums like this, being that some professional physicists (or impending ones) are here, are a form of peer review. Just look at how fast the bad ideas are shot down here, saving the poster the bureaucracy and long wait of a journal.

But this is purely conjecture! We have had arguments like this for as long as I can remember (do a search on PF if you don't believe me). Point out to me a case where someone with a valid work in physics that could not put it out in a peer-reviewed journal because of lack of "credientials", and have managed to use forums such as this as a stepping stone to "credibility". I put it to you that what you imagined has not happened.

Using a forum such as this to work out an idea is a rather dubious way to go about something like this. How do you know the credentials of the person who's responding? Is that person an expert in that area of physics even though he/she has a "Science Advisor" medal? Besides, quacks have very seldom pay any particular attention to valid physical arguments - please visit the TD section of you don't believe me. Instead, forums such as this is a means for them to advertize their flaky idea and websites. It is the only means for what they do to see the light of day.

I suggest you look at a typical 'work' in the TD section and figure out the amount of effort required to apply "a form of peer-review" that you have in mind. If you are able to sustain the same level of effort for a month straight, then we'll talk.

Zz.

Moonbear

May14-05, 01:22 PM

Why wouldn’t a copyright provide the same or better level of protection? Unpublished works can be registered for a copyright. An unpublished work is no more or less protected than a published work. It seems to me that a “bigger and better funded lab” would lose credibility hence future funding if it tried to retain originator status for work legally held as prior by a copyright registration, so they wouldn’t do it. Then it seems that discussing such a copyrighted theory in an open forum such as this is no more a risk (and probably less risk) than discussing such an uncopyrighted theory in a scientific meeting accompanied by a published abstract. What do you think?

Also, anything discussed in this forum is published to an audience in electronic form, which is recognized as a valid form of publishing hence copyrighted by default by the US copyright office. The advantage to registering is primarily to get a government-issued timestamp in advance. But if someone discussed an original idea here, and it was subsequently scooped by a big lab, US courts would defer to the prior work if the forum timestamp were deemed reliable (a bigger if than I’d rely on).

I'm not sure the purpose of obtaining a copyright on flawed work. If the idea you publish is flawed, there's nothing to stop someone from building upon that to identify the flaws and publish something better. They can cite your work for your original idea, but what does it accomplish to have a citation that points out that you were wrong?

If I discuss an idea with someone else, any thoughts they contribute that help me, I need to acknowledge and give them credit for; if it is substantial, then they will be a co-author on the publication, and if it is minor, I will mention them in the acknowledgements section. The same would apply here. Once you put up the idea for discussion, any contributions you receive that help you modify your idea or design an improved experiment need to be acknowledged and credit given to those discussing it. If you missed something and they supplied that missing detail, that key detail is not your idea but theirs, and they are free to use it.

In generally, however, ideas that are the product of discussion, where two or more people are all providing input, are very hard to disentangle with regard to ownership. Unless there is a prior agreement of collaboration and/or co-authorship, the ideas that come out as a product of a discussion would most likely be considered a collective idea rather than something individually owned, thus are free for anyone participating in that group to use as they wish. If I approach someone else to discuss an idea with them, perhaps someone in that bigger and better equipped lab, the conversation usually begins with a statement, "I have an idea that I think you can help me with, would you be interested in a possible collaboration?" As the discussion continues, if indeed they are able to help out and have the set-up needed to do the work I can't do myself, then we not only discuss the general idea of collaboration, but follow up with, "If you do ... work/experiments for me, I will include you as a co-author on any manuscripts that result from this work." This is the verbal contract that protects our shared ideas as shared. If this is not part of the conversation, they are free to do what they want with the product of our discussion, as they are equal owners of those ideas.

Moonbear

May14-05, 01:36 PM

That’s putting the cart before the horse. If someone had an idea and didn’t have the credentials even for arxiv, it seems to me that forums like this one are decent places to post it. Even forums like this, being that some professional physicists (or impending ones) are here, are a form of peer review. Just look at how fast the bad ideas are shot down here, saving the poster the bureaucracy and long wait of a journal.

No, this is not a way around peer-review. For one, those who are here who are qualified to be peer reviewers are already doing so for journals, and are not going to take time away from those to waste time on an idea that's not even worked out enough to be submitted to one of those other journals. Second, there is absolutely no assurance that among the practicing physicists who visit this site that any of them has expertise in the specific area addressed by your theory sufficient to give you a quality critique. What journals do is for an editor to screen articles by topic and then send them out to suitable reviewers. They aren't just sent randomly to any scientist, they are sent to those who have sufficient expertise in the area addressed by the paper to give a qualified critique. Of course, if you're presenting something so flawed that even those outside your area of expertise can identify major problems, then you have no hope of getting it past the experts. Indeed, they probably won't even waste their time on a detailed critique, but will do the same thing of pointing out a few fatal flaws and reject it. Why pick through details when there's a giant, glaring flaw? Most of those posting in TD have such flaws in what they present, and don't seem to understand that there's no point in going through details when the bigger idea is seriously flawed, yet if you read through the posts there, you will see that over and again, where a major flaw is pointed out and they ignore that comment going on to ask for comment on picky details that is just wasted effort.

Zanket

May14-05, 01:40 PM

Just think of how many papers a typical physicist read, and figure out of one wants to waste time reading something that is not even published, especially considering the historical records.

You don’t read any of the junk here?

Then this is no different than any peer-reviewed journals! Most physics journals already put their stuff out on the web. Adding peer-reviewed to Arxiv would make then no different.

Makes sense.

You are also forgetting that journals such as PRL, Nature, and Science not just select and publish "high-impact" papers, they also have their publicity machines that advertizes and highlights some of the papers that they publish. It is why those 3 journals are the most sought-after publications for physics. A medium for publication just doesn't get the prestigue and respect overnight out of nothing.

Good info.

Point out to me a case where someone with a valid work in physics that could not put it out in a peer-reviewed journal because of lack of "credientials", and have managed to use forums such as this as a stepping stone to "credibility". I put it to you that what you imagined has not happened.

I don’t dispute that. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen though. Supposing lack of credentials is not an issue (as it is on arxiv), journals still have inefficient hurdles. A submitter spends days reformatting a paper to the journal’s exacting specifications and then waits months for a reply, whereas this forum takes plain text and a reply might take only minutes. I think a good idea can transcend the drawbacks of a forum like this, in which case the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Using a forum such as this to work out an idea is a rather dubious way to go about something like this. How do you know the credentials of the person who's responding?

Whether they are qualified seems easy to verify sans credentials, for it’s tough to sound logical while spewing crap.

Zanket

May14-05, 02:25 PM

I'm not sure the purpose of obtaining a copyright on flawed work. If the idea you publish is flawed, there's nothing to stop someone from building upon that to identify the flaws and publish something better. They can cite your work for your original idea, but what does it accomplish to have a citation that points out that you were wrong?

Such idea is flawed regardless how it’s published. But it seems the original idea is still better protected by the copyright method than by the “published abstract in a scientific meeting” method.

As to the rest of that post, let me paraphrase and correct me if I got it wrong: The reason “No person in their right mind would discuss such a theory on an open forum such as this” is because the flaws could then be corrected by anyone, who gets credit for the completion, whereas in a collaboration and/or co-authorship setting there’s an agreement (implied or otherwise) that all involved will equally share credit for the completion.

No, this is not a way around peer-review. For one, those who are here who are qualified to be peer reviewers are already doing so for journals, and are not going to take time away from those to waste time on an idea that's not even worked out enough to be submitted to one of those other journals.

I see time spent on such ideas by presumably-qualified people here. Poorly-conceived ideas don’t last long here, for example.

Second, there is absolutely no assurance that among the practicing physicists who visit this site that any of them has expertise in the specific area addressed by your theory sufficient to give you a quality critique.

For obscure areas, sure. But if the area is popular, there’s decent assurance.

What journals do is for an editor to screen articles by topic and then send them out to suitable reviewers. They aren't just sent randomly to any scientist, they are sent to those who have sufficient expertise in the area addressed by the paper to give a qualified critique.

And if the author is sans credentials, don’t they then reject the article sight unseen? Isn’t that prudent given the unlikelihood, historically given, that such article would pass even the initial screening?

Of course, if you're presenting something so flawed that even those outside your area of expertise can identify major problems, then you have no hope of getting it past the experts. Indeed, they probably won't even waste their time on a detailed critique, but will do the same thing of pointing out a few fatal flaws and reject it. Why pick through details when there's a giant, glaring flaw?

Indeed. That’s why it would seem more efficient to post here first, where flaws can be pointed out in hours rather than months. The author can weigh that benefit against the drawback that you pointed out regarding credit of the corrected idea. And if no flaw is found here, then it seems that time has potentially been gained and nothing has been lost.

ZapperZ

May14-05, 02:43 PM

You don’t read any of the junk here?

No, I don't. As soon as something is relegated to the TD section, it might as well not even be on here as far as I'm concerned.

I don’t dispute that. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen though. Supposing lack of credentials is not an issue (as it is on arxiv), journals still have inefficient hurdles. A submitter spends days reformatting a paper to the journal’s exacting specifications and then waits months for a reply, whereas this forum takes plain text and a reply might take only minutes. I think a good idea can transcend the drawbacks of a forum like this, in which case the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

So you're asking for us to consider ALL eventual possibilities, no matter how small or how unlikely it will happen? In this case, the possibility of it occuring is ZERO, based on history. But we just have to accomodate that possibility no matter how extremely it is to occur?? Do you know how unreasonable of a request that sounds?

Whether they are qualified seems easy to verify sans credentials, for it’s tough to sound logical while spewing crap.

Logic has nothing to do with it. I can make things up VERY easily and sound as if I know what I'm talking about. Many quacks are masters at making their arguments vague and ambiguous. There's nothing "illogical" about it. Only someone who is an expert in that particular field would be able to either spot the flaw, or the inconsistencies, or the incrediblly dubious way of how the physics has been mangled. This takes a LOT of effort. I suggest you try your hand at it sometime if you can.

Zz.

Zanket

May14-05, 07:54 PM

So you're asking for us to consider ALL eventual possibilities, no matter how small or how unlikely it will happen?

I’m saying that, without asking for anything, a good idea posted to forums like this will likely be received by physicists eventually. People like you will read it, and finding nothing wrong with it, will not relegate it to the TD section. And if it would affect their own research if valid, it is unlikely they would ignore it outright simply because of where it was published.

Logic has nothing to do with it. I can make things up VERY easily and sound as if I know what I'm talking about. Many quacks are masters at making their arguments vague and ambiguous. There's nothing "illogical" about it.

A vague and ambiguous argument is illogical, isn’t it? The risk of being fooled can be greatly lowered by getting corroboration. But you have a good point.

ZapperZ

May14-05, 08:37 PM

I’m saying that, without asking for anything, a good idea posted to forums like this will likely be received by physicists eventually. People like you will read it, and finding nothing wrong with it, will not relegate it to the TD section. And if it would affect their own research if valid, it is unlikely they would ignore it outright simply because of where it was published.

In all my years on the 'net, and I have been online since 1989 and read the Usenet back then, and have continued to come across various different physics forums, I have never, ever come across what you have described. You will understand if I have extreme skepticism of what you think is even a remote possibility. In my book, that possibility is zero.

Zz.

Nereid

May14-05, 08:48 PM

With fear and trepidation, I offer three "PF" examples:

- Andre's 'Venus rotation braking' idea (his posts should be relatively easily found) - he worked it out in some details, posted here in PF, and asked for critiques. No one (IMHO) really gave him any, yet it may contain an idea (and some early, moderate-to-good exploration of that idea) that pans out; check back in a decade or three!

- turbo-1 and 'ZPE' being the source of 'deviations' to GR. This is (IMHO) an example of what will NOT go anywhere; the cosmological implications/aspects of ZPE are fascinating, but turbo-1 did not introduce anything 'new' (in the sense of ideas that aren't already the subject of dozens of papers)

- Garth and 'SCC'. This is the closest I've come across as something that meet's Zapper's challenge - several 'SCC-related' papers (apparently) have been published, and the only reason I can see that his own was rejected by reviewer(s) was an obsession with the certainty that DM exists. Now I'll be the first to admit that I DO NOT have all 'the facts' to hand (e.g. there could have been many other, very valid, reasons why reviewers rejected Garth's paper, that he didn't tell us about). But best of all about Garth's idea is his forthrightness in saying that GPB's results will clearly be inconsistent with his idea, or with GR (at the many sigma level), so we have only to wait another few months!

ZapperZ

May14-05, 09:06 PM

- Andre's 'Venus rotation braking' idea (his posts should be relatively easily found) - he worked it out in some details, posted here in PF, and asked for critiques. No one (IMHO) really gave him any, yet it may contain an idea (and some early, moderate-to-good exploration of that idea) that pans out; check back in a decade or three!

But this is exactly why such a forum such as this is useless in such a discussion. Something like this is highly specific, and only the small number of professional working in that field would be qualified, or even have the ability, to judge such things and carry any remotely intelligent discussion. And yes, it would be a "discussion" rather than someone "publishing" an idea onto a forum, which is what quacks try to do.

And if we check back in a decade or three, who would be around to verify or even remember such a thing appeared in PF? Would there be the same care to archive everything the way the Physical Review has done with their entire catalog of published papers? I'd say that this is even more of a reason why I find doing such a thing in an open forum is thoroughly illogical.

- Garth and 'SCC'. This is the closest I've come across as something that meet's Zapper's challenge - several 'SCC-related' papers (apparently) have been published, and the only reason I can see that his own was rejected by reviewer(s) was an obsession with the certainty that DM exists. Now I'll be the first to admit that I DO NOT have all 'the facts' to hand (e.g. there could have been many other, very valid, reasons why reviewers rejected Garth's paper, that he didn't tell us about). But best of all about Garth's idea is his forthrightness in saying that GPB's results will clearly be inconsistent with his idea, or with GR (at the many sigma level), so we have only to wait another few months!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Garth has mentioned that he had published such a thing. I have no idea why this idea is being "pushed" on here, when it should be done among people who are experts in the field. I do not consider this as a valid example of what I have requested. It's like me trying to convince you that the overdoped Bi-2212 high-Tc cuprate has Fermi Liquid properties AFTER I've published it. Why would I want to do such a thing here, of all places?

Zz.

Moonbear

May14-05, 11:23 PM

As to the rest of that post, let me paraphrase and correct me if I got it wrong: The reason “No person in their right mind would discuss such a theory on an open forum such as this” is because the flaws could then be corrected by anyone, who gets credit for the completion, whereas in a collaboration and/or co-authorship setting there’s an agreement (implied or otherwise) that all involved will equally share credit for the completion.
Correct.

And if the author is sans credentials, don’t they then reject the article sight unseen? Isn’t that prudent given the unlikelihood, historically given, that such article would pass even the initial screening?
No. As long as it fits within the scope of the journal and complies with the instructions to authors, it will be given a review. The exception would be to a handful of journals, such as Science and Nature, where a pre-review screening is done to only send out papers for full review that are of sufficiently high impact or broad interest for those journals.

Indeed. That’s why it would seem more efficient to post here first, where flaws can be pointed out in hours rather than months.
Months? Most reviews are returned within two or three weeks, at least for the journals I submit to. Since it has become so easy to submit everything electronically, there's no need for delay anymore waiting for reviewers to respond via mail.
The author can weigh that benefit against the drawback that you pointed out regarding credit of the corrected idea. And if no flaw is found here, then it seems that time has potentially been gained and nothing has been lost.
Except that is still not the purpose of PF. It was somewhat tolerated in the past, but it's a cost-benefit issue. The cost of all the crackpots posting and the effort required to keep them in check far outweighs using this site as a place to post a legitimate new theory. Besides, how has time been gained in posting the theory here? You'd still have to send the manuscript out for peer review for publication. This still doesn't count as a publication. I doubt that's the business Greg is interested in getting into. If it is unflawed, it has wasted time by not being submitted directly to a journal where people could actually cite the publication and to get it out where the majority of people in the field would see it.

Moonbear

May14-05, 11:33 PM

And if we check back in a decade or three, who would be around to verify or even remember such a thing appeared in PF? Would there be the same care to archive everything the way the Physical Review has done with their entire catalog of published papers? I'd say that this is even more of a reason why I find doing such a thing in an open forum is thoroughly illogical.

Another very good point. Unlike published journals, which are archived in both print and electronic formats and distributed throughout numerous libraries (I recall when much of the library collection at UT was destroyed in floods, emails were sent out requesting donations of old issues of journals such as Science, of which their bound copies were destroyed...if one library loses their collection, there are still archives in many other places so that the articles and information contained within them are not lost forever), all it would take here would be a server crash, or Greg deciding he was tired of keeping this site running, and whatever is posted here would be gone. I don't know if Greg bothers to back up his server. He probably does, but is under no obligation to do so.

Monique

May25-05, 04:04 PM

For those wondering: some content of this thread, on writing manuscripts and abstracts, has been split into another thread that can be found here http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=579430#post579430 in the Academic & Career Guidance forum.

Garth

May25-05, 06:57 PM

Just as a point of information:Garth and 'SCC'. This is the closest I've come across as something that meet's Zapper's challenge - several 'SCC-related' papers (apparently) have been published, Barber, G.A. : 1982, Gen Relativ Gravit. 14, 117. 'On Two Self Creation Cosmologies'. & "'A New Self Creation Cosmology, a 'semi-metric' theory of gravitation'," Astrophysics and Space Science 282: 683–730, (2002).
plus 47 other author papers in peer reviewed journals. I could post the list or you could simply "google scholar" for 'self creation cosmology, barber', which picks up some of them. and the only reason I can see that his own was rejected by reviewer(s) was an obsession with the certainty that DM exists. and DE Now I'll be the first to admit that I DO NOT have all 'the facts' to hand (e.g. there could have been many other, very valid, reasons why reviewers rejected Garth's paper, that he didn't tell us about It was subsequently accepted in another form by Nova Science publishers. But best of all about Garth's idea is his forthrightness in saying that GPB's results will clearly be inconsistent with his idea, or with GR (at the many sigma level), so we have only to wait another few months!
I hope this helps - I am not trying to "push this", only have some discussion of the physics of the subject. If PF is an unsuitable forum for such discussion I shall will not mention it again.

Garth

ZapperZ

May25-05, 07:01 PM

Just as a point of information:Barber, G.A. : 1982, Gen Relativ Gravit. 14, 117. 'On Two Self Creation Cosmologies'. & "'A New Self Creation Cosmology, a 'semi-metric' theory of gravitation'," Astrophysics and Space Science 282: 683–730, (2002).
plus 47 other author papers in peer reviewed journals. I could post the list or you could simply "google scholar" for 'self creation cosmolgy, barber', which picks up some of them. and DE It was subsequently accepted in another form by Nova Science publishers.

.. and just to clarify, I don't know if Nereid would agree with me that this example does not fulfill the challenge that I have put forward, for the very reason that it HAS appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

Zz.

Integral

May25-05, 07:24 PM

.. and just to clarify, I don't know if Nereid would agree with me that this example does not fulfill the challenge that I have put forward, for the very reason that it HAS appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

Zz.
The fact that it HAS appeared in peer reviewed journals should mean that it IS appropriate for dissuasion in the forums.

Tom Mattson

May25-05, 07:48 PM

ZapperZ's challenge was to find something that advanced the state of the knowledge of physics without passing peer review. That's why it doesn't meet the challenge.

Garth

May26-05, 02:15 AM

ZapperZ's challenge was to find something that advanced the state of the knowledge of physics without passing peer review. That's why it doesn't meet the challenge.
SCC was first brought up on PF by others. Yet subsequently, when I became a PF member, it was suggested that my posts on the subject be discussed on TD, which at the time I thought was to enable a proper discussion, but of course there the discussion died a death. That is why I argued for another forum for 'maverick' type yet not 'crackpot' discussions.

I'll go with the flow...

Garth

Bystander

May26-05, 05:13 PM

All you need to do is, as I have repeatedly mentioned on here and elsewhere, is to show an example from within the past 100 years, of an idea that never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal that has made a significant advancement in the body of knowledge of physics.
(snip).

Is "never" the word you wanted? Did you mean prior to recognition and inclusion in peer reviewed endeavors?

I can offer http://www.lexcie.zetnet.co.uk/radar.htm with the comment that I've run into anecdotes dating prior to WW I of operators listening to their own broadcasts being reflected from shipping in "The Channel" or the E. River or some such. Sure, no new principles --- well established prior to Marconi that EM waves are absorbed, transmitted, or reflected at discontinuities in media --- but I am going to balk at summary dismissal of the subsequent developments as "just an engineering problem."

"Radar" has contributed significantly to developments in physics, and would eventually have been developed as a spectroscopic tool, an expansion of bandwidth in communications, or for some other purpose, but the "non-peer reviewed" history is that it rose from serendipitous observations reported in rather ordinary literature.

"The ZZ challenge" is not as clear as one might wish --- excluding life and earth sciences arbitrarily, and space sciences on the basis of "I ain't up to speed on the literature in that area," smacks of the "two tens for a five?" or "heads I win, tails you lose" games that go on in bars.

If you've got a more specifically bounded form for the challenge in terms of what is and what is not physics, and what is and what is not "appearance of an idea" in media other than peer reviewed journals, it really would be useful for the discussion. Short and sweet is nice, but it leaves to much room to make up the rules and interpretations afterwards.

ZapperZ

May26-05, 06:09 PM

Is "never" the word you wanted? Did you mean prior to recognition and inclusion in peer reviewed endeavors?

I can offer http://www.lexcie.zetnet.co.uk/radar.htm with the comment that I've run into anecdotes dating prior to WW I of operators listening to their own broadcasts being reflected from shipping in "The Channel" or the E. River or some such. Sure, no new principles --- well established prior to Marconi that EM waves are absorbed, transmitted, or reflected at discontinuities in media --- but I am going to balk at summary dismissal of the subsequent developments as "just an engineering problem."

"Radar" has contributed significantly to developments in physics, and would eventually have been developed as a spectroscopic tool, an expansion of bandwidth in communications, or for some other purpose, but the "non-peer reviewed" history is that it rose from serendipitous observations reported in rather ordinary literature.

"The ZZ challenge" is not as clear as one might wish --- excluding life and earth sciences arbitrarily, and space sciences on the basis of "I ain't up to speed on the literature in that area," smacks of the "two tens for a five?" or "heads I win, tails you lose" games that go on in bars.

If you've got a more specifically bounded form for the challenge in terms of what is and what is not physics, and what is and what is not "appearance of an idea" in media other than peer reviewed journals, it really would be useful for the discussion. Short and sweet is nice, but it leaves to much room to make up the rules and interpretations afterwards.

1. Since you like things to be VERY clear "as one might wish", then will you be explicitly clear in indicating that there has been ZERO peer-reviewed papers being published on "radar", or the EM theory surrounding it?

2. It would be horribly silly for me to make similar claims to include life science, etc. Unlike crackpots who do not hesitate to spew things in areas that they have no knowledge on, I refuse to do such things. I have concentrated on what I know best based on what I have worked with and worked in. Too many people today seem too willing to just give off their opinion on things that they only have superficial knowledge. I simply and clearly acknowledge that not only am I ignorant of that subject matter, but I'm also ignorant on how things are done in that area. What's wrong with that?!

3. Open an issue of The Physical Review Letters. If the subject area is convered in it, that's physics and physics relevant. Now is that explict enough of a converage area?

Zz.

Zanket

Jun16-05, 11:26 AM

A paper outside of peer-reviewed journals has NEVER, in the last 100 years, made ANY significant contributions to the advancement in the physics body of knowledge.

None of Einstein’s 1905 papers were peer-reviewed. They were published in the last 100 years (after June 1905). The book Albert Einstein says that Einstein encountered his first peer-reviewed journal, the Physical Review Letters, in the 1930s. He was dismayed by the unexpected review, so he withdrew the paper and published it in a non peer-reviewed journal. This link (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/p/pe/peer_review.htm) says:

In a recent editorial in Nature, it was stated that “in journals in those days, the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas.”

ZapperZ

Jun16-05, 11:42 AM

None of Einstein’s 1905 papers were peer-reviewed. They were published in the last 100 years (after June 1905).

Excuse me, but WHO decided that those papers should be published? The Pope? Some Joe Blow on the street?

I restricted the challenge to within the past 100 years or so simply because the formal process of peer-reviewing is not well defined before that. Physics articles were more loosely "peer-reviewed" by the journal editors who themselves were physicists. The Royal Society for example had no peer-reviewing system in place - the head of the society had a run of the place in deciding what gets published!

But it still doesn't mean ALL and ANY submission being sent gets published! Someone still has to decide that such a thing has merit. This is certainly FAR from being an open system where anything, even unverified garbage, can get through - or is this what you are implying?

The book Albert Einstein says that Einstein encountered his first peer-reviewed journal, the Physical Review Letters, in the 1930s. He was dismayed by the unexpected review, so he withdrew the paper and published it in a non peer-reviewed journal.

Well *I* would withdraw my paper too because it was obviously a FRAUD publication. Physical Review Letters did NOT exist then. It's first issue was in 1958! So what does that say about "The book"?

And Einstein was "dismayed" by the idea of peer-review? Where did you think his EPR paper, for example, was published? On some open physics forum?

Your posting here is rife with inaccuracies and misleading information.

Zz.

arildno

Jun16-05, 11:50 AM

To take the British case:
The fact is that "gurus", like Rutherford, had a LOT more say in what got published in his day than any guru in our day has.

Effectively, you had an old boys network; if you hadn't studied at Cambridge, your name had to be either Oliver Heaviside or Osborne Reynolds in order to have a chance at being published in a scientific journal of the time.

Zanket

Jun16-05, 12:07 PM

Excuse me, but WHO decided that those papers should be published? The Pope? Some Joe Blow on the street?

Doesn’t matter. They weren’t peer-reviewed, and they were published in the last 100 years.

But it still doesn't mean ALL and ANY submission being sent gets published! Someone still has to decide that such a thing has merit. This is certainly FAR from being an open system where anything, even unverified garbage, can get through - or is this what you are implying?

No, I’m just addressing your specific statement above.

Well *I* would withdraw my paper too because it was obviously a FRAUD publication. Physical Review Letters did NOT exist then. It's first issue was in 1958! So what does that say about "The book"?

Oops, Physical Review, not Physical Review Letters.

And Einstein was "dismayed" by the idea of peer-review? Where did you think his EPR paper, for example, was published? On some open physics forum?

I didn’t say that. I said he was dismayed by an unexpected review. The book Albert Einstein says, "Einstein withdrew the paper, henceforward avoided the Physical Review, and published only in journals without referees."

Edit: I see on Google that the EPR paper was published in the Physical Review, so the book is wrong on the above quote. But Einstein didn't submit the paper (according to this link (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/)), so the book's quote may be true for papers that Einstein submitted himself.

ZapperZ

Jun16-05, 01:35 PM

Doesn’t matter. They weren’t peer-reviewed, and they were published in the last 100 years.

And what you call as "editor review", I call it "peer review". I hate to think that you do not consider Max Planck as a "peer" of Einstein at that time! Someone had to decide that there was merit in Einstein's work, and it certainly wasn't someone ignorant of physics.

Ask any physicist if they think Annalen der Physik isn't a "peer-review" journal but instead a free-for-all. I have seen Conference proceedings with LESS review than what Einstein's 1905 paper had to go through. If Annalen der Physik isn't "peer-reviewed", I challenge you to submit a bunch of garbage to it and get it published. This is the only way to prove to me someone isn't at the other end checking for the quality of work being submitted. And THAT is the whole point of the challenge. Someone who is an expert in the subject HAD to judge the merit of a particular work! It isn't an open forum where EVERYONE can say whatever they like regardless of how valid or high the quality of what they're saying.

No, I’m just addressing your specific statement above.

Oops, Physical Review, not Physical Review Letters.

I didn’t say that. I said he was dismayed by an unexpected review. The book Albert Einstein says, "Einstein withdrew the paper, henceforward avoided the Physical Review, and published only in journals without referees."

Edit: I see on Google that the EPR paper was published in the Physical Review, so the book is wrong on the above quote. But Einstein didn't submit the paper (according to this link (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/)), so the book's quote may be true for papers that Einstein submitted himself.

Please check how many of Einstein's work that was published in peer-reviewed journals, thankyouverymuch. You should do this yourself rather than trust FAULTY sources. All you have done so far is to accept as valid 3rd, even 4th hand information rather than checking the facts. You could have, for instance, EASILY check that PRL didn't appear in the 30's, and that Einstein DID publish in many peer-reviewed journals.

Zz.

Zanket

Jun16-05, 04:54 PM

And what you call as "editor review", I call it "peer review". I hate to think that you do not consider Max Planck as a "peer" of Einstein at that time! Someone had to decide that there was merit in Einstein's work, and it certainly wasn't someone ignorant of physics.

I take it you disagree with the link's claim, coorborated by my book, that "The journal's editor in chief, Max Planck, recognized the virtue of publishing such outlandish ideas and had the papers published; none of Einstein's papers were sent to reviewers." I wouldn't call an editor review a peer review.

Please check how many of Einstein's work that was published in peer-reviewed journals, thankyouverymuch. You should do this yourself rather than trust FAULTY sources. All you have done so far is to accept as valid 3rd, even 4th hand information rather than checking the facts. You could have, for instance, EASILY check that PRL didn't appear in the 30's, and that Einstein DID publish in many peer-reviewed journals.

One source is good enough for a post like this; I’d rather be wrong than spend oodles of time. I still have two sources that say that the 1905 papers were not peer-reviewed.

ZapperZ

Jun16-05, 05:08 PM

I take it you disagree with the link's claim, coorborated by my book, that "The journal's editor in chief, Max Planck, recognized the virtue of publishing such outlandish ideas and had the papers published; none of Einstein's papers were sent to reviewers."

One source is good enough for a post like this; I’d rather be wrong than spend oodles of time. I still have two sources that say that the 1905 papers were not peer-reviewed.

Then you have a very strange way of sticking with the "phrase" without understanding the concept. Pattern like this is a major problem with people bringing in pedestrian terms into physics. The fact that SOMEONE had to decide on the quality of merit of his work meant that it was REVIEWED, unless you have evidence that Planck simply signed off on those papers WITHOUT reading them. Did "the book" tells you that too?

The editors of any journal always have the final say on the fate of any submission. I've seen many instances in which conflicting referee reports require that the editors make the final judgement. You cite this example as if it is unusual - IT ISN'T, at least back then. It is a common practice before the peer-review system was well-established that the editor makes the judgement. But does this mean that Annalen der Physik is NOT a peer-reviewed journal?

Again, I ask you to send in a paper full of garbage and publish it there. Prove me wrong.

Question: Do you think the Science journal is a "peer-reviewed journal"?

Zz.

Zanket

Jun17-05, 10:33 AM

Then you have a very strange way of sticking with the "phrase" without understanding the concept.

I think I do understand. The determiner in this debate is the degree to which the papers were reviewed. Every article in every magazine generally gets reviewed by an editor, but to what degree? Check out (boldface mine):

From here:

All three [of Einstein’s breakthrough 1905] papers were published in Annalen der Physik, one of the major physics journals in Germany. But none of the papers were sent to referees. Instead the editors—either the editor in chief, Man Planck, or the editor for theoretical physics, Wilhelm Wien—made the decision to publish. It is unlikely that whoever made the decision spent much time on whether to publish. Almost every paper submitted was published. So few people wanted to publish in any physics journal that editors rarely rejected submitted papers. Only papers that were clearly “crackpot” papers—papers that any professional physicist could recognize as written by someone completely unfamiliar with the elementary laws of physics—were rejected.

But does this mean that Annalen der Physik is NOT a peer-reviewed journal?

It may be now. I would say that it was not back then. If it was, then by the same measure most any magazine is peer-reviewed, like Vogue.

Again, I ask you to send in a paper full of garbage and publish it there. Prove me wrong.

Irrelevant. I couldn’t get away with that with Vogue for a fashion article either.

Question: Do you think the Science journal is a "peer-reviewed journal"?

Yes. Question: Do you think Vogue is a peer-reviewed journal?

P.S. I messed up - I accidentely posted my reply via "editing" your post. I tried to restore as much as I can of the original message - Zz.

jma2001

Jun17-05, 12:33 PM

If I may be so bold as to intrude on this debate ...

Zanket, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? ZapperZ has told you that no idea that has never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal has made a significant advancement in the body of knowledge of physics within the past 100 years. Even if you could find a counterexample from a century ago, what use would it be to you now? You need to work within the system as it exists today, not as it existed back then.

Instead of trying to find a one-in-a-million loophole through which to beat the system, it seems to me that a much more interesting and fruitful question for you to ask would be, "Have any persons with no prior scientific credentials managed to publish an idea in a peer-reviewed journal during the past 100 years, and if so, how did they do it?"

Zanket

Jun17-05, 04:50 PM

All I am saying here is that ZapperZ's claim is false. It's an interesting challenge I took on. That's all. I wouldn't read anything more into it.

ZapperZ

Jun17-05, 05:13 PM

I think I do understand. The determiner in this debate is the degree to which the papers were reviewed. Every article in every magazine generally gets reviewed by an editor, but to what degree? Check out (boldface mine):

Oh, so now we are arguing about the DEGREE of something being reviewed? Recall that I asked originally to show anything that has NEVER appeared in a peer-reviewed journal have made a significant impact in the body of knowledge of physics.

You are now claiming that (i) Annalen Der Physik is NOT a peer-reviewed journal, (ii) and never was even during Einstein's time, EVEN when whoever is in charged ROUTINELY decides what has merit to be published and what doesn't, and (iii) Einstein's 1905 paper was not "reviewed" in any fashion by even one expert in the field.

If (i), (ii), (iii), are true, then you have satisfied in falsifying my claim. Now, you will pardon my saying this, but find me a consensus that show all three of those points are valid. All you have done or could do is to quote SPECULATION like this:

From here (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:7T80CoxZEcUJ:www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf+einstein+%22peer-review%22+planck&hl=en):

All three [of Einstein’s breakthrough 1905] papers were published in Annalen der Physik, one of the major physics journals in Germany. But none of the papers were sent to referees. Instead the editors—either the editor in chief, Man Planck, or the editor for theoretical physics, Wilhelm Wien—made the decision to publish. It is unlikely that whoever made the decision spent much time on whether to publish. Almost every paper submitted was published. So few people wanted to publish in any physics journal that editors rarely rejected submitted papers. Only papers that were clearly “crackpot” papers—papers that any professional physicist could recognize as written by someone completely unfamiliar with the elementary laws of physics—were rejected.

Sorry, but "it is unlikely"? And crackpot were rejected? So if I barely reviewed a paper, there is a certainly level now that we can use as a standard to formally declare that a paper hasn't been "peer-reviwed"? And you think a website like that can actually gather enough information to conclusively make the statement that neither Planck nor Wein actually made much attempt to review it?

There is SO much speculation being said above, I am astonish that you actually put THAT much emphasize on the validity and credibility of such a statement. The National Enquirer puts more definite statement in their gossips than that!

It may be now. I would say that it was not back then. If it was, then by the same measure most any magazine is peer-reviewed, like Vogue.

Irrelevant. I couldn’t get away with that with Vogue for a fashion article either.

Question: Do you think the Science journal is a "peer-reviewed journal"?

Yes. Question: Do you think Vogue is a peer-reviewed journal?

So you are telling me that you do not see any difference between, for example, Science and Vogue? Because if you seriously can't, then this "discussion" has been a waste of time.

And here's the reason why I asked about Science. The decision to published the infamous "fusion via sonoluminescence" did not come from the referees. In fact, even Oak Ridge's management requsted that the paper not be published. The editors made a unilateral decision to publish such a thing, for better or for worse. Now, did that make Science a "non peer-reviewed" journal all of the sudden, due to this one article? According to you, it does!

The fact that there IS an oversight, and that anything and everything DOES NOT get accepted, is the VERY essence of a peer-review system. This system is NOT well-established before the 1900's. Look at where most science are done at that time and how it is distributed! More often, it is the head of the society and the editors of a journal that decide what goes in - and they still do even today! Physics journal editors are physicists themselves! Go to a colloquium at Brookhaven and there's a good chance the editors of Physical Review journals are in the audience. (The Physical Review offices are in Ridge, NY, about 15-20 mins from Brookhaven Lab).

And note why I put out the challenge in the first place. It is to point out to those who seem to think the stuff they do on open forums would amount to anything. It doesn't! It must appear FIRST in a peer-reviewed journal. This is a necessary (but not sufficient) criteria. Einstein's 1905 papers satisfy this without any doubt. It would have been FOOLISH of me to put a challenge like that without being aware about the 3 most significant papers in the history of physics. You will note that unlike "the book" that you use as your source of info, I do double check my sources and do my homework in verifying them.

Annalen Der Physik is NOT an open, free-for all forum. It never was. In fact, it IS and WAS a "peer-reviewed" journal by the standard held AT THAT TIME. Anyone who thinks that Einstein's papers appearing in there, under ANY circumstances, is equivalent to a "paper" appearing on PF's TD section, is in serious need of a reality check.

Zz.

Zanket

Jun18-05, 04:23 PM

Oh, so now we are arguing about the DEGREE of something being reviewed?

It seems necessary to delve into that, yes.

You are now claiming that (i) Annalen Der Physik is NOT a peer-reviewed journal, (ii) and never was even during Einstein's time, EVEN when whoever is in charged ROUTINELY decides what has merit to be published and what doesn't, and (iii) Einstein's 1905 paper was not "reviewed" in any fashion by even one expert in the field.

On (i), I didn’t say that. On (ii), I claim that it was not a peer-reviewed journal in Einstein’s time. On (iii), no, I didn’t say that.

And you think a website like that can actually gather enough information to conclusively make the statement that neither Planck nor Wein actually made much attempt to review it?

A statement that it was unlikely, yes.

So you are telling me that you do not see any difference between, for example, Science and Vogue?

I’m saying that I don’t see much difference between the degree of review involved in a journal that publishes almost everything submitted after only an editorial review, and the degree of review that Vogue does.

Now, did that make Science a "non peer-reviewed" journal all of the sudden, due to this one article? According to you, it does!

I didn’t imply that. There are exception to the rule. But at Annalen der Physik in 1905, the rule was the exception. Papers were routinely published after an editorial review, and most papers submitted were published.

The fact that there IS an oversight, and that anything and everything DOES NOT get accepted, is the VERY essence of a peer-review system.

How do you explain that Annalen der Physik published most everything submitted in 1905? Did it just have the good luck to receive only papers that passed muster?

This system is NOT well-established before the 1900's.

The website says that peer-review started in the 1950s. The website talks about another German journal, which by rule published everything submitted by members of a German physicists group, including an important work by Heisenberg.

And note why I put out the challenge in the first place. It is to point out to those who seem to think the stuff they do on open forums would amount to anything. It doesn't! It must appear FIRST in a peer-reviewed journal. This is a necessary (but not sufficient) criteria.

I am not disputing that.

You will note that unlike "the book" that you use as your source of info, I do double check my sources and do my homework in verifying them.

I have offered three sources.

Annalen Der Physik is NOT an open, free-for all forum. It never was. In fact, it IS and WAS a "peer-reviewed" journal by the standard held AT THAT TIME.

By “the standard held at that time” is a huge caveat. I don’t see where you made that clear in your challenge. And that implies that you agree that by today’s standards it was not a peer-reviewed journal. Regardless, the important paper by Heisenberg still seems to win the challenge, for the journal in which it was published was not a peer-reviewed journal by even a very low standard.

Anyone who thinks that Einstein's papers appearing in there, under ANY circumstances, is equivalent to a "paper" appearing on PF's TD section, is in serious need of a reality check.

I don’t claim that it’s equivalent. From what I’ve read, Annalen der Physik in 1905 had the hurdle that one’s first paper was scrutinized (by a top-notch physicist or two) and after that you pretty much got a free pass except for a cursory review (again by a top-notch physicist or two). That is significantly different than PF’s TD section.

ZapperZ

Jun18-05, 05:12 PM

I don’t claim that it’s equivalent. From what I’ve read, Annalen der Physik in 1905 had the hurdle that one’s first paper was scrutinized (by a top-notch physicist or two) and after that you pretty much got a free pass except for a cursory review (again by a top-notch physicist or two). That is significantly different than PF’s TD section.

But THIS was what "peer-review" was then!

Annalen der Physik and the Proc. of the Royal Soc. of London were practically the Nature and Science of that time! Science and Nature today STILL have the editors as the major hurdle for any paper submitted. In fact, half of the paper submitted to those journals never even get to any reviewers. This practice is more central before the 1900 where editors ARE the reviewers!

It is astounding that Annalen der Physik is not considered to be a "peer-reviewed" journal back then. Just look at some of the most important papers published in there even before Einstein! When you have people like Planck reviewing your work and deciding what gets published, I can't think of what could be more "peer-review" than that! The important point is that SOMEONE has to decide what gets published, and this someone is an expert in THAT field, and not some lawyer or politician, or Vogue editor. It is, and was not, a free for all. If you don't see this as peer-reviewed, then I don't know what is.

Zz.

Zanket

Jun19-05, 09:29 AM

OK, we’ve hashed out the 1905 papers as far as we can.

I submit for your challenge Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ( http://www.theworldsgreatbooks.com/heisenberg.htm), published in 1927 in Zeitschrift fur Physik, which was not a peer-reviewed journal.

From here ( http://www.designinference.com/documents/05.02.resp_to_wein.htm) (boldface mine):

One final word about peer-review. As Frank Tipler pointed out to me, the idea of peer-review as the touchstone for truth and scientific merit is actually a post Second World War invention. In physics, peer-reviewed journals were not the norm until after 1950. In Germany, during the "Beautiful Years" -- the period when quantum mechanics was being invented in the 1920s – one of the leading German physics journals, Zeitschrift fur Physik, was not peer-reviewed: any member of the German Physical Society could publish there by simply submitting the paper. So, if you had a really wild idea, all you had to do to get it published was ask a member of the GPS to submit it for you. (If you were a member, you could of course submit for yourself.) Heisenberg published his paper on the Uncertainty Principle in this journal, and Friedmann published his paper on the Friedmann universe (now the standard cosmological model) in this journal. No peer-review. Lots of brilliant physics.

ZapperZ

Jun19-05, 12:36 PM

OK, we’ve hashed out the 1905 papers as far as we can.

I submit for your challenge Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ( http://www.theworldsgreatbooks.com/heisenberg.htm), published in 1927 in Zeitschrift fur Physik, which was not a peer-reviewed journal.

And again, it is as if I'm not aware of such practices when I made the challenge. Zeitschrift fur Physik IS and WAS a "restricted" journal. Read what you wrote on who can and cannot publish in it. I would like to point out that Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) currently HAS the identical rule! But look at who is allowed to send in for publication. So why bother looking at old, extinct journals if you want such an example? However, I again challenge any quack who thinks he/she can get published in PNAS.

Even then, I disagree with the description of Z-physics (that's what most of us call it) as having a complete absence of oversight. Again, the editors played a significant role in selecting what gets published, even before 1950. Read the editorial policy back then if you understand German, or have someone translate it for you.

Zz.

Zanket

Jun22-05, 02:12 AM

Zeitschrift fur Physik IS and WAS a "restricted" journal. Read what you wrote on who can and cannot publish in it.

The question is only, was it a peer-reviewed journal? If its rule was that its editors could not prevent publication of a serious physics paper as submitted, then that does not meet even the lowest standard of peer-review in my book. The only determination for publication of a submission that the editors need make in that case is to make sure the paper is a bona fide attempt at physics. That would take maybe five minutes of “peer-review” per paper.

Read the editorial policy back then if you understand German, or have someone translate it for you.

I cannot find this on Google. I will have to defer to you on that.

Regardless, since the three sources I gave explicitly disagree with you that Einstein’s 1905 papers were peer-reviewed, I think you should be more careful when making this challenge in the future. To be less confusing, I suggest limiting the challenge not to non-peer-reviewed papers, but rather to papers that were published outside of a mainstream physics journal. Only now do I understand that this is what you really meant, since all your comments show that, to you, mainstream physics journal within the last 100 years = peer-reviewed journal.

ZapperZ

Jun22-05, 06:50 AM

The question is only, was it a peer-reviewed journal? If its rule was that its editors could not prevent publication of a serious physics paper as submitted, then that does not meet even the lowest standard of peer-review in my book. The only determination for publication of a submission that the editors need make in that case is to make sure the paper is a bona fide attempt at physics. That would take maybe five minutes of “peer-review” per paper.

You will understand if I don't accept what's in "your book".

I asked for "standards" as accepted by people in the physics profession, not my or your personal opinions, in designating what are considered to be "peer-reviewed" journals. It is without doubt that BOTH journals that you have brought up ARE considered to be peer-reviewed journals by people in this profession.

I cannot find this on Google. I will have to defer to you on that.

Regardless, since the three sources I gave explicitly disagree with you that Einstein’s 1905 papers were peer-reviewed, I think you should be more careful when making this challenge in the future. To be less confusing, I suggest limiting the challenge not to non-peer-reviewed papers, but rather to papers that were published outside of a mainstream physics journal. Only now do I understand that this is what you really meant, since all your comments show that, to you, mainstream physics journal within the last 100 years = peer-reviewed journal.

And I disagree. Your sources, especially on Einstein papers (reread what you quoted from them) made WILD speculations that maybe they weren't, likely they weren't, probabily they weren't, etc.... peer-reviewed. And you actually BELIEVE this and conclude that this is definitive enough?

No, you have not disproven my challenge.

Zz.

Zanket

Jun22-05, 05:07 PM

ZapperZ

Jun22-05, 06:33 PM

One of the sources I gave, the one who says that peer review started in the 1950s, is a professor of physics. People responding to your claim will check sources, and where those disagree with you, they should not be expected to realize that you are God.

Again, REREAD the NATURE of your source! You are quoting someone who is quoting Frank Tipler. And your "primary" source here is someone who is having a "wonderful" time on a website making a cases against another person. In other words, you are using a diatribe of someone against someone else, and in all of this, you managed to SQUEEEEZE the flimsiest of "evidence" from Tipler. Please look that it is ambigous if Tipler actually said anything beyond the statement that ".... the idea of peer-review as the touchstone for truth and scientific merit is actually a post Second World War invention", and that he IF actually made the comment about Z-physics journal. May I suggest that you contact Tipler himself and verify that (i) this is what he meant (ii) if this is universally accepted as the accurate impression that Z-physics is NOT a peer-reviewed journal by ANY standards.

What amazes me is that you are willing to settle for such mediocre and, at best, DUBIOUS 2nd or even 3rd hand sources, rather than do your homework and go to the actual source. And then you do not feel anything icky about making definitive statement using them! Look up Z-physics journals (there are English translations), double check if Einstein DID publish (and how many) in Physical Review, etc... etc. You have shown that your sources can screw up big time. There's nothing here to tell me that this is any different.

Zz.

Zanket

Jun23-05, 12:32 AM

Again, REREAD the NATURE of your source! You are quoting someone who is quoting Frank Tipler.

That was one of the sources I gave. I also gave a source, a paper of Tipler’s above, in which he says:

The peer review process was put in place after the Second World War because of the huge growth in the scientific community as well as the huge increase in pressure on scholars to publish more and more papers.

...

Only papers that were clearly “crackpot” papers—papers that any professional physicist could recognize as written by someone completely unfamiliar with the elementary laws of physics—were rejected [by mainstream physics journals circa 1905].

...

And if Annalen der Physik rejected a paper, for whatever reason, any professional German physicist had an alternative: Zeitschrift für Physik. This journal would publish any paper submitted by any member of the German Physical Society. This journal published quite a few worthless papers. But it also published quite a few great papers, among them Heisenberg’s first paper on the Uncertainty Principle, a central idea in quantum mechanics. There was no way in which referees or editors could stop an idea from appearing in the professional journals.

I also gave two other sources. Your argument here is that all of these sources are wrong when they say or clearly imply that Einstein’s 1905 papers and Heisenberg’s 1927 paper were not peer-reviewed. It doesn’t matter if they are wrong. People responding to your challenge will find these sources. You should warn people beforehand that you disagree with them.

ZapperZ

Jun23-05, 05:48 AM

I also gave two other sources. Your argument here is that all of these sources are wrong when they say or clearly imply that Einstein’s 1905 papers and Heisenberg’s 1927 paper were not peer-reviewed. It doesn’t matter if they are wrong. People responding to your challenge will find these sources. You should warn people beforehand that you disagree with them.

And notice I have said this repeatedly: (i) the challenge was to find something that did NOT appear in a peer-reviewed journal (i.e. it appeared in a free-for-all-commers) that has many any significant impact on physics, and (ii) a "restricted membership" publication such as PNAS is far from being considered an open, non-peer reviewed journal!

EVEN if you were right (which I disagree), that Einstein's 1905 paper wasn't peer-reviewed, it STILL appeared in a peer-reviewed journal by ANY standard! If Planck or Wein did decide to publish this without giving it to anyone else, well GOOD FOR THEM! They are exercising their duty as editors! I asked you a similar case in Science and you still considered it to be a peer-review journal. It is just that cases like these are more often before 1800 and the early part of the 20th century because there aren't that many physicists. But Annalen... does not make such an exception ALL the time even back then! Thus, similar case as Science!

I want to know how many physicist would consider PNAS as "non-peer reviewed". Tell me who gets to publish in it, and what criteria is used for one to be inducted into the Nat'l Academy of Sciences. And then, compare this to the German physical society version at that time. With your wealth of sources, I'm sure you can come up with this.

Zz.

Zanket

Jun24-05, 12:39 PM

From this thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=614437&posted=1#post614437):
Go re-read that link you gave by Tipler. I find it appaling that you would cite him RELIGIOUSLY in here and in that "other" thread about the TD section when it suits your need, and yet, you IGNORED completely when he CLEARLY said that with regards to Einstein's 1905 paper, it was, in the truest sense, "peer-reviewed".

He clearly said the opposite of what you imply. He said that Einstein’s papers were reviewed (although likely only cursorily) by a peer, Planck or Wien; i.e. peers of Einstein’s caliber. His next sentences are:

Today, Einstein’s papers would be sent to some total nonentity at Podunk U, who, being completely incapable of understanding important new ideas, would reject the papers for publication. “Peer” review is very unlikely to be peer review for the Einsteins of the world.

His proposed solution is that the papers of geniuses should not be peer-reviewed in the way that means today, but rather reviewed by peers of the same caliber, i.e. other open-minded geniuses.

ZapperZ

Jun24-05, 03:57 PM

He clearly said the opposite of what you imply. He said that Einstein’s papers were reviewed (although likely only cursorily) by a peer, Planck or Wien; i.e. peers of Einstein’s caliber. His next sentences are:

And where did Tipler said "cursorily"? You appear to agree to the letter with him, and yet, deviate substantially with him on this. Tipler is of the opinion that Einstein's paper was reviewed BY his peers! Done!

His proposed solution is that the papers of geniuses should not be peer-reviewed in the way that means today, but rather reviewed by peers of the same caliber, i.e. other open-minded geniuses.

And you accused me of being "haughty"?

If *I* were to be the one spouting such views, the quacks around the world would gleefully point to me as being ellietist, and that only another "genius" can be intelligent enough to evaluate our work. I'm shocked you actually bought into this.

"Geniuses" has ZERO guarantee to being treated with kid gloves! This is not a religious order where, just because you have some "geniuses" IQ, you have a free pass! It is EXACTLY what makes science, and especially physics, different from religion - even Nobel laureates will have to make his/her case heard and argue convincingly.

The path through science isn't easy - the path to be part of the accepted knowledge is even longer. It is why the accepted laws of physics stays constant and RELIABLE for a long time until there is enough convincing evidence to the contrary. Would you prefer we change our physics as often as some of the diet fads? Part of the process IS the struggle to get published, and get published in respected journal. These journals are respected NOT for nothing. Respect is never given - it is earned! In none of these struggles have there ever, EVER, been any significant ideas or discovery that could not make it into such journals, be it sooner or later. This is what is boils down to, not some wild speculation.

Zz.

Zanket

Jun25-05, 01:37 AM

And where did Tipler said "cursorily"?

It is implied in the sentence “It is unlikely that whoever made the decision spent much time on whether to publish [Einstein’s 1905 papers].”

Tipler is of the opinion that Einstein's paper was reviewed BY his peers! Done!

Done only with the understanding that “reviewed BY his peers” is the opposite of “peer-review” in Tipler’s paper. In his paper, “peer-review” is done by “pygmies”, whereas Einstein’s reviewing peers were “giants” like Einstein was.

I'm shocked you actually bought into this.

I did not. I think Tipler’s proposal would be an improvement on the current system, which is why I quote him on it, but it is indeed elitist, therefore suboptimal. I proposed to him a solution that is far more democratic.

"Geniuses" has ZERO guarantee to being treated with kid gloves! This is not a religious order where, just because you have some "geniuses" IQ, you have a free pass! It is EXACTLY what makes science, and especially physics, different from religion - even Nobel laureates will have to make his/her case heard and argue convincingly.

Yes, but they should not have to argue to closed-minded gatekeepers. That is Tipler’s point, and I agree with it. Their papers should not be rejected for the mere reason that the idea within is novel. That places the bar unreasonably high.

The path through science isn't easy - the path to be part of the accepted knowledge is even longer. It is why the accepted laws of physics stays constant and RELIABLE for a long time until there is enough convincing evidence to the contrary. Would you prefer we change our physics as often as some of the diet fads?

I would prefer we change our physics so that, if someone has convincing evidence to the contrary, small-minded gatekeepers cannot squash the paper merely for the “contrary” part.

Part of the process IS the struggle to get published, and get published in respected journal.

That is the status quo, obviously suboptimal. An optimal process does not require a struggle by those with great ideas. Those people are instead free to spend all their working hours coming up with great ideas. Only the ideas themselves go through the struggle. The authors simply release them. The ideas do not get locked in to a journal, which lets great ideas in “unrespected” journals become lost to science.

In none of these struggles have there ever, EVER, been any significant ideas or discovery that could not make it into such journals, be it sooner or later.

That is unknowable. You put the cart before the horse. There is no way that anyone can know that no great ideas have been lost to science due to the author losing (or not entering) the battle to get their ideas published.

ZapperZ

Jun25-05, 07:25 AM

That is unknowable. You put the cart before the horse. There is no way that anyone can know that no great ideas have been lost to science due to the author losing (or not entering) the battle to get their ideas published.

And to me, this is the crux of this whole argument. I am not putting the cart before the horse - you are! You are speculating what possibily have been lost without showing even a single shred of evidence that something like this HAS occured. Do you also think a broken vase will spontaneously reassemble itself into the orginal vase if I throw it onto the floor? The phase space for that to occur is almost too small for you to revolve your life around such possibility. You don't even run your life as if you're WILL win the lottery sometime in your lifetime, even when we have seen ordinary people winning them. We have seen no such instances for the scenario you're proposing, so this is even worse! Yet, you STILL want us to devote our resources to consider a possibility that has NEVER happened.

I asked you way earlier in the "Abstract" thread if you, yourself would consider what you have submitted seriously, when faced with TONS and tons of material coming in weekly for you to review and the circumstances of who you are. You said "no". Now this is even BEFORE you review the work being submitted. And when you submit your paper to Science, you are just ASKING for an outright rejection. Why would you do such a dumb thing? What is wrong with working your way UP? We all had to do that! Or are you simply interested in dissing the system and this rejection is just the excuse you need to be able to do that?

I find your approach to trying to establish your work to be VERY insincere. If I'm trying to coming with something in which I (i) have no formal expertise in and (ii) haven't established my reputation, the LAST thing I want to do is come out like gangbusters and proclaim that everyone should pay attention to me. What kind of a hoax is that? This has NOTHING to do with physics, or astronony, or even science. Do this in ANY area of human endeavor and you will be treated the a pariah. Did you try to talk to an expert in the field and get his/her opinion on what you had in mind? Did you try to get an expert to, at least, listen to you and comment on your work? And when you have that, did you try to get that person to endorse your work and write an accompanying letter on your behalf to a journal to establish the "validity" of your work? No, you didn't! You didn't even try to get an endorser for the arxiv till recently!

Instead, you went straight to the top, and when you get rejected (something you were already expecting), you acted as if ALL the fault did not lie with you! Consider the possibility that you went about this the WRONG way and stop blaiming others!

Zz.

Zanket

Jun26-05, 06:56 PM

You are speculating what possibily have been lost without showing even a single shred of evidence that something like this HAS occured.

Ideas lost to science are by definition unavailable to be shown.

Yet, you STILL want us to devote our resources to consider a possibility that has NEVER happened.

When the bar is unreasonably high, when great ideas are rejected for the mere reason of being novel, some loss of them to science is likely. This could happen as easily as the author dying during the battle to be published.

And when you submit your paper to Science, you are just ASKING for an outright rejection. Why would you do such a dumb thing?

This and the rest of your post refer to the "abstract" thread. If you put your comments there, I’ll respond to them.

ZapperZ

Jun26-05, 08:36 PM

When the bar is unreasonably high, when great ideas are rejected for the mere reason of being novel, some loss of them to science is likely. This could happen as easily as the author dying during the battle to be published.

But WHAT great idea? Yours? You have shown ZERO cases where a 'great' idea WAS rejected and never did appear in such medium.

What I can show is mediocre, awful, and wrong ideas that have been rejected. And this is not a speculation either.

Zz.

Zanket

Jun26-05, 11:53 PM

But WHAT great idea? Yours? You have shown ZERO cases where a 'great' idea WAS rejected and never did appear in such medium.

It is not necessary to show any cases to know that some loss of great ideas to science is likely when the bar for novel ideas is unreasonably high. Obviously, if the bar was gone, then no ideas would be lost, and if the bar were insurmountable then all ideas would be lost. Therefore a bar set too high will likely lose some ideas.

Are you really arguing for a system that rejects novel ideas merely for being novel? Or are you just being argumentative?

brewnog

Jun27-05, 06:23 AM

Are you really arguing for a system that rejects novel ideas merely for being novel? Or are you just being argumentative?

I don't think he has a problem with novel ideas. Just wrong ones.

ZapperZ

Jun27-05, 06:51 AM

It is not necessary to show any cases to know that some loss of great ideas to science is likely when the bar for novel ideas is unreasonably high. Obviously, if the bar was gone, then no ideas would be lost, and if the bar were insurmountable then all ideas would be lost. Therefore a bar set too high will likely lose some ideas.

FALSE. I've seen many people posted their "theory" on the 'net as early as 1988! Anyone reading Usenet at that time can tell you this. These people could not get into such journals even if their life depended on it. Yet, after ALL that time, one has claimed they were the first one to discover or formulated anything that is now a part of physics!

And it IS necessary to show such cases. If not, you are claiming something that never happened. You might as well claim that angels are reponsible for the processes in the universe, but they can't be detected because they are in a separate dimension than us. This is not science or a valid claim in science. Add this to what I've claimed that you have the propensity to do, and you're not making this any better.

Are you really arguing for a system that rejects novel ideas merely for being novel? Or are you just being argumentative?

Please don't talk to me about "novel ideas" till you have understood what is meant to be a physicist employed to do research work. For some reason, people like you seem to either ignore, or completely ignorant of the fact that practicing physicists, by definition, are employed to find new things, study things that simply do not have a current explanation, come up with new ideas, or even find something that goes beyond what we understand.

The issue remains that you cannot, not even one, cite an example where a work has been lost due to the current journal system. You have zero evidence to back your claim. This makes it an empty claim. People use way too much discussion/argumentation technique from... oh, let's say politics where handwaving and "persuasive" arguments are sufficient without any proofs to convince and fool people. I would expect people on PF deserve at least something better than just empty speculation without any foundation on evidence.

Zz.

Zanket

Jun27-05, 06:03 PM

For some reason, people like you seem to either ignore, or completely ignorant of the fact that practicing physicists, by definition, are employed to find new things, study things that simply do not have a current explanation, come up with new ideas, or even find something that goes beyond what we understand.

Then how do you explain Tipler’s claim that many ideas that have changed science were initially summarily rejected?

The issue remains that you cannot, not even one, cite an example where a work has been lost due to the current journal system.

I cannot, and to me it’s basic logic as to why. In any case we’ve hashed this one to death.

Tom Mattson

Jun27-05, 06:16 PM

If I may...

ZapperZ: The issue remains that you cannot, not even one, cite an example where a work has been lost due to the current journal system.

Zanket: I cannot, and to me it’s basic logic as to why.

How's that? The referees and editors of journals don't have the power to silence independent researchers or destroy all extant copies of their work. It should be especially easy to find works that have been or would be rejected by scientific journals, now that we are in the Information Age. It would take me less than a half hour to produce 10 websites containing such research, and I think you know that.

If your "basic logic" is that scientific work is either passed by the peer-review system or utterly lost, then I'm afraid you are reasoning by a false dichotomy. "Lost to the system" does not mean "lost to the rest of the world". I do not understand why you consistently eschew the request to cite such an example, when a good one would bolster your case so much.

ZapperZ

Jun27-05, 06:32 PM

Then how do you explain Tipler’s claim that many ideas that have changed science were initially summarily rejected?

And where have these ideas summarily appeared to eventually to have "changed" science? I thought the "lost ideas" never existed per your logic? So how did you know about them? Or is it the case where these "rejected" ideas did appear in peer-reviewed journals eventually, maybe even in a stronger form based on what the authors learned from the initial criticism. You obviously still have not read Koshland's article nor understood what he said about multiple journals.

I cannot, and to me it’s basic logic as to why. In any case we’ve hashed this one to death.

So your logic says you can't produce a single example, yet you believe they exist. And you're not the LEAST be uncomfortable to make such definitive statement of their existence?

Zz.

Zanket

Jun27-05, 09:08 PM

It should be especially easy to find works that have been or would be rejected by scientific journals, now that we are in the Information Age.

And who is examining those works for worthiness? By “lost” I mean “all but lost”. If one great idea lies in a pile of ten thousand other works, I won’t find it. Likely no one else will either. The best chance for science to benefit from the idea was when it was in the reviewers’ hands.

"Lost to the system" does not mean "lost to the rest of the world".

It can mean “all but lost”. Suppose an author dies in the five year struggle to get a great idea published. Who is going to champion that idea then? It may be findable on Google along with a million other papers, but who will even read it?

I do not understand why you consistently eschew the request to cite such an example, when a good one would bolster your case so much.

I won’t look. If common sense doesn't bolster my case, nothing will.

Tom Mattson

Jun27-05, 09:23 PM

Zanket, no one works in a vacuum. If an idea is truly great there will be colleagues and collaborators who will know that it is great and who will want to be recognized for working on it and/or reporting it. Furthermore, there is plenty of informal communication between researchers outside of the journal system, via (among other vehicles) usenet. A person would have to go out of his way to have his ideas not heard by qualified ears these days.

If common sense doesn't bolster my case, nothing will.

That is not true. An example of what you are talking about will bolster your case.

I am with ZapperZ in not seeing any common sense in worrying about the loss of research which you do not know exists, and will not look for.

arildno

Jun28-05, 05:47 AM

I would like to add that a great, correct scientific idea cannot get "lost" in the way a great work of art can be lost for all eternity.

If the scientific idea is correct but is forgotten/overlooked, then the natural phenomena it manages to describe so well will still be around until the end of time , i.e, there's always possible to rediscover the idea.
This cannot be regarded as true for a great work of art, the production of which is way too dependent on the actual author to allow any exact rewriting.

Zanket

Jun29-05, 11:58 AM

Zanket, no one works in a vacuum.

Einstein originally did, unless you want to count his friend Besso. You think Besso could have championed Einstein's ideas in his stead? Newton also worked in a vacuum.

How do we know that there are not more "Einsteins" out there today? Wait—let me guess—because I can't show you one!

A person would have to go out of his way to have his ideas not heard by qualified ears these days.

According to evidence given by Tipler (in his paper linked above), that is true only if one is credentialed and the idea is not novel. Otherwise, it will likely be rejected posthaste for those reasons alone; i.e. the idea is not really considered. Tipler makes the point that science nowadays is not amenable to ideas that upset the status quo, because so much rides on that (grant money, careers, etc.).

Zanket

Jun29-05, 12:07 PM

If the scientific idea is correct but is forgotten/overlooked, then the natural phenomena it manages to describe so well will still be around until the end of time , i.e, there's always possible to rediscover the idea.

I agree with that. An example is hydraulic cement (cement that hardens underwater), the recipe for which was lost for some thousand years after the Roman empire fell, until someone rediscovered it to make a lighthouse in the 1700s. But the loss I am talking about is that of, for example, a thousand years in which the cement could have been used to benefit society.

arildno

Jun29-05, 12:30 PM

True enough.

However, I cannot agree with your saying that Einstein and Newton worked in a "vacuum".
They were fully up-to-date with the newest development in their fields, by either correspondence or the reading of scientific journals.
Clearly, however, Newton in particular might be regarded as working in some sort of "vacuum" because his own ideas soared above those of his contemporaries and thus had no one to learn from.

However, it is absolutely crucial that a given individual shows solid knowledge and understanding of previous results in the field of his interest; if it is evident that the individual suffers from gross ignorance&misunderstanding of these, it is fully justifiable to dismiss his "results" out of hand.

Zanket

Jun29-05, 12:53 PM

However, I cannot agree with your saying that Einstein and Newton worked in a "vacuum".
They were fully up-to-date with the newest development in their fields, by either correspondence or the reading of scientific journals.

I say that they worked in a vacuum not because of their skill, but because nobody else knew what they were working on, in detail enough to champion the idea in their stead, before they sought to publish.

However, it is absolutely crucial that a given individual shows solid knowledge and understanding of previous results in the field of his interest;

That certainly comes in handy, but it isn’t absolutely crucial. For example, if someone finds a math error in an accepted theory, as unlikely as that may be, they need not understand the whole theory to have an important idea in the field of that theory.

arildno

Jun29-05, 01:07 PM

For example, if someone finds a math error in an accepted theory, as unlikely as that may be, they need not understand the whole theory to have an important idea in the field of that theory.
By which they have shown a solid understanding and knowledge of the very limited area in which the error occurred.

Tom Mattson

Jun29-05, 04:59 PM

Einstein originally did, unless you want to count his friend Besso. You think Besso could have championed Einstein's ideas in his stead? Newton also worked in a vacuum.

OK, fine. Some people choose to work alone, and there's nothing that anyone can do to stop them. But that's not exactly what we were talking about, was it? We were talking about why you haven't produced any examples of meritorious work that has been neglected by the journal system. And you have already given your answer: You don't have any examples, and you will not look for any.

So at least that settles that.

How do we know that there are not more "Einsteins" out there today? Wait—let me guess—because I can't show you one!

You certainly will not find one if you will not look for one.

According to evidence given by Tipler (in his paper linked above), that is true only if one is credentialed and the idea is not novel. Otherwise, it will likely be rejected posthaste for those reasons alone; i.e. the idea is not really considered. Tipler makes the point that science nowadays is not amenable to ideas that upset the status quo, because so much rides on that (grant money, careers, etc.).

Do you really need Tipler to tell you what is happening? Why don't you just look at sci.physics.research, or any other usenet group, and see for yourself that independent researchers and professional scientists occupy the same informal channels of communication. ZapperZ is a professional scientist, and he has told you himself that he has seen independent theories on the internet since 1988.

ZapperZ

Jun29-05, 05:59 PM

Einstein originally did, unless you want to count his friend Besso. You think Besso could have championed Einstein's ideas in his stead? Newton also worked in a vacuum.

How do we know that there are not more "Einsteins" out there today? Wait—let me guess—because I can't show you one!

If you think that you can easily and naively pin-point the reason why there are no more "Einstein" out there, then you are more ignorant than I even thought. This is especially true when Lee Smolin wrote an outstanding essay in THIS MONTH'S Physics Today titled "Why No 'New Einstein'?" Read it and see if it matches what you have in mind. Or do you only pay attention to Tipler, and even then, only select bits and pieces of what Tipler said?

Zz.

Zanket

Jun29-05, 07:05 PM

OK, fine. Some people choose to work alone, and there's nothing that anyone can do to stop them. But that's not exactly what we were talking about, was it?

Actually, it’s one of the main points being discussed here of late. The point is, when these people work alone to produce a great idea, the idea has a decent chance of being (all but) lost to science when their idea is often rejected out of hand by the peer-review process, merely for being novel or merely because the author lacks credentials. A reasonable person should not need any examples of actual loss to believe that there is a problem with such a process.

And no, I will not spend the rest of my life sifting through papers to find a gem to show you. It is unreasonable to suggest that I do, to make my point.

ZapperZ is a professional scientist, and he has told you himself that he has seen independent theories on the internet since 1988.

Tiper covers this in the first paragraphs of his paper. He says that a paper is generally ignored by scientists until it is published in a peer-reviewed journal. Tipler implies that, if Einstein submitted his 1905 papers today, they would be lost to science due to being rejected by the peer-reviewed journals.

And yeah, I really like Tipler’s paper. He says in it that today’s “unknown patent office clerk” is relegated to putting their paper in the lanl database (arXiv for physics). But, as I pointed out to him, that door has been closed. Now such authors need an endorsement from other authors in the database, but the endorsement rules for arXiv specifically warn endorsers: “You should not endorse the author … if the work is entirely disconnected with current work in the area”. In other words, do not endorse novel ideas; endorse only incremental ideas. There’s a good chance that an Einstein today, as a patent office clerk working alone, but having a paper as revolutionary as, say, special relativity, would not qualify even for arXiv.

Zanket

Jun29-05, 07:32 PM

If you think that you can easily and naively pin-point the reason why there are no more "Einstein" out there, then you are more ignorant than I even thought. This is especially true when Lee Smolin wrote an outstanding essay in THIS MONTH'S Physics Today titled "Why No 'New Einstein'?" Read it and see if it matches what you have in mind. Or do you only pay attention to Tipler, and even then, only select bits and pieces of what Tipler said?

Sounds like an interesting article, thanks. Alas, it seems to be available only by subscription. :(

I don't think I've taken Tipler out of context.

ZapperZ

Jun29-05, 07:38 PM

Actually, it’s one of the main points being discussed here of late...........

Tiper covers this in the first paragraphs of his paper. He says that a paper is generally ignored by scientists until it is published in a peer-reviewed journal. Tipler implies that, if Einstein submitted his 1905 papers today, they would be lost to science due to being rejected by the peer-reviewed journals.

But this is HINDSIGHT SPECULATION! It is NOT FACT!

I can also speculate that papers like Einstein WOULD be able to get published in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, they would have a GREATER chance at getting published because (i) there are waaaaay more physics journals than there were before (ii) most physics journals no longer have the all-powerful editors that sometime unilaterally decide on the fate of all papers (iii) even dubious and sometime highly controversial papers get published!

So what makes my speculation any worse than Tipler and yours? Unlike you, I can actually point to actual examples of all three points that I just made, so my speculation can be backed by real examples that actually happened, not just GUESSES.

You have the propensity of turning speculations and guesses into "facts", when in fact you have zero evidence. If you do this in your "paper", you shouldn't be surprised that it is rejected because of it and not because of what you think! Overly speculative as a response MAY in fact be accurate. Have you ever considered that possibility?

Zz.

Zanket

Jun29-05, 08:07 PM

So what makes my speculation any worse than Tipler and yours? Unlike you, I can actually point to actual examples of all three points that I just made, so my speculation can be backed by real examples that actually happened, not just GUESSES.

Let’s see your actual examples. Tipler offers real examples too.

You have the propensity of turning speculations and guesses into "facts", when in fact you have zero evidence.

You think Tipler is lying in his examples of groundbreaking papers whose authors say they initially got rejected by peer-reviewed journals?

Overly speculative as a response MAY in fact be accurate. Have you ever considered that possibility?

You’ve made a tenuous link to the “abstract” thread. The sci.physics.research mod subsequently told me that he did not read my paper. It turns out that s.p.r. does not allow discussion of unpublished papers, even a link to one. On s.p.r., unpublished papers are automatically “overly speculative.” Believe it or not.

jma2001

Jun29-05, 08:10 PM

Sounds like an interesting article, thanks. Alas, it seems to be available only by subscription. :(
There is a link to a "freely available" copy of Smolin's article here, if you wanted to read it:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/06/why-no-new-einstein.html

By the way, Zanket, thanks for sending me the link to your paper. As I told you before, I don't know enough about relativity to judge its validity, but it is clear that you put a lot of thought into it, and it does not read like an obvious crackpottery, at least not to me.

I am curious, though, why you are reluctant to post a link on this forum? Normally, links to personal theories are not allowed on PF, but I would think in your case an exception could be made, since your paper has been the subject of so much discussion. I am sure there are members other than myself (for instance, those who gave you advice in the "abstract" thread) who would be interested to read it.

Tom Mattson

Jun29-05, 08:14 PM

Actually, it’s one of the main points being discussed here of late. The point is, when these people work alone to produce a great idea, the idea has a decent chance of being (all but) lost to science when their idea is often rejected out of hand by the peer-review process, merely for being novel or merely because the author lacks credentials.

That wasn't the point that I responded to. I responded to your point that "basic logic" dictates that it is impossible for you to cite a single, worthwhile example of independent research that was rejected by the peer-review process.

In the course of the last few posts it has become clear that in order to concede to that point of yours, one would have to accept that every single independent theorist who does quality work is a complete recluse who does not collaborate with anyone. Aside from the fact that you have no evidence that such worthwhile independent research is even taking place, I still fail to see how it is not a far more likely scenario that this neo-Einstein is on usenet, or even on some vBulletin Forum, making his ideas known. Why wouldn't he be?

A reasonable person should not need any examples of actual loss to believe that there is a problem with such a process.

A reasonable person should not be expected to be bothered by what *might* happen under speculative conditions which he considers highly unlikely.

And no, I will not spend the rest of my life sifting through papers to find a gem to show you.

Well, then you will never turn up any evidence to support your claim. But as is clear from your other comments, this does not seem to bother you. But it should not be difficult to understand why other people do not think your point carries any force.

It is unreasonable to suggest that I do, to make my point.

Sorry, but it is exactly what you have to do to make your point.

jma2001

Jun29-05, 08:17 PM

I still fail to see how it is not a far more likely scenario that this neo-Einstein is not on usenet, or even on some vBulletin Forum, making his ideas known. Why wouldn't he be?
If the moderated Usenet groups do not allow unpublished papers to be discussed, that might explain why.

Tom Mattson

Jun29-05, 08:28 PM

If the moderated Usenet groups do not allow unpublished papers to be discussed, that might explain why.

Have you ever read usenet?

Thumb through the sci.* groups sometime. You'll find more non mainstream threads than you could possibly want to. Not being privvy to Zanket's conversation with the s.p.r mod, I don't know why his paper was rejected. What I do know is that right now, on the front page of s.p.r. is a thread entitled "New Physics Theory". Go check it out for yourself.

Zanket

Jun29-05, 08:41 PM

There is a link to a "freely available" copy of Smolin's article here, if you wanted to read it:

Thanks for the link! I'm reading it now. And thank you for your comments on my paper. Since I don’t want to discuss that here, I’ll email you my reply to your questions about it.

jma2001

Jun29-05, 08:44 PM

Thumb through the sci.* groups sometime. You'll find more non mainstream threads than you could possibly want to. Not being privvy to Zanket's conversation with the s.p.r mod, I don't know why his paper was rejected. What I do know is that right now, on the front page of s.p.r. is a thread entitled "New Physics Theory". Go check it out for yourself.
Yes, and I don't know how that could have gotten through the moderation while Zanket's paper was rejected. That web site does read like an obvious crackpottery, here are a few excerpts:

"Physics took a wrong turn 100 years ago from which it never recovered. It was transformed from the physical to the mathematical, which are merely tools for making calculations. It can be portrayed as God's magic trick, where physicists are spectators too easily satisfied without discovering how the trick is accomplished ...

"This book, begun in 1999, is a work-in-progress dealing with an all-encompassing physics theory, generically termed as a "theory of everything." Proposed is a new model of the universe, called the gyroverse, which explains the most mysterious physics anomalies ..."

Perhaps the inconsistency in applying the rules is part of the frustration.

Look, I do not wish to take sides in this debate, I am merely a curious amateur who is genuinely interested to know whether there is anything of value in Zanket's paper. As I said, I am not qualified to evaluate it myself, but if you, or ZapperZ, or Doc Al, were to read it and conclude that it is flawed, I would accept your judgement and drop the subject. The fact that no one is willing to even read his paper is what bothers me.

ZapperZ

Jun29-05, 08:45 PM

Let’s see your actual examples. Tipler offers real examples too.

1. Count the number of physics journals today, and in 1905.

2. Count the number of journals that have single editor such as at Annalen... that have the same authority as in pre 1920.

3. (i) Podlketnov paper (ii) Fleishman and Pons cold fusion paper (yes, even THAT notorious paper got published!).

You think Tipler is lying in his examples of groundbreaking papers whose authors say they initially got rejected by peer-reviewed journals?

(i) You seem to think that there's something "special" about being rejected and (ii) that once rejected, that papers will NEVER ever get published. What will it take to get through your head that such a thing is VERY COMMON, even TODAY?! Please tell me. I've mentioned this 3, 4 times (even cited my OWN example with Science). They are ground breaking because .... horrors... they actually MADE it into peer-reviewed journals! What a concept!

You’ve made a tenuous link to the “abstract” thread. The sci.physics.research mod subsequently told me that he did not read my paper. It turns out that s.p.r. does not allow discussion of unpublished papers, even a link to one. On s.p.r., unpublished papers are automatically “overly speculative.” Believe it or not.

It is because all of this are just symptoms of the same disease! Sci.physics is open... send your overspeculative paper there, why don't you?

In all of this, not once have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, that your paper is at fault. If you use the SAME reasoning and lack of background check that you have shown on here, I find that more than just a possibility.

Zz.

Zanket

Jun30-05, 03:17 PM

As much as I like a debate (I recently found out that “zanket” means “quarrel” in German), I’ve spent too much time on this thread, and we're mostly entrenched it seems, so this will be my last post here. I’ll address some final points made and then y’all can have at it when I’m gone. I'll consider your responses, and thanks for the info and links so far.

I must have hit a nerve, because a point that is minor to me has been blown up to make it sound like I think the whole peer-review process is worthless, which isn’t so. My point of late has been that a process that summarily rejects papers merely for being novel or the author uncredentialed is suboptimal, because it may cause science to lose (or significantly defer) groundbreaking papers. I think that conclusion requires only common sense. To prove a chance of something happening does not require proving that it has actually happened; e.g. proving that a groundbreaking paper has been lost to science. I won’t concede on that.

The point has been made that the odds of such loss to science is nil, despite the roadblocks imposed by the current peer-review process, due to the sheer number of avenues in which papers can be discussed, and the openness of those avenues (e.g. gatekeepers have less unilateral power than in the past). That may be true, but it seems unlikely to me, and it works only for a one-hit-wonder neo-Einstein. It seems unlikely to me that any of the popular journals would be amenable to novel ideas, when even arXiv, a non-peer-reviewed repository, warns endorsers (required for new submitters) against endorsing novel ideas. If a groundbreaking idea is accepted by an open-minded but unpopular journal, say, what are the odds that the idea will eventually become generally accepted? I’d say small, but I could be wrong. Now, suppose this author has more ideas to share. Then they are wasting time struggling to become published in a noticeable way instead of working on the next idea or next level of the previous idea. I would not have wanted Einstein to spend from 1905 to 1910 trying to get special relativity published in a popular journal. That such a system is being vehemently upheld here is pretty amazing to me. From this discussion—especially from the vitriolic comments that I have overspeculated here—I now understand why groundbreaking papers are routinely rejected out of hand by the peer-reviewed journals.

ZapperZ

Jun30-05, 03:27 PM

.. and with your parting shot, you again demonstrated your inability to comprehend what you said and how inconsistenly you apply your own rules. For example:

My point of late has been that a process that summarily rejects papers merely for being novel or the author uncredentialed is suboptimal, because it may cause science to lose (or significantly defer) groundbreaking papers. I think that conclusion requires only common sense. To prove a chance of something happening does not require proving that it has actually happened; e.g. proving that a groundbreaking paper has been lost to science. I won’t concede on that.

Yet, you then DISMISSED:

The point has been made that the odds of such loss to science is nil, despite the roadblocks imposed by the current peer-review process, due to the sheer number of avenues in which papers can be discussed, and the openness of those avenues (e.g. gatekeepers have less unilateral power than in the past). That may be true, but it seems unlikely to me, and it works only for a one-hit-wonder neo-Einstein.

So you ACCEPT as FACT one case where there is insignificant event (science losing "groundbraking papers", even when you can't produce any) but you dismiss ANOTHER insignificant event as not true (odds of such loss to science). So two insignificant events, but with different acceptance based on nothing but a matter of TASTES.

It would be appropriate that this is how it all ends.

Zz.