Is it time to rethink the name of Theory Development in the Physics section?

[ZapperZ]

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]

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?

 

[ZapperZ]

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]

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.

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

 

[ZapperZ]

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]

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

But you also need to do your homework. To what extent is your understanding about how things work would be relevant to this case? I'm not questioning that what you are asking does happen, but unless you are proclaiming that such an issue is a UNIVERSAL principle, I think you need to consider the possibility that maybe it doesn't apply here.

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).

There's no "peer pressure". Refereeing does not mean one has to make sure the report is valid - simply that it was legitimately done, does not contain obvious mistakes, presented in a clear and full manner so that anyone wishing to reproduce is can, and that it has address all the relevant and possibily contradicting reports elsewhere. That's all.

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, because all you need to do is show me what I've requested to disprove my claim. For the past 15 years since I first put that forward, no one has managed to show me even ONE! It is very seldom there is something absolute in physics. But this appears to be one. And take note, I didn't just ask for "theories". I asked for EVERYTHING in physics within the past 100 years. Remember that a significant part of physics is experimental discovery.

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.

Er.. I'm sorry, but you see only "SEMIOTIC" difference between the two, with zero regards as to how each one was derived and defined?

No, it is not acceptable to "combine" the two. And this has nothing to do with "social acceptability".

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.

Huh?!

Sorry, I am after all just a frustrated student.

I'm sorry for you too.

Zz.

 

[Telos]

Thanks again.

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

 

[Moonbear]

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. 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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?"

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]

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?"

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]

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]

<<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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 )
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.

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.
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.

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

 

[NoTime]

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.
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

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

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]

Alas, I put that badly. My bad.
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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ZapperZ]

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]

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