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

[Zanket]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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]

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 website 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]

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]

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]

.. 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.

 

[Moonbear]

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.

But the point you seem to be missing all along is that novelty is not just encouraged, but required for publishing in journals. The process does not summarily reject papers for being novel, it is more likely to summarily reject a paper for NOT being sufficiently novel. The more novel the finding, the more likely it is to get published and to get a more favorable review. However, a novel idea is not sufficient if it is not borne out by a solid experimental design and results that support the hypothesis.