Theory Development: Why Does New Policy Hurt Normal People?

[mee]

Why can't we post new threads in theory development anymore? Why does the general relativity sticky say we should if it is speculative? This new policy is horrible unless you simply can't afford the space. Your high standards are going to make this a place where average people, like me, can no longer discuss things. People in physics departments already have people to talk to! If they have a new theory they will publish it, not put it on this forum. You are killing it for normal people and trying to make it a private club for the well tutored. Please reconsider!

 

[quantumdude]

Why can't we post new threads in theory development anymore?

The Theory Development Forum had become overrun with crackpottery, and it needed to be put in check.

Why does the general relativity sticky say we should if it is speculative?

Because the GR sticky hasn't been updated yet.

This new policy is horrible unless you simply can't afford the space. Your high standards are going to make this a place where average people, like me, can no longer discuss things.

Not so! The policy is designed specifically to make Physics Forums a better place for everyone, including people like you. You can discuss any scientific subject you like. We simply require that you do not post personal theories for which there is no evidence. And if one is not knowledgeable enough in physics to develop a theory that accounts for what is known, then one should not be making assertions anyway--one should be asking questions.

People in physics departments already have people to talk to! If they have a new theory they will publish it, not put it on this forum. You are killing it for normal people and trying to make it a private club for the well tutored.

Not at all. Physics Forums strives to be a place where anyone can come and discuss real physics. If we were to allow things to continue as they had been, then that would be "killing it for normal people" and the well-tutored alike.

Please reconsider!

Please do the same!

 

[mee]

thank you. :) I guess I haven't given it enough time to feel so doomed. I haven't been reprimanded or cursed yet. :) Hopefully i will find a comfortable place with your new rules.

 

[elas]

We simply require that you do not post personal theories for which there is no evidence. And if one is not knowledgeable enough in physics to develop a theory that accounts for what is known,
Not at all. Physics Forums strives to be a place where anyone can come and discuss real physics.

At last a clear statement of policy, now we can have a debate.
“theories for which there is no evidence”
I have repeatedly given the references to statements from leading physicists pointing out that there is no connection between QT and reality (a limited selection are on my web page). The only qualification that supports QT is its fantastic ability to predict. What is needed to complete the picture is a
“Theory that accounts for what is known”
To this end I have given a reference listing what is not known.
Years ago in a reply to one of my questions Tom wrote “you will have to produce some maths, no one is going to do it for you” Well I work away at improving my model and eventually had a model of sufficient simplicity that even I could do the maths. Now it is done, all I need is
"a place where anyone can come and discuss real physics".
Such as 'what is mass' and 'why do particles have their particular properties'
At this point you change the rules, but, how about operating the very policy you advocate in the above statements?

 

[quantumdude]

“theories for which there is no evidence”
I have repeatedly given the references to statements from leading physicists pointing out that there is no connection between QT and reality (a limited selection are on my web page). The only qualification that supports QT is its fantastic ability to predict. What is needed to complete the picture is a
“Theory that accounts for what is known”

"The only qualification..."?

The ability to predict is the connection with reality! No one can do any better than that!

To this end I have given a reference listing what is not known.

I can myself give a reference listing what is not known. How does that make room for unsubstantiated theories? (Hint: it does not make room for unsubstantiated theories).

Years ago in a reply to one of my questions Tom wrote “you will have to produce some maths, no one is going to do it for you” Well I work away at improving my model and eventually had a model of sufficient simplicity that even I could do the maths. Now it is done, all I need is
"a place where anyone can come and discuss real physics".
Such as 'what is mass' and 'why do particles have their particular properties'

Hey, if you can produce calculations from your theory that matches experimental results in a nontrivial way (that means not in an ad hoc way just to match the predictions of a single experiment, to the neglect of all the others), then I'm all ears.

At this point you change the rules, but, how about operating the very policy you advocate in the above statements?

The rules were never changed. We have always been a serious science Forum. It's just that we are no longer willing to be as lenient as we were in the past concerning lack of rigor in homegrown theories. Now, we require that would-be theorists present only well-formed ideas that can be validated independently.

 

[elas]

The ability to predict is the connection with reality! No one can do any better than that!

Sorry but you are wrong on both counts. It is the failure of prediction to be acceptable as proof of reality that is the reason for classifying QT as a ‘mathematical predictive philosophy’ and not as a ‘science’. I am not going to repeat the piece I submitted to ‘Why all the nutcases’ that should still be available.

The missing link is defined in the following quote-

"They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess”.
Richard Morris in "Achilles in the Quantum Universe”

This is the problem that I have concentrated on, and to which I have proposed a solution. The solution shows that a vacuum field structure can unite force, mass, charge and explain mass/energy conservation. I am still waiting for a statement that explains why my proposal is not a fit subject for the Theory Development Forum. I do not claim to be right, but I do claim to have a proposal worthy of debate.

As for matching predictions, my theory matches the mass numbers found by experiment as published by 'The Particle Data Group'.
As for the unnecessary remark about 'home grown theories' please take that up with Newton, Einstein and Darwin whose 'home grown' theories are I believe, greatly admired.

 

[quantumdude]

The ability to predict is the connection with reality! No one can do any better than that!

Sorry but you are wrong on both counts. It is the failure of prediction to be acceptable as proof of reality that is the reason for classifying QT as a ‘mathematical predictive philosophy’ and not as a ‘science’.

You have a serious misconception of what science is. According to your definition, there is no science, because any theory is going to fail to predict something. All theories rest on postulates which are themselves not provable.

"They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess”.
Richard Morris in "Achilles in the Quantum Universe”

This has not one thing to do with whether QM should be considered a science. A theory is not disqualified as science, just for being incomplete.

This is the problem that I have concentrated on, and to which I have proposed a solution.

And even if your solution is correct, it will still fail to answer certain questions. This is inevitable.

The solution shows that a vacuum field structure can unite force, mass, charge and explain mass/energy conservation. I am still waiting for a statement that explains why my proposal is not a fit subject for the Theory Development Forum. I do not claim to be right, but I do claim to have a proposal worthy of debate.

The explanation is at the top of the Theory Development Forum. We are no longer hosting overly speculative posts. There are about 11,000 members at this site, and only a handful of staff members. We can't keep up with every crackpot who thinks he's revolutionized physics.

As for matching predictions, my theory matches the mass numbers found by experiment as published by 'The Particle Data Group'.

Is the theory posted on your website? Last time I looked at it (yesterday), I did not see any mathematics.

As for the unnecessary remark about 'home grown theories' please take that up with Newton, Einstein and Darwin whose 'home grown' theories are I believe, greatly admired.

Ha. You are emphasizing the expression "homegrown theories" when the emphasis really should be placed on the expression "lack of rigor".

The theories of Newton, Einstein and Darwin don't suffer from that deficiency.

 

[russ_watters]

The explanation is at the top of the Theory Development Forum. We are no longer hosting overly speculative posts. There are about 11,000 members at this site, and only a handful of staff members. We can't keep up with every crackpot who thinks he's revolutionized physics.

To expand a little, the purpose of this site is primarily to teach and discuss known physics ("real physics" as Tom put it). We'd rather put our effort into answering homework questions (for example) than trying to keep crackpots from confusing people who are asking honest questions.

Learning starts from the bottom-up. Most (all) of the crackpots we get would benefit by setting aside their ideas and first learning what we do know before trying to push the envelope. That's what we try to encourage here.

There may be other sites dedicated to entertaining highly speculative ideas in an unmoderated fashion, with no requirement of sticking to the scientific method, but this isn't one of them. That just plain isn't our purpose. We're sorry if you got the wrong idea, but if that's what you are looking for, this isn't the place to find it.

 

[elas]

I think russ watters has summed it up, this is just another question and answer site, forum titles such as 'Theory Development' are totally misleading, there is no intention to allow theory development or discussion on anything that is not accepted within the Standard Model.
This is a pity given that every leading physicist is willing to concede that the Standard Model does not answer the fundamental questions of 'how and why'.
However I shall abide by your decision and not trouble you further.
elas

 

[chroot]

I think russ watters has summed it up, this is just another question and answer site, forum titles such as 'Theory Development' are totally misleading, there is no intention to allow theory development or discussion on anything that is not accepted within the Standard Model.
This is a pity given that every leading physicist is willing to concede that the Standard Model does not answer the fundamental questions of 'how and why'.
However I shall abide by your decision and not trouble you further.
elas

What you don't realize is that the internet is absolutely full of sites where anyone can post anything without any moderation. If you feel our site is too "stuffy" for you, there are many alternatives.

Also, as has been said many times, we do not intend to stifle all creative thought -- we intend to stifle creative thought that is not developed in a scientifically valid way, or that is in direct conflict with known experimental evidence.

Rather than thinking of ourselves as "just another question and answer site," we think of ourselves as "not just another free-for-all."

- Warren

 

[quantumdude]

I think russ watters has summed it up, this is just another question and answer site,

*balk*

"Just" another question and answer site? You make it sound as though there are a million of them out there, and there aren't. Of course, you can find a million websites full of idiots who will be happy to give you an answer to your question, but you'd be hard pressed to find a million websites whose staff and members place as high a premium on providing correct answers as those at this website.

In any case, Q&A is not our only function.

forum titles such as 'Theory Development' are totally misleading,

It's not so much misleading as it is outdated. When PF first started, "Theory Development" was the place in which every crackpot under the sun had a home. For us, it was a tidy way to get them out of the real science threads, and they were allowed to roam free on that Forum with little moderation.

As it happened, Theory Development became too big, too uncontrolled, and too unscientific for us to feel comfortable about having it the way it was. Most of what went on there is not of any scientific or academic value, and it is therefore not commensurate with the Administration's vision for PF. I, for one, would like to see more professionals come here and talk about their research, so that we can have real theory development. But what professional is going to waste his time posting to an unmoderated free-for-all, dominated by ignorants who haven't the foggiest idea of what they are talking about, and yet are convinced that they are the next Einstein?

I see this move as clearing the way for bigger and better things at PF.

there is no intention to allow theory development or discussion on anything that is not accepted within the Standard Model.

To my knowledge, this sentiment has not been expressed by any staff member. If a genuine scientists wishes to discuss his research here, I cannot imagine any objections from the Mentors.

This is a pity given that every leading physicist is willing to concede that the Standard Model does not answer the fundamental questions of 'how and why'.

We've had these discussions before, which is why I am amazed that you still do not understand that science is not in the "why" business. You keep citing the failure of current theories to give full explanations of phenomena, but you yourself are failing to recognize that no theory can do that. But your hard headed insistence to the contrary is why I'm convinced that you have no susbstantial understanding of either science or the philosophy thereof.

However I shall abide by your decision and not trouble you further.

Now there's the real pity, because there are plenty of people here who could help you out of your misunderstandings.

Why not stick around and ask questions? It will do you a lot more good than trying to develop a half baked theory based on a misinterpretation of incomplete information.

 

[musky_ox]

To expand a little, the purpose of this site is primarily to teach and discuss known physics ("real physics" as Tom put it). We'd rather put our effort into answering homework questions (for example) than trying to keep crackpots from confusing people who are asking honest questions.

I got warned for calling someone an idiot, IMO you should be warned for calling someone a crackpot... no?

 

[quantumdude]

Got a case of sour grapes, eh?

I got warned for calling someone an idiot, IMO you should be warned for calling someone a crackpot... no?

First of all, if someone persists in their errors despite the best efforts to correct their misunderstandings, then by definition that person is a crackpot. I don't see a problem with saying so, either.

And second, it seemed clear enough to me when I wrote the post you quoted that I was talking about crackpots in general. I don't recall ever having called elas a crackpot in any thread.

 

[musky_ox]

I don't recall ever saying that he was specifically called a crackpot, however you said that the forum was closed because of crackpots. You are clearly insulting someone, i am just too new to the forum to understand who was doing this. Either way, just because someone has different theories, they have no place on this forum? They can't discuss them in a forum named "theory development?" Is this forum dedicated to brainwashing people with "known physics, which by the way have no concrete proof to them either?

Also, does it notify you every time someone posts because you guys seem to respond very fast.

 

[quantumdude]

I don't recall ever saying that he was specifically called a crackpot, however you said that the forum was closed because of crackpots.

Yes. He asked for an explanation, and I gave him one.

You are clearly insulting someone,

I am telling it like it is. Crackpots exist, just like liars, idiots and con men exist. And we have had some of all of those types at Physics Forums. It would be infantile to close our eyes and pretend they do not exist, and that they do not inhabit this Forum.

And if they find it insulting, it's their problem. The truth hurts sometimes.

i am just too new to the forum to understand who was doing this.

You can inspect any of the newly locked threads in the TD Forum, if you are so inclined.

Either way, just because someone has different theories, they have no place on this forum?

The people do. Their unsubstantiated theories don't.

They can't discuss them in a forum named "theory development?"

I already explained that we are in a period of transition. We used to allow virtually unrestrained discussion of homegrown theories, now we don't. I'd like to think that Theory Development will come back for properly developing scientific theories.

Is this forum dedicated to brainwashing people with "known physics, which by the way have no concrete proof to them either?

The word is "educating", not "brainwashing". And you are flat out wrong when you say there is no concrete proof to it.

Also, does it notify you every time someone posts because you guys seem to respond very fast.

Most of us only get involved in a few threads at a time, and we tend to watch the ones we're interested in.

 

[quantumdude]

Holy moly.

I got warned for calling someone an idiot, IMO you should be warned for calling someone a crackpot... no?

I've just finished reviewing the post for which you were warned, and the subsequent discussion in the thread. All I have to say is this: You got off easy. I'd have given you at least one more for posting crackpot material (there's that word again!).

You'd do well to tone down the attitude. Your math skills don't warrant it at all.

 

[musky_ox]

Dont always need to know what you are talking about to argue it. I am planning on learning more about math in university in a few years.

 

[quantumdude]

Dont always need to know what you are talking about to argue it.

FYI, if you don't know what you're talking about, you'd be well advised not to label as "idiots" the people who do know what they're talking about. You'd also be well advised to end more of your sentences with "?" instead of "." and "!".

I am planning on learning more about math in university in a few years.

That's a relief.

 

[enigma]

Is this forum dedicated to brainwashing people with "known physics, which by the way have no concrete proof to them either?

Says the man who is sitting in his house (designed so it doesn't collapse using physics and science) typing a message on a computer (made possible by physicists and scientists) being powered by electric current (discovered and harnessed by physicists and scientists).

"no concrete proof", indeed!

 

[musky_ox]

Read the topic. "Theory discussion." This is abstract physics we are talking about, and much of it doesn't have any concrete proof.

 

[Moonbear]

Either way, just because someone has different theories, they have no place on this forum? They can't discuss them in a forum named "theory development?"

The misunderstanding seems to be in what a theory is. If you're basing your ideas on very limited observations, and it is very different from what current theories state, then it is not a theory, it is at best an hypothesis, and more likely a prediction or speculation.

Theories do not begin de novo, they are the result of years, possibly decades, of research refining hypotheses, gathering support, attempting to disprove the hypothesis and when you have something that has withstood this test of time, you get to call it a theory. At this stage, theory development is about tweaking the theory, adjusting it to account for new data that clarifies some of the finer points of it. A theory can be thought of as a very mature hypothesis.

You don't get to claim you've developed a new theory until and unless you've got the experimental evidence to disprove the previously existing theory and are able to take all of the prior evidence and new evidence into account in your new theory. Fitting a few examples is not sufficient.

If you have not yet put in the blood, sweat and tears necessary to obtain a PhD in a field (or at least be in the process of obaining that PhD), it is very unlikely you will have the depth of knowledge necessary to develop a new theory in that field. This is not a put-down and has nothing to do with how intelligent someone is, it just goes to the volume of information involved in understanding a field well. I do have a PhD, but not in physics, and I can assure you I do not have sufficient knowledge of physics or math to develop new theories in physics. It involves a great deal of effort just to understand the currently accepted theories.

 

[musky_ox]

Oh yes. I forgot that you have a PhD in looking into other peoples lives do you? (this is not an insult, its an honest question) That is how you know that the other theories posted on the forum were just made up without any thought.

 

[enigma]

Read the topic. "Theory discussion." This is abstract physics we are talking about, and much of it doesn't have any concrete proof.

You mean behind the mathematics it's based on, of course?

I live with three physics grad students. I assure you... they don't just "think" this stuff up. While it may seem that way by reading the popular science books, in reality the math and science behind them is enough to make your eyes bleed.

If the numbers say that there are 11 dimensions (or whatever) that's what the numbers say. REAL physicists don't sit around in a circle and go: "So, anybody have any new theories of the universe?" like TD posts seem to.

 

[musky_ox]

I highly doubt i could make my eyes bleed unless i tried to paper cut myself with the paper that their theories are written on. Anyways, please explain the mathematics behind the theory that time is the 4th dimension. Keep in mind that science is limited to our perceptions. We cannot understand anything outside. We can imagine what other dimensions are like, but we can never prove any of our theories because it is beyond our understanding. We need to be able to see something to explain it. There is nothing to say that mathematical and physical properties that exist in our dimension have to exist in others. There is also nothing to say that there has to be the same type of relationship between the 4th and 3rd dimension as there is between the 3rd and 2nd.

 

[chroot]

Things happen at specific places and at specific times in this universe. If you want to meet your friend at the pizza parlor for dinner, you have to specify the street address (spatial coordinates) and the time (temporal coordinate). In this way, theories like relativity group space and time coordinates together to keep track of "events." That's pretty much the entire concept of spacetime.

- Warren

 

[musky_ox]

Thanks? You trying to get at something with that post?

 

[chroot]

No... I was explaining why space and time are considered together, as you asked.

- Warren

 

[elas]

The misunderstanding seems to be in what a theory is. If you're basing your ideas on very limited observations, and it is very different from what current theories state, then it is not a theory, it is at best an hypothesis, and more likely a prediction or speculation

This is typical of the atitude that prevent progress. The writer is clearly unaware that the whole of Relativity and Quantum Theory is 'hypothetical', that is why it is referred to as a philosophy.

By contrast a proposal base on a single observation is 'science'.

If you have any doubts on the correctness of these definitions, go to any of the question and answer sites and check them out. I reiterate, my proposal may be wrong but, it is science, furthermore although many mentors have stated that my proposal is rubbish, not one has given a single scientific counter arguement. That on a site labelled 'Theory Development" is what I find both dissapointing and unacceptable. Their comments are the product of inbuilt bias and not the sort of logical argument one is entitled to expect on a site that boasts about its quality and leadership.

 

[enigma]

The misunderstanding seems to be in what a theory is. If you're basing your ideas on very limited observations, and it is very different from what current theories state, then it is not a theory, it is at best an hypothesis, and more likely a prediction or speculation

This is typical of the atitude that prevent progress. The writer is clearly unaware that the whole of Relativity and Quantum Theory is 'hypothetical', that is why it is referred to as a philosophy.

By contrast a proposal base on a single observation is 'science'.

That is patently absurd.

Without General Relativity the GPS satellites wouldn't work. We couldn't explain deviations from the Newtonian motion in the orbit of Mercury.

Without Quantum Theory we couldn't explain why semiconductors work. (or why there are bands in light from stars, etc, etc, etc.)

Just because you are unaware of the experiments which prove these almost hundred-year-old theories doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[musky_ox]

...

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

...

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real

...

There is no absolute theory, otherwise it would be called a fact. For example, there are 2 theories about the orgin of life. Creation, and random chance/evolution. Neither is said to be correct. They both account for what we see. How long general relativity and QM have been around for is totally irrelevant, if someone comes up with a new way to explain the observations then it should be considered a new theory until it doesn't fit the observations anymore.

 

[jcsd]

There is no absolute theory, otherwise it would be called a fact. For example, there are 2 theories about the orgin of life. Creation, and random chance/evolution. Neither is said to be correct. They both account for what we see. How long general relativity and QM have been around for is totally irrelevant, if someone comes up with a new way to explain the observations then it should be considered a new theory until it doesn't fit the observations anymore.

Creationsim is not a sceintifc theory, it is a religous belief and it is one that we know is incorrect as it completely fails to account for what we see.

There are plenty of forums on the web that are willing to tolerate the folly of half-wits, this is not one of them and I doubt that's going to change anytime soon, so if you don't like it then that would seem to be very much tough luck. No-one is forcing you to post here.

 

[marlon]

How long general relativity and QM have been around for is totally irrelevant, if someone comes up with a new way to explain the observations then it should be considered a new theory until it doesn't fit the observations anymore.

Are you sure you ain't talking about falsification ?

Besides you are forgetting about regimes : "where is what theory valid?"

Question : What do you mean when you say that the time "that GTR and QM have been around" is irrelevant ?

regards
marlon

 

[musky_ox]

almost hundred-year-old theories

Creationsim is not a sceintifc theory, it is a religous belief and it is one that we know is incorrect as it completely fails to account for what we see.

Here is the typical belief among stubborn athiests about creatism, its a theory you obviously know absolutely nothing about.

 

[marlon]

Here is the typical belief among stubborn athiests about creatism, its a theory you obviously know absolutely nothing about.

Now that is a very interesting statement, please elaborate because this stubborn atheist does not get it...(even not from GOD )

...BENEDICTA TU IN MULIERIBUS...


regards
marlon

 

[jcsd]

Here is the typical belief among stubborn athiests about creatism, its a theory you obviously know absolutely nothing about.

I never said I was an atheist and I am very well acquainted with creationism in all it's pseudoscientifc forms. Creationism makes specific statements that have been demonstrated to be false.