Why Won’t You Look at My New Theory?
In any forum where science is discussed, there will always be people who have a great new personal theory and can’t understand why no one else is interested in it. Here at PF we have rules about this, but I want to look at the more general question of why there is apparently so little interest in such personal theories, independently of whatever rules a particular forum might have. Is it just because people are closed-minded, unwilling to consider new ideas? Or is there some more cogent reason?
Of course, personal theories cover a very wide range; but here I want to focus on a particular kind of personal theory, one which arises from the following scenario: A new observation or experimental result is reported that appears to be inconsistent with what we think we already know. Rather than pick on recent examples (of which there are plenty), I’ll give two examples from the history of Solar System astronomy in the 19th century, since the outcomes of these cases are both well established by now so they can serve as good test cases without raising anyone’s hackles. Here they are:
(1) In the 19th century the motion of the Moon appeared to be inconsistent with the predictions of Newtonian gravity–i.e., the Moon was observed in the sky at locations that were different from those predicted by Newtonian calculations from previous observations. The differences were small, but the calculations and observations were believed to be accurate enough to make them significant.
(2) In the 19th century the motion of Mercury also appeared to be inconsistent with the predictions of Newtonian gravity. Here, again, the differences were small, but it was believed that the calculations and observations were accurate enough that the discrepancy was significant.
The question then arises, what is the reason for the apparent inconsistency? There are basically two possibilities:
(A) The inconsistency is only apparent; it is because we haven’t worked out carefully enough the implications of what we already know. This was the case for the apparent anomaly in the motion of the Moon: it turned out that there were small perturbations due to the other planets that hadn’t been correctly calculated, and when the calculations were corrected, the discrepancy between the theory and observation went away. This means, of course, that people’s belief prior to this discovery, that the calculations of the Newtonian prediction were correct, was in error.
(B) The inconsistency is real; it is because there is some fundamentally new effect going on that our current theories don’t comprehend. This was the case for the anomaly in the motion of Mercury. It turned out that the current theory of gravity (Newton’s theory) was not correct. When Einstein replaced that theory with the general theory of relativity, one of the first predictions to be re-calculated based on the new theory was the motion of Mercury, and the correction to the Newtonian prediction due to general relativity brought the prediction into line with observation.
It is worth noting, by the way, that before GR was developed, scientists considered a more mundane explanation of the discrepancies in Mercury’s orbit: that there might be a small planet inside the orbit of Mercury that was perturbing its motion just enough to account for the discrepancy. But such a planet was never observed despite increasingly sensitive attempts to do so, and this possibility had been rejected by the time Einstein began working on GR.
I don’t think any reasonable person would disagree that, in principle, (A) and (B) above are both valid possibilities in any situation of the general type we are discussing. However, I think there is a vast disagreement between scientists and non-scientists about the relative frequency of occurrence of (A) and (B). Many nonscientists seem to believe that situations of type (B), where a fundamentally new effect is there and the theory has to be modified to account for it, are common in science; whereas all good scientists know that in fact, almost all situations turn out to be of type (A), where the theory is fundamentally correct but its implications haven’t been calculated accurately enough. This is not because scientists are lazy or incompetent: it’s because calculating the predictions of a known theory is not a cookie-cutter mechanical process but a separate intellectual effort in its own right, and it is subject to the same kinds of errors as any other theoretical efforts.
I don’t know exactly why so many nonscientists seem to believe that type (B) situations are vastly more common than they actually are, but I can think of several possible reasons:
(1) Type (B) situations are far more exciting, so historians of science tend to focus on them, while the vastly more common type (A) situations are left out of popular accounts. So the nonscientist’s erroneous belief about the frequency of type (B) situations is due to a straightforward sampling bias.
(2) Type (B) situations, because they intrinsically involve the overthrow of some part of an accepted theory and its replacement with a new theory, always involve a dynamic of resistance by the scientific community to the new theory. Scientists understand that this resistance, even to theories that ultimately win out, is rational, and a necessary part of science; but nonscientists just focus on the underdog fighting against the establishment because it feeds their pet beliefs about such situations. So nonscientists’ erroneous belief that type (B) situations are common is just a special case of the general belief (which is also erroneous) that underdogs fighting establishments are usually right.
(3) Type (B) situations appear to nonscientists to hold out the hope that, in principle, anybody can overthrow an accepted scientific theory. Newton was a lowly college student when he came up with his laws of motion and his theory of gravity. Einstein was a patent office clerk who had failed to obtain an academic job when he published his famous papers on special relativity and quantum theory. Nonscientists look at these examples and draw the (erroneous) conclusion that you don’t need to actually know anything about the established theories in order to overthrow them; you don’t need to go through all the bothersome stuff that members of the scientific establishment do, like taking classes, getting degrees, doing research, publishing papers, going through peer review, etc. Just come up with a great new idea and you’re set.
Scientists, though, understand that Newton, Einstein, and the other scientists who found themselves in real type (B) situations did do all that stuff–they did learn the established theories inside and out before they tried to overthrow them. They did their “homework” in an unconventional way, but they still did it. So nonscientists’ erroneous belief that type (B) situations are common is due to their erroneous belief that you can come up with a new scientific theory that works, without actually having to do the work involved in understanding what is currently known.
Of these possibilities, the third would appear to be the one most likely to spawn personal theories of the kind I referred to at the top of this article. And, conveniently, it also offers an explanation of why others are so seldom interested: because the obvious counterpoint to the view that anybody can overthrow an accepted scientific theory is to go too far in the other direction and believe that only professional scientists–those with degrees or other credentials, etc.–can come up with a valid scientific theory. So of course any random person posting on an internet forum can’t possibly have a valid theory.
But the fact that this heuristic works 99.9999% of the time still does not make it right. Unfortunately, I think a large part of the reason it is so often adopted is that professional scientists themselves promote it–wittingly or unwittingly. For there is a flip side to the observation that nonscientists often come up with personal theories that nobody listens to: the observation that professional scientists, when talking to nonscientists, often fail to distinguish the varying levels of confidence we have in different parts of science, and often present science in a way that encourages people to say “Oh, wow!” and accept whatever they are told on the authority of the scientist, rather than to think critically and try to build an understanding of their own. This is why PF also has rules about acceptable sources: because even scientists can’t always be trusted to fairly represent science. At least in a peer-reviewed paper, there are other experts looking who can call them on it if they go too far afield (though admittedly that doesn’t always work either).
I’ve painted a fairly gloomy picture in this article, but please bear in mind that I’m focusing here on something that only makes up a small fraction of all the posts on PF. Most discussions here don’t raise either of the issues I describe above. But if you’re tempted to post about your personal theory, or if you’re tempted to ask a question based on a pop-science source, it might be worth taking some time out to consider.
- Completed Educational Background: MIT Master’s
- Favorite Area of Science: Relativity
[QUOTE=”Charles Link, post: 5439066, member: 583509″]I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the “personal theory” restriction applied.[/QUOTE]
Once again: is the “small advance” just explaining something that is part of accepted science, but isn’t covered in textbooks? There are many, many such things. As I said before, if it’s accepted science, there will be [I]some[/I] source you can point to, and then summarize in your own words if you think that will help the questioner understand. This is all well within the PF rules, and in fact it happens regularly, particularly in the forums like Beyond the Standard Model where a lot of the science being discussed is too new to have made it into textbooks.
OTOH, if the “small advance” is something that isn’t part of accepted science, but you think it ought to be, then PF is not the place to make that case. The best you could possibly do would be to get the attention of a PF member who happens to also have the ability and willingness to help you get your new idea written up in a form in which it could get proper review. But that process won’t take place here on PF; that’s not what PF is for.
[QUOTE=”sophiecentaur, post: 5439062, member: 199289″]On PF, you mean? I don’t think (s)he’d have been recognised.[/QUOTE]No, in general. There is always the argument “but this group has such a hard time” where this group is simply nonexistent.[QUOTE=”Charles Link, post: 5439066, member: 583509″]The untutored genius is not likely to appear here, but I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the “personal theory” restriction applied.[/QUOTE]Those threads are usually fine, and not personal theories. There are publications explicitely mentioning discussion here. That is not the “what if gravity is really [random word]” style this insight article is about.
[QUOTE=”Isaac0427, post: 5439046, member: 552304″]I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?[/QUOTE]
You can always PM myself, another mentor, or Greg himself.
[QUOTE=”sophiecentaur, post: 5439077, member: 199289″]But people are very fond of your off the wall contributions and have been for the past years. You can get as kookie as you like and you get away with it.[/QUOTE]
hmmmm…. Maybe I’ll run over to the [B][URL=’https://www.physicsforums.com/forums/high-energy-nuclear-particle-physics.65/’]High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics[/URL][/B] section, and finally ask the question.
Hopefully they don’t ask why I’m asking, as it involves, gulp, warp drive……. o0)
[QUOTE=”sophiecentaur, post: 5439075, member: 199289″]I don’t think that the sort of person you are referring to it would ever commit a ‘personal theory’ offence. In fact, a small advance would be unlikely to be classed as a type B idea. They would start by having a conventional conversation and establish some cred before leaping in with the Type B Bomb. So I think the Forum is already open to them.
This would assume, of course, that their posts were of a reasonable standard of politeness and presentation and not the sort of gauche rantings that we sometimes get. A personal theory written in text speak would never get off the ground.[/QUOTE]
I am still quite new to the website, but was scolded for it before I established any significant credibility. I still think those posts had some scientific merit, but I am more careful in introducing any subject matter that might be deemed controversial.
[QUOTE=”OmCheeto, post: 5439074, member: 103343″]I asked almost the exact same question about 8 years ago.
I got some awesome answers: [URL=’https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/this-forum.207470/#post-1562249′][B][U]What should us kooks do when we see evidence that leads to exotic speculation?[/U][/B][/URL]
Funny thing is, I never asked the question that I was referring to.[/QUOTE]
But people are very fond of your off the wall contributions and have been for the past years. You can get as kookie as you like and you get away with it.
[QUOTE=”Charles Link, post: 5439066, member: 583509″]The untutored genius is not likely to appear here, but I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the “personal theory” restriction applied. When the OP gives the response of “thank you, that helped to clarify the matter”, it appears the “personal theory” might be worthy of some merit. There is always the trade-off that the Forum could become a circus of personal theories and inaccurate information, but good physics often comes with a series of iterations. Perhaps this has already been tried and it didn’t work, thereby the need for the tighter control.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that the sort of person you are referring to it would ever commit a ‘personal theory’ offence. In fact, a small advance would be unlikely to be classed as a type B idea. They would start by having a conventional conversation and establish some cred before leaping in with the Type B Bomb. So I think the Forum is already open to them.
This would assume, of course, that their posts were of a reasonable standard of politeness and presentation and not the sort of gauche rantings that we sometimes get. A personal theory written in text speak would never get off the ground.
[QUOTE=”Isaac0427, post: 5439046, member: 552304″]I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?[/QUOTE]
I asked almost the exact same question about 8 years ago.
I got some awesome answers: [URL=’https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/this-forum.207470/#post-1562249′][B][U]What should us kooks do when we see evidence that leads to exotic speculation?[/U][/B][/URL]
Funny thing is, I never asked the question that I was referring to.
[QUOTE=”Isaac0427, post: 5439046, member: 552304″]I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?[/QUOTE]
Questions are generally welcome provided you show some effort has been made to find your own answer first. Otherwise the first reply you get will be…What do you think and why?
[QUOTE=”mfb, post: 5439030, member: 405866″]We still have to find the first example of this.[/QUOTE]
The untutored genius is not likely to appear here, but I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the “personal theory” restriction applied. When the OP gives the response of “thank you, that helped to clarify the matter”, it appears the “personal theory” might be worthy of some merit. There is always the trade-off that the Forum could become a circus of personal theories and inaccurate information, but good physics often comes with a series of iterations. Perhaps this has already been tried and it didn’t work, thereby the need for the tighter control.
[QUOTE=”mfb, post: 5439030, member: 405866″]We still have to find the first example of this.[/QUOTE]
On PF, you mean? I don’t think (s)he’d have been recognised.
I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?
[QUOTE=”sophiecentaur, post: 5438805, member: 199289″]This thread seems to have lost it’s way in an attempt to be fair to the very rare example of an untutored genius who has something of great importance to Science but can’t get it published.[/QUOTE]We still have to find the first example of this.
This thread seems to have lost it’s way in an attempt to be fair to the very rare example of an untutored genius who has something of great importance to Science but can’t get it published. The probability of this is, I think, less than the probability of an accepted genius in an established institution who gets knocked down by a bus on the way to the office when he / she was planning to pen an Earth shattering paper which everyone would accept with no problems. Either way, we missed out – a bit – but next year / decade / century, someone else will produce the same thing. Mostly, it will be within a very few years at worst.
[QUOTE=”Charles Link, post: 5438686, member: 583509″]As I mentioned previously, (post #40), there are still a few topics where the standard textbook material is not completely thorough in the presentation of some of the subjects. If an improved explanation is given in one of these areas, hopefully it doesn’t immediately get pushed into the category of “personal theory”.[/QUOTE]
Even if a standard textbook doesn’t treat a particular subject, there should be some acceptable source that does–a monograph, or a peer-reviewed paper, or something like that. If there is, you can just refer to it, and give your own summary of what it says. If there isn’t, then how do you know your own personal version is an “improved explanation”?
It would help, btw, if you could give a specific example rather than speaking in generalities.
[QUOTE=”Isaac0427, post: 5438071, member: 552304″]Great article! I admit that a year ago I was guilty of this (but being 12-13 and all, I think I get a little slack, right?) but I don’t do it anymore.
Speaking of that, I’ve got this great new theory that completely undermines General Relativity because the Brian Greene book I am reading says that there are problems with GR. Anyone interested in hearing it?:wink:[/QUOTE]
I’d be very interested.
If you PM me your idea, I will send you blueprints of my warp drive engine.
There’s no math, so it’s really easy to understand. :biggrin:
As I mentioned previously, (post #40), there are still a few topics where the standard textbook material is not completely thorough in the presentation of some of the subjects. If an improved explanation is given in one of these areas, hopefully it doesn’t immediately get pushed into the category of “personal theory”. Part of the adventure of physics is figuring things out, and on occasion, coming up with improved explanations. Sometimes the textbooks and even a “google” does not have all the answers to even some of the standard textbook material.
Personally, I have nothing against Tesla. Unfortunately mental illness affects individuals in all walks of life and communities, including the scientific community.
However, when a person today references Tesla as a source, it is almost always a bad sign.
[QUOTE=”Jeff Rosenbury, post: 5438143, member: 476307″]Even a broken watch is right twice a day.[/QUOTE]Now add a GPS function and weather forecast, and see how often it will be right. Still more often than crackpots with no education.
[QUOTE=”Jeff Rosenbury, post: 5438116, member: 476307″]Still, if you think Electrical Engineering shouldn’t have a Forum here,[/QUOTE]
I don’t like spending too much time on Classification because it is often wasted effort and many things just don’t fit. But Tesla’s usefulness was not in his loopy theories; it was from essentially practical things like AC Power transmission. The way he described how his things ‘worked’ was so outside our mainstream appreciation that it often reads like BS. I’d say he was a successful EE but, as a Scientist, he was just not reliable.
The Scientific Community can be very hard on people, though. Laithwaite was a successful Engineer and Professor and a legend for his development of the Linear Motor. He then started looking into gyroscopes and thought he’d found reactionless drive. He (genuinely, I think) asked for help with the Maths of the subject but it was so type B that everyone took a step backwards and left him outside in the cold. They just didn’t want to be associated with ‘that sort of thing’ when there were many who could have painlessly put the subject to bed by doing the right Maths. A sad case.
[QUOTE=”Drakkith, post: 5438186, member: 272035″]…crackpot…
Indeed, the word is intrinsically pejorative and perhaps thrown around too often.[/QUOTE]
hmmmm…. That was my self-given nickname at my last two science forums……..
hmmm…….
o0)
[QUOTE=”Jeff Rosenbury, post: 5438077, member: 476307″]I still do this all the time. I just try to avoid doing it here. (I have lots of crazy, crackpottery that no one wants to hear.)[/QUOTE]
Oh, I do too.
Thread locked for moderation.
Edit: An insulting post has been removed and the thread is now re-opened. I ask that all members refrain from insults or snide comments. It’s fine if you disagree with someone, but please keep it civil.
[QUOTE=”Jeff Rosenbury, post: 5438143, member: 476307″]I would define it as holding a non-standard idea without sufficient evidence.[/QUOTE]
Wikipedia’s article on crank (crackpot is a common synonym): [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)[/URL]
[I]
“[B]Crank[/B]” is a [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative’]pejorative[/URL] term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)#cite_note-1′][1][/URL] A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.
Common synonyms for “crank” include [B]crackpot[/B] and [B]kook[/B]. A crank differs from a [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanaticism’]fanatic[/URL] in that the subject of the fanatic’s [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(psychology)’]obsession[/URL] is either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a “fringe” belief. Similarly, the word [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery’]quack[/URL] is reserved for someone who promotes a medical remedy or practice that is widely considered to be ineffective; this term, however, does not imply any deep belief in the idea or product they are attempting to sell. Crank may also refer to an ill-tempered individual or one who is in a bad mood, but that usage is not the subject of this article.[/I]
Note that the basic idea here is that a person holds an unshakable belief in something and there is essentially nothing can convince them otherwise. Having a non-standard idea does not necessarily make your a crackpot, even if you have no evidence for your idea. The key is that you ignore or dismiss evidence against your idea and you cannot have a rational discussion about it. You can read the article for more details. Just see the “common characteristics of cranks” section.
[QUOTE=”anorlunda, post: 5438137, member: 455902″]I treasure the civility of PF. Therefore, I cringe when I see the c….pot word on PF. In this thread, its use is over the top.
The N-word and the c…pot word are both meant to demean and marginalize people, even when their use seems to be deserved. Both words attack a person’s identity, not their statements. For that reason, I consider both words to be intrinsically uncivil, snide remarks or phrases that appear to be an attempt to “put down” another member.[/QUOTE]
Quit living in the land of the perpetually offended.
[QUOTE=”Jeff Rosenbury, post: 5438143, member: 476307″]If you define crackpottery as being wrong, then of course no crackpots ever overthrew science. They were wrong after all.
I would define it as holding a non-standard idea without sufficient evidence. [/quote]
I would define it the same way you do (though more strongly than that) — which has nothing to do with being “crazy”. So that was a strange that you equated crazy with crackpottery and in any case, it means your example of Tesla isn’t correct.
Ridiculous jump from N word to crackpot.
So what is the correct nomenclature?
We are discussing those on the fringes of standard science. What is a good word to group them (us?, I’m not always the sharpest tool… ).
I certainly don’t want to demean anyone. The people I listed are people I deeply admire. They achieved greatness often despite long suffering. There are thousands more who suffer and burn out without accomplishment so a few can change the world for the better.
This site is dedicated to teaching and promoting standard science, and that’s a good thing. For how can anyone make advances without knowing what went before. Incremental knowledge is critically important. But change comes from those who dare to be different.
Context based teaching is a fad with no evidence it works.
[QUOTE=”russ_watters, post: 5438120, member: 142″]Being crazy is nowhere close to the same thing as being a crackpot. The scary thing is that many crackpots seem otherwise to be perfectly normal![/QUOTE]
If you define crackpottery as being wrong, then of course no crackpots ever overthrew science. They were wrong after all.
I would define it as holding a non-standard idea without sufficient evidence.
Even a broken watch is right twice a day. People who see the world differently (I hold myself in this group, BTW) are usually wrong. But only usually. The ones who are right often change the world.
I treasure the civility of PF. Therefore, I cringe when I see the c….pot word on PF. In this thread, its use is over the top.
The N-word and the c…pot word are both meant to demean and marginalize people, even when their use seems to be deserved. Both words attack a person’s identity, not their statements. For that reason, I consider both words to be intrinsically uncivil, snide remarks or phrases that appear to be an attempt to “put down” another member.
[QUOTE=”Jeff Rosenbury, post: 5438116, member: 476307″]His view of the universe was fundamentally different than most people’s. He was a loon. He used to polish his silver spoons, then use each one for one bite. He was a crackpot, and a genius. [/QUOTE]
Being crazy is nowhere close to the same thing as being a crackpot. The scary thing is that many crackpots seem otherwise to be perfectly normal!
[QUOTE=”sophiecentaur, post: 5438084, member: 199289″]OMG, you had to go a long way back for your example, didn’t you?
Nicola was surely more of an inventor than a Scientist, I think, having read some of the wording he used in the stuff of his that I have read (no refs I’m afraid). His championing of AC was no fundamental Science. It was a very good practical choice.[/QUOTE]
His view of the universe was fundamentally different than most people’s. He was a loon. He used to polish his silver spoons, then use each one for one bite. He was a crackpot, and a genius. Some of his ideas about how electricity works are still taught. Most of it is rubbish though. (Not wrong, just not worth teaching.) Still, if you think Electrical Engineering shouldn’t have a Forum here, lobby the powers that be.
Crackpots overthrowing science are rare. Still there are a few in every field. (Einstein wasn’t the most stable individual, BTW.) A lot seem to end up as inventors. Savage (radial tire), Tesla, Hughes, Christie (auto suspension), Madelbrot (Chaos theory, but few liked him, even those who thought him brilliant.), Perelman (Solved Poincaré conjecture, turned down $1 million to live in mother’s basement). Still there are few compared to the hundreds of thousands of scientists with more normal lives.
For current science, some guy (Sheldrake, PhD from Cambridge) got banned from TED Talks for his crackpottery and claims about how bad science is. (I don’t think his theories lead any revolutions, but there’s plenty of crackpottery there.)
[QUOTE=”Charles Link, post: 5437969, member: 583509″]These days there are so many specialized areas that the physics student can easily get overwhelmed with a lot of details in trying to learn the specialized topics. It is my advice to undergraduate physics students to especially concentrate on the fundamentals including mechanics, E&M along with diffraction and interference theory, and linear response theory along with Fourier transforms (basically emphasizing the 3 R’s.) The specialized topics might be where the research money is at, but if they miss the fundamentals, they are likely to struggle needlessly with the more specialized topics. All too often, it seems the fundamentals are getting deemphasized in the curriculum and replaced by more specialized topics.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you but the Colleges want bums on seats and they couldn’t sell courses on the promise that graduates wold be [B]leaving[/B] with the ability to start doing any of the sexy Science that might appeal to them. Very young students want to get on with the clever stuff and not the basics. (Evidence of this is in many of the posts we get on PF) and that’s what the courses all offer.
[QUOTE=”Jeff Rosenbury, post: 5438051, member: 476307″]Second, if the crackpot turns out to be right, (Rare, but it happens. Ex. Tesla.)[/QUOTE]
OMG, you had to go a long way back for your example, didn’t you?
Nicola was surely more of an inventor than a Scientist, I think, having read some of the wording he used in the stuff of his that I have read (no refs I’m afraid). His championing of AC was no fundamental Science. It was a very good practical choice.
[QUOTE=”Isaac0427, post: 5438071, member: 552304″]Great article! I admit that a year ago I was guilty of this (but being 12-13 and all, I think I get a little slack, right?) but I don’t do it anymore.
Speaking of that, I’ve got this great new theory that completely undermines General Relativity because the Brian Greene book I am reading says that there are problems with GR. Anyone interested in hearing it?:wink:[/QUOTE]
I still do this all the time. I just try to avoid doing it here. (I have lots of crazy, crackpottery that no one wants to hear.)
Intelligence, training, and even being right occasionally are no protection against crackpot ideas. Schitzotypal disorder demands crackpottery.
[QUOTE=”Jeff Rosenbury, post: 5438051, member: 476307″]Second, if the crackpot turns out to be right, (Rare, but it happens. Ex. Tesla.) he undermines the value of the professor’s work. (Ex. “War of the currents.”)[/QUOTE]
Tesla wasn’t a crackpot (well, not a common-type crackpot at least). He was well trained in science and engineering and made many, many real-life contributions before the War of the Currents ever started.
[QUOTE=”Jeff Rosenbury, post: 5438051, member: 476307″]I don’t think it’s a coincidence the War of the Currents was promoted by the first commercial research lab, and not by a public university.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. That “war” was purely a commercial affair. It had little to nothing to do with the scientific community as far as I know. It would be like a cable company and a DSL company competing over internet customers.
Great article! I admit that a year ago I was guilty of this (but being 12-13 and all, I think I get a little slack, right?) but I don’t do it anymore.
Speaking of that, I’ve got this great new theory that completely undermines General Relativity because the Brian Greene book I am reading says that there are problems with GR. Anyone interested in hearing it?:wink:
There is a strong economic motive for professors to discount work from outside academia. Their time is valuable, and much of its value comes from the respect for current science.
So checking some crackpot’s idea is a two fold hit to their income.
First, it’s time that could be more profitably spent on learning more science, grading papers, doing their own research, watching a movie, bowling, etc.
Second, if the crackpot turns out to be right, (Rare, but it happens. Ex. Tesla.) he undermines the value of the professor’s work. (Ex. “War of the currents.”)
One of the big reasons for universities to be open and publicly supported is to limit this economic disincentive to explore new ideas. Most professors I’ve known love finding smart students and hunt them out. I don’t think it’s a coincidence the War of the Currents was promoted by the first commercial research lab, and not by a public university.
Business and science don’t always play well together.
[QUOTE=”sophiecentaur, post: 5437958, member: 199289″]That’s a consequence of the fact that Physics has been growing for many decades. My A level Physics in the 1960s was full of topics that they just don[t have time for now. Perhaps we should accept that Physics needs to be divided up earlier than at University.[/QUOTE]
These days there are so many specialized areas that the physics student can easily get overwhelmed with a lot of details in trying to learn the specialized topics. It is my advice to undergraduate physics students to especially concentrate on the fundamentals including mechanics, E&M along with diffraction and interference theory, and linear response theory along with Fourier transforms (basically emphasizing the 3 R’s.) The specialized topics might be where the research money is at, but if they miss the fundamentals, they are likely to struggle needlessly with the more specialized topics. All too often, it seems the fundamentals are getting deemphasized in the curriculum and replaced by more specialized topics.
[QUOTE=”Charles Link, post: 5437954, member: 583509″]at least a couple of topics that are very much standard textbook material that are not covered as thoroughly as they could be in the textbooks.[/QUOTE]
That’s a consequence of the fact that Physics has been growing for many decades. My A level Physics in the 1960s was full of topics that they just don[t have time for now. Perhaps we should accept that Physics needs to be divided up earlier than at University.
[QUOTE=”anorlunda, post: 5437902, member: 455902″]But I do believe that scientists have B bias also.[/QUOTE]
You are right BUT a good Scientist will check things out before inflicting the B idea on the world. 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration, as they say.
One additional comment I have on this, (I previously added a comment in post #28), is that there are, even in this day and age, at least a couple of topics that are very much standard textbook material that are not covered as thoroughly as they could be in the textbooks. I think it could be good for Physics Forums to recognize when such is the case, and not immediately put it in the category of “personal theory”. There is, of course, a trade-off between easing restrictions and being flooded with all kinds of “personal theories”.
I don’t have to worry about this happening. I ain’t smart enough to theorize.
Great Insight Peter. I have no doubts that your insights about scientist/non-scientist ways of viewing are correct. Ditto for the B bias of the public. Ditto for theories that attempt to “short cut” actual learning as a prerequisite to expressing ideas on a subject.
But I do believe that scientists have B bias also. Nobody gets a Nobel prize, for reducing the discrepancy in The Moon’s orbit by 1%. It is also easier to earn tenure, or get published in Nature, or to get funding from NSF, with hopes of B advances than A tedium. Imagine a team of scientists spending a lifetime improving the conventional calculations of the Lunar orbit. How much respect do they get from fellow scientists compared to someone who claims a cancer cure?
I often think of the great service to science that is given when scientists repeat other’s reported experiments to validate or refute the claims. That’s great stuff, but how much fame and respect can you earn if you spend your whole life doing that?
I think also of theoretical physicists such as Hawking and Susskind. As Peter says, the chances of a B breakthrough are very slim, so by definition, only a tiny fraction of theoretical physicists will ever achieve one. But we don’t treat them as fools. We (scientist we and public we) accord them great respect and honor for their efforts. I think we all have the B bias.
If I substitute the word “idea” for “theory”, it is plain that Peter’s points apply to almost all human relations, not just science. While it is true that human civilization is built upon ideas, it is also true that almost all ideas are bad ideas. In everyday life, just as on PF, it is considered boorish to impose your raw ideas on others. Think of the time-honored saying, “[I]Ideas are a dime a dozen.[/I]” In today’s world with more than 7 billion people, I also believe that it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to have an idea that is truly original. It is a sign of ignorance and hubris to jump to the conclusion that your own fresh idea is original. A person needs to put more effort into an idea to validate and develop it before presenting it to others in search of “clever boy” praise.
It is also true in ordinary life that people often think their own ideas are good, only because they are ignorant of why things are the way they are, and ignorance about what ideas others have considered and rejected. We are all guilty of that. I confess to more than once scrambling for a piece of paper to write a patent disclosure document in the emotional rush after conceiving an idea that IMO was especially clever.
So scientists get annoyed by naive scientific theories. Everyone get annoyed by non-scientific naive ideas.
On the other hand, we must guard against elitism. More so in the USA than Europe, trying to silence others based on one’s authority and superiority is
considered boorish. Just yesterday I heard an advertising spot on NPR that said, “[I]I speak with the authority of someone who actually has a uterus.[/I]” In the USA, such a comment is highly offensive. Whether it is true or justified makes no difference; it is still offensive.
Most of the people making up useless “theories” are not aware of all the evidence for existing theories – and all the precise predictions every new theory has to make.
[QUOTE=”eltodesukane, post: 5437775, member: 394501″]”Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”[/QUOTE]
I would add to this: Our current fundamental theories–GR and QM–make extraordinary claims. We believe those claims because we have extraordinary evidence for them. So when someone asks what extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims would look like, we can just point them at those theories and the evidence we have for them. That’s the very high bar you have to clear to get a theory accepted the way those theories are accepted.
[quote=”john baez, post: 5437142″][quote=”ogg, post: 5436846″]Could you confirm that Newtonian Gravitation (with instantaneous interactions) is consistent (with classical physics ca 1890-1900).[/QUOTE]
Yes. Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism are not consistent with pre-special-relativity ideas about how things should look in a moving frame of reference, but that’s a separate matter. Newtonian gravitation is perfectly consistent with these ideas. In fact it’s the best theory that uses these ideas.
[quote=”ogg, post: 5436846″]My impression is that “neo”Newtonian Gravity (finite speed of c & force) is quite consistent with the Solar System’s orbital mechanics – is this right or wrong?[/QUOTE]
If you say the gravitational force moves at the speed of light and obeys a “delayed” force law, conservation of angular momentum breaks down. In other words, suppose each a particle is attracted to where it would [I]see[/I] each other particle [I]was[/I], feeling an inverse square force. Then the particles are not attracted toward their current center of mass! This means angular momentum is not conserved. Orbits would spiral down.
This effect is big enough that we can be sure by now that’s not how things work. Interestingly, in general relativity this effect does [I]not [/I]occur, even though nothing can move faster than light!
For details see the physics FAQ:
[LIST]
[*][URL=’http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html’]Does gravity travel at the speed of light?[/URL]
[/LIST]
[/quote]interesting reference:
Aberration and the Speed of Gravity (1999 dec) (S. Carlip)
(Apparent instant action at a distance in GR. The observed absence of gravitational aberration requires that “Newtonian” gravity propagate at a speed >2×10^10 c. Aberration in general relativity is almost exactly canceled by velocity-dependent interactions. This cancellation is dictated by conservation laws and the quadrupole nature of gravitational radiation.)
[URL]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087[/URL]
“resistance, even to theories that ultimately win out, is rational”
–As many have said:
“An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.” (Marcello Truzzi)
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” (Carl Sagan)
“The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.” (Pierre-Simon Laplace)
[QUOTE=”sophiecentaur, post: 5437467, member: 199289″]Would you expect to become a World Class Footballer from kicking a ball around on your own?[/QUOTE]
I think this is a spot on comparison. Yes, you can kick a ball around on your own, but would you expect the pro leagues to return your calls?