Do you like the new crackpot policy?

[Garth]

Is this a crackpot post? If we apply Zapper's criterion (peer-reviewed publication), it seems it would be.

Although turbo-1 provides no mathematical discussion for 'ZPE Field Polarization', nevertheless the fact that he suggests new experiments merits consideration. If these were to be carried out and found to yield non-GR results then that would be something and should result in new physics. The new theory so obtained may then of course not be 'ZPE Field Polarization' but may well have some relationship to it.

I would have thought that in this example there ought to be a Forum (not TD) to discuss it. So how about such a Forum? One for non-orthodox theories and ideas that can be described as 'reasonable' physics either because they have already been published in peer-reviewed journals (arXiv hardly counts), or because they propose reasonable new experiments?

BTW Nereid I would never

- go ahead and beat me to a pulp!

and I haven't given up!

Garth

 

[jcsd]

Lama was one of Doron Shadmi's incarnations, if you look at any internet bulletin board with a science or maths section the chances are you will find Doron.

 

[ZapperZ]

Although turbo-1 provides no mathematical discussion for 'ZPE Field Polarization', nevertheless the fact that he suggests new experiments merits consideration. If these were to be carried out and found to yield non-GR results then that would be something and should result in new physics. The new theory so obtained may then of course not be 'ZPE Field Polarization' but may well have some relationship to it.

Do you not see any difference between suggestions of new experiments being done legitimately in peer-reviewed journals, and the one made in that posting? Do you honestly not see any difference here?

If I were refereeing this type of "suggestions", I'd throw it out immediately. It makes ZERO citations to base any of the theoretical claims made. But more importantly, it makes ZERO quantitative predictions, either in terms of the "trend" of a set of data, or even orders-of-magnitude quantities. Hand-waving predictions are NOT considered to be valid suggestions for "new experiments". If I make my statements vague enough, I can claim validity with anything!

I'm sorry, but after all this, I still am not terribly impressed by every one of these so-called possibly legitimate "new theories". If these are the best of the examples for why we should continue to have a TD-like forum for such things, then I feel no loss (to me personally and to physics in general) in not having any of them at all.

Zz.

 

[Garth]

Do you not see any difference between suggestions of new experiments being done legitimately in peer-reviewed journals, and the one made in that posting? Do you honestly not see any difference here?

If I were refereeing this type of "suggestions", I'd throw it out immediately. It makes ZERO citations to base any of the theoretical claims made. But more importantly, it makes ZERO quantitative predictions, either in terms of the "trend" of a set of data, or even orders-of-magnitude quantities. Hand-waving predictions are NOT considered to be valid suggestions for "new experiments". If I make my statements vague enough, I can claim validity with anything!

Zz: Of course there is a substantial difference between the "suggestions of new experiments being done legitimately in peer-reviewed journals, and the one made in that posting" However at this point we are not in a peer-reviewed journal and as it is important to test standard theories in new ways, it would be good to discuss such ideas to see whether they can be brought up to a required standard or whether they fall by the wayside. I would have thought a physics coffee lounge, or failing that these Forums, would make a good place for that discussion and criticism to take place.

I'm sorry, but after all this, I still am not terribly impressed by every one of these so-called possibly legitimate "new theories". If these are the best of the examples for why we should continue to have a TD-like forum for such things, then I feel no loss (to me personally and to physics in general) in not having any of them at all.
Zz.

As well as keeping an open mind towards other heterodox theories such as MOND, have you considered a theory that does appear in peer reviewed journals (Gen Relativ Gravit. and Astrophysics and Space Science), that has 46 other author citations in peer reviewed journals, that does make precise predictions, both in the standard tests where it is concordant with observation and that also makes future predictions, one of which is being tested at the moment by GPB, Self Creation Cosmology?
I really would appreciate your sharp criticisms.

Garth

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz: Of course there is a substantial difference between the "suggestions of new experiments being done legitimately in peer-reviewed journals, and the one made in that posting" However at this point we are not in a peer-reviewed journal and as it is important to test standard theories in new ways, it would be good to discuss such ideas to see whether they can be brought up to a required standard or whether they fall by the wayside. I would have thought a physics coffee lounge, or failing that these Forums, would make a good place for that discussion and criticism to take place.

There is value in "physics coffee lounge" discussion, but this one isn't it. There has to be some sort of back-of-the-envelope type calculations to at the very least come up with what I have already mentioned: order-of-magnitude estimation. That discussion you cited offered NONE. One cannot even BEGIN to design an experiment because there are NO experiment that has an infinite range of detection. Without even knowing where to look and when to look, no experiment is possible to be designed, so forget even to know what to look.

I don't expect peer-reviewed typed caliber, but I thought we have a higher standard than those found on Crank Dot Net.

As well as keeping an open mind towards other heterodox theories such as MOND, have you considered a theory that does appear in peer reviewed journals (Gen Relativ Gravit. and Astrophysics and Space Science), that has 46 other author citations in peer reviewed journals, that does make precise predictions, both in the standard tests where it is concordant with observation and that also makes future predictions, one of which is being tested at the moment by GPB, Self Creation Cosmology?
I really would appreciate your sharp criticisms.

Garth

Is there a reason you are obsessed with promoting this? I mean, at every turn, without fail, you try to push this into the discussion.

If I offer to make a critical review of this paper, you should stop paying any credibility to what I say. This is because, anyone who has followed anything I have to say would know that this isn't my area of expertise. Unlike other quacks, even though I am trained as a physicist, I would never want to claim anything other than a superficial knowledge of this area of physics. You want someone who is an expert in this field. I suggest contacting them.

Zz.

 

[loseyourname]

To be honest, I think more regulation needs to performed. There should probably be additional mentors. The politics and philosophy forums are particularly bad. They are maintained at a standard well below that of the rest of the site, simply because the volume of bad posts is such that it is impossible for the existing mentors to adequately restrain. I am very glad for the measures taken thus far to ensure a better quality of post and poster, but I'd like to see more.

 

[Les Sleeth]

To be honest, I think more regulation needs to performed. There should probably be additional mentors. The politics and philosophy forums are particularly bad. They are maintained at a standard well below that of the rest of the site, simply because the volume of bad posts is such that it is impossible for the existing mentors to adequately restrain. I am very glad for the measures taken thus far to ensure a better quality of post and poster, but I'd like to see more.

Maybe you could get Greg to replace one of the Mentors with you, or sign you on as a philosophy consultant.

 

[loseyourname]

Maybe you could get Greg to replace one of the Mentors with you, or sign you on as a philosophy consultant.

I doubt my knowledge of philosophy is enough to qualify me as a consultant, but I'd be more than glad to help with the cleanup. The consistent argumentation (as opposed to debate or discussion) shown by so many posters bothers me to no end.

 

[Garth]

Is there a reason you are obsessed with promoting this? I mean, at every turn, without fail, you try to push this into the discussion.
Zz.

Zz I brought SCC in here because it fulfills your stated criteria of a subject to be discussed in a suitable Forum, which is on topic for this thread. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be such a Forum in PF.

Thank you for declaring the limits of your expertise, there are other members of PF who are qualified to sharply criticize cosmological theory and I would value their criticisms. Nevertheless given your criticism above of turbo-1's suggested experiments I would also value a similar discussion with you on the three definitive experiments suggested by SCC.

Garth

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz I brought SCC in here because it fulfills your stated criteria of a subject to be discussed in a suitable Forum, which is on topic for this thread. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be such a Forum in PF.

Look, the Podkletnov effect also appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (Physica B, and I think it was in 1994 or something). However, other than a discussion of what has been accomplished, and NOT accomplished so far, I would consider any extension to the "theoretical aspect" of this dubious "discovery" as quackery. Why? Because even after years and years of trying to duplicate the effect, and million and millions of dollars being spent (both by NASA and other private institutions), we get ZILCH! Therefore, the original premise that the effect is real has NOT, and so far cannot, be established. In fact, may physicists have publically discounted such effect. This means that any theoretical proposal being brought up is essentially a theory of non-existing phenomenon!

Thus, someone who comes in here, wanting to discuss a theory of the Podkletnov effect can also claim "Look, it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal!" However, it doesn't mean it is still a valid idea or discovery. My first law in requiring that it must first appear in a peer-reviewed journal is the necessary but not sufficient criteria. Before one can even be a candidate to be valid, it MUST first appear in a peer-reviewed journal, or else it is not worth the time to even be looked at. Period!

What you haven't done, or at least I haven't noticed, is show evidence that this thing that you are pushing is actually being taken seriously by the experts in the field. Are the proponents of such ideas being invited to various places and conferences to present them? Are they continually publishing such ideas in respected journals? etc.. etc. I can easily show you that those people who believed in the Podkletnov effect are NOT being invited anywhere to sell their stuff (refer to the upcoming APS March Meeting 2005 abstract listing). In other words, what possible reason is this thing worth considering here, of all places, if it is dead in the water elsewhere?

Thank you for declaring the limits of your expertise, there are other members of PF who are qualified to sharply criticize cosmological theory and I would value their criticisms. Nevertheless given your criticism above of turbo-1's suggested experiments I would also value a similar discussion with you on the three definitive experiments suggested by SCC.

Garth

I wouldn't know.

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

Thank you for declaring the limits of your expertise, there are other members of PF who are qualified to sharply criticize cosmological theory and I would value their criticisms. Nevertheless given your criticism above of turbo-1's suggested experiments I would also value a similar discussion with you on the three definitive experiments suggested by SCC.

If the subject relates to cosmological theory, why would it not fit within the astronomy and cosmology forum? Again, I don't know the science behind SCC, but if it's something credible, then it seems there is an existing forum to discuss it.

I have to agree with ZapperZ regarding publication in peer-reviewed journals being a minimum criteria. I know in my own field, things get published that are just plain wrong, and quickly get buried in dusty, bound volumes of journals. When you read old literature, or even current literature, you have to ask two questions to judge its merit: 1) Was it the best they could do with technology available at the time it was published? 2) Is it still consistent with the best we can do now giving the technology currently available? Often you can find examples that fit criterion #1, and were worthy of publication in their time, but do not fit criterion #2, and have been dismissed and disproven since then. To develop a new theory based on literature that only fits criterion #1 and not #2 would lead to that theory immediately being dismissed.

I can give you an interesting example: I reviewed a manuscript some time ago that had a title stating something was true that was never directly tested, and I happened to have sitting on my desk at the time data that completely disproved the idea. There were other major flaws in the paper, in my opinion, so I recommened rejection of the paper with comments such as that the conclusions don't follow from the data. A few months later, I was doing a lit search and came upon the paper, published in a lesser known journal, one that is somewhat known in the field as a last resort journal...maybe one paper every few issues presents something that's interesting and just didn't cleanly fit with the topics included in better known journals, but generally, it's a crappy journal. They had changed very little from the version I saw. I have not published the contradictory evidence, though have presented it at conferences (it would be premature for me to publish it because it's part of a much larger study that will all be bundled together into one paper if I can overcome some significant technical issues that have stalled going further with this work for now). So, there is stuff in the peer-reviewed literature that is wrong if you trust the conclusions of the authors, which means it is not a guarantee that just because something is published, it isn't wrong. Bad science does slip through the cracks, especially when people continue to resubmit to various journals until the luck of the draw gives them a set of reviewers who are not sufficiently experts on a topic to find the major flaws.

 

[Garth]

Moonbear & Zz - thank you for your comments. I understand, I had thought that such controversy could have been aired in a thread dedicated to that purpose on PF.

Garth

 

[Nereid]

Well, now that we've moved on from the (broad?) consensus on 'crackpots', we're now into serious (?) discussion of 'fringe' work ('maverick' as Garth put it).

If I hadn't been out for ~ 4 weeks, I'd've likely missed this ... it seems that PF is moving at a pretty astonishing speed!

From my own POV, the last few posts in this thread are beginning to get to 'what is science?', its myths and the realities ... things that were explored by Popper (a philosopher, not a scientist ... apparently he didn't look very closely at what scientists actually do!), Kuhn (he of 'paradigm' fame), Lakatos (my favourite - there's a totally delightful book he wrote on maths), and Feyerabend (rather too wild for my taste).

But, in the spirit of science (hi Crank Fan!), I humbly submit that we here at PF do have a modest source of moderately good data which we can use to test our ideas ... the ~1400 TD threads!

 

[jcsd]

On an interesting note sometimes refutations do work!

Here's a reply from a currnet thread in general physics where poster has had the problems with his idea explained:

hey, yeah, srry bout that, and yes, you are correct, I have very little training in physics, just a few books and such, so srry bout that.

 

[yxgao]

I didn't get to vote in the poll, but I probably would have voted "A site like this needs a TD section. "

I definitely see the downsides of having the section, as it wastes unnecessary resources, but sometimes the posts were amusing. In rare cases, people who responded to those posts taught the posters a lesson and they learned the real scientific theory behind their crackpot posts.

 

[ZapperZ]

I didn't get to vote in the poll, but I probably would have voted "A site like this needs a TD section. "

I definitely see the downsides of having the section, as it wastes unnecessary resources, but sometimes the posts were amusing. In rare cases, people who responded to those posts taught the posters a lesson and they learned the real scientific theory behind their crackpot posts.

Those "rare" cases are not worth the wasted unnecessary resources.

Zz.

 

[quantumdude]

Yes, and the resources include human resources. During the worst of it (in PF's earlier days, when there weren't so many science gurus around) I spent most of my time in TD out of a sense of duty. I got sick of it and almost left for good. The one or two good ideas that may come out of TD aren't worth the headaches. And anyway if the ideas are really that good, then they can be posted in the regular scientific forums.

 

[russ_watters]

In rare cases, people who responded to those posts taught the posters a lesson and they learned the real scientific theory behind their crackpot posts.

More than that, it provides the opportunity for others to learn from the crackpot's mistakes. Yes, we are aware of that benefit in TD (we debated it for some time), but decided that it wasn't worth the effort.

Thanks for your feedback.

 

[loseyourname]

More than that, it provides the opportunity for others to learn from the crackpot's mistakes. Yes, we are aware of that benefit in TD (we debated it for some time), but decided that it wasn't worth the effort.

Thanks for your feedback.

Actually, that advantage of the TD forum remains so long as the threads are archived. Just about mistake that a crackpot can make has been made in one thread or another and anyone who wishes to learn from these mistakes can peruse and absorb.

 

[Chronos]

Actually, that advantage of the TD forum remains so long as the threads are archived. Just about mistake that a crackpot can make has been made in one thread or another and anyone who wishes to learn from these mistakes can peruse and absorb.

Interesting. Perhaps PF could sponsor a 'crackpot' night event.. say once a week or once a month. I think that would be a lot of fun. Quarantine the controversial posts, sift and sort out the dumb/repetitive ones, then let the fur fly and close the dang thing after a few hours.

 

[Gokul43201]

Interesting. Perhaps PF could sponsor a 'crackpot' night event.. say once a week or once a month. I think that would be a lot of fun. Quarantine the controversial posts, sift and sort out the dumb/repetitive ones, then let the fur fly and close the dang thing after a few hours.

Brilliant !

 

[Moonbear]

Interesting. Perhaps PF could sponsor a 'crackpot' night event.. say once a week or once a month. I think that would be a lot of fun. Quarantine the controversial posts, sift and sort out the dumb/repetitive ones, then let the fur fly and close the dang thing after a few hours.

Wow! Somewhat like a public stoning. I hear those used to be very popular events; the whole town would show up for them!

 

[arildno]

Wow! Somewhat like a public stoning. I hear those used to be very popular events; the whole town would show up for them!

Yep, these were family events.
After all, kids should learn at an early age that crime&nonsense don't pay off!

 

[Terry Giblin]

A solution to the DSE, True or Flase?

Interesting. Perhaps PF could sponsor a 'crackpot' night event.. say once a week or once a month. I think that would be a lot of fun. Quarantine the controversial posts, sift and sort out the dumb/repetitive ones, then let the fur fly and close the dang thing after a few hours.

"The basic element of quantum theory is the double-slit experiment. It is a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain in any classical way and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery ... the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman

How many quantum wells can I place between the electron gun and the double slits, in the DSE, without affecting to outcome of the expertment?

Stone me...or bring me to my senses, if you can.

I have spoken, meet and corresponded to some of greatest minds in physics, every agrees the theory is correct, but they will not express an option of whether my interpretation is a valid solution to the DSE, or not.

Regards

Terry Giblin

 

[zeronem]

You guys, I just want you to know I got a kick out of reading this thread! There were some hilarious comments.

Well, Ide like to say that if crackpots are posting their ideas in areas of the Physicsforums they shouldn't be posting at, then why not keep TD for a trashcan of Crackpot ideas? Then slap an advisory for everyone about the TD board. I looked into TD long while back and really it was horrifying. I am still a student and to see crackpot ideas in TD just kills me. I first thought that TD was a place for serious researchers, whereas I could gain an insight on unflawed scientific methodical use of ideal theory development. I should of known that wasn't the case. I kind of doubt researchers would post there work in TD anyways. The existence of crackpots came clear quickly after looking in TD. As a student I was unaware of the existence of the term crackpot until I simply found the TheoryDevelopment board of the Physicsforums.

If you completely erradicate TD, the crackpots are simply going to post in legitimate boards of PF. This will lead to banning, then will lead for that banned person to create another account. Leave the TD board and screw the crackpots. Just leave them be in there own little flawed universe in the TD trashcan of crackpot ideas. Maintain the integrity of Science in your legitimate boards. Do not Maintain the integrity of Science in TD for it is a hassle and exhausting. Unless you have fun breaking those crackpot ideas into pieces.

I would like for the erradication of TD, however we can assume those crackpots who love posting those crackpot ideas will post their crackpot ideas in a board of the Physicsforums that isn't for crackpot theories. Simply this, if a crackpot believes he has found a way to teleport using a banana, let him believe this and go on to educating those on the works of Bell's Theorem and Quantum Teleportation in the Quantum Mechanics board. The crackpot will soon find that, his ideas are worthless and flawed to begin with. If they dont, wait until they go to college to see if they can make that "A" in a University Physics course. Or if there not in College and out of High School, either tell them to get a life or go to College and seek help from a professor. Or last alternative, tell them to start buying books and do lots of reading, which many of them will not do.

I end my post with this statement. If most of those crackpot ideas in TD were true, we would be colonizing Mars or colonizing other habitable planets of distant stars right now. Or the main transportation today would be teleportation. Crackpots tend come up with there crackpot ideas because it is easy for them to do so. That is why there are so many crackpot ideas. In reality, Serious theory development with the scientific method applied is much more difficult.

 

[jcsd]

I think that perhaps a less eupheminstic title for 'Theory Development' would make a more clear signpost as to the actual contents of the forum. Something like 'Crackpot's Corner' perhaps? :)

 

[ZapperZ]

"The basic element of quantum theory is the double-slit experiment. It is a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain in any classical way and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery ... the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman

How many quantum wells can I place between the electron gun and the double slits, in the DSE, without affecting to outcome of the expertment?

Stone me...or bring me to my senses, if you can.

I have spoken, meet and corresponded to some of greatest minds in physics, every agrees the theory is correct, but they will not express an option of whether my interpretation is a valid solution to the DSE, or not.

Regards

Terry Giblin

You have a very delusional idea on how an idea in physics gets evaluated for any kind of validity. Do you honestly think that "spoken, meet, and corresponded" qualify as a valid process for your idea to be (i) taken seriously and (ii) to be considered and evaluated seriously? SERIOUSLY?!

Send your idea into be published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you cannot get it to be accepted in a lower-tiered journal (forget Nature, Science, and PRL), then I strongly suggest you stop whinning the fact that no one will take you up seriously, especially when you think physics can be done (or impressed upon) simply by knowing what to quote.

And oh, before you go off on the deep end about these so-called "quantum well", I also suggest you look up the effects of various types of quantum wells in nanostructures such as quantum wires and see for yourself how much of a difference you get between that, and the double-slit pattern! Maybe you asked the wrong "greatest mind", or maybe they just didn't understand what you were spewing considering, based on your postings on PF, you are apt to mix-and-match terms in physics into something that make no sense.

If you want to be taken seriously, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. If not, look in the mirror - that's where the problem lies.

Zz.

 

[Gokul43201]

How many quantum wells can I place between the electron gun and the double slits, in the DSE, without affecting to outcome of the expertment?

Pray, tell me how you plan to place quantum wells in your electron path. What are your wells made of ?

 

[Terry Giblin]

What's to write up? Draw one line - a quantum well

I accept my methods of announcing my finds could be improved, but what do I do.

As far as I am concerned I solved the DSE by drawing a single line, between the electron gun and the double slits, calling the line a quantum well and using accept QM. - I was therefore able to eliminate the only unknown in the experiment, ie the electron and hence proving Bohr was correct, nothing exists until it is observed as an electron or photon, the rest of the time its a quantum electron.

For example what would happen if,

We used a positron gun instead? - This would not change the outcome of the experiment, from electrons to humans the physics is the same.

We used an electron and positron gun at the same time, pointing in the same direction and then in opposite directions, in the same time phase and out of phase.

Positron interference pattern, double slit, electron gun, multiple quantum wells, positron gun, double slit, electron interference pattern!

Attack my physics not my method of getting my message across, its a very simple message, which everyone who has ever studied QM should agree with, its the interpretation which is important.

Regards

Terry Giblin

What is a quantum well? - I don't exactly know but let's assume its a wall or a lift door they all work just as well we just have to be patient and wait, according to probability and QM, eventually an electron will appear.

You have a very delusional idea on how an idea in physics gets evaluated for any kind of validity. Do you honestly think that "spoken, meet, and corresponded" qualify as a valid process for your idea to be (i) taken seriously and (ii) to be considered and evaluated seriously? SERIOUSLY?!

Send your idea into be published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you cannot get it to be accepted in a lower-tiered journal (forget Nature, Science, and PRL), then I strongly suggest you stop whinning the fact that no one will take you up seriously, especially when you think physics can be done (or impressed upon) simply by knowing what to quote.

And oh, before you go off on the deep end about these so-called "quantum well", I also suggest you look up the effects of various types of quantum wells in nanostructures such as quantum wires and see for yourself how much of a difference you get between that, and the double-slit pattern! Maybe you asked the wrong "greatest mind", or maybe they just didn't understand what you were spewing considering, based on your postings on PF, you are apt to mix-and-match terms in physics into something that make no sense.

If you want to be taken seriously, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. If not, look in the mirror - that's where the problem lies.

Zz.

 

[chroot]

Terry,

No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Your last post makes that quite clear. This is also not the appropriate place to debate with Zz. Nor is this the appropriate site to espouse your tenuous "theory."

- Warren

 

[Gokul43201]

Terry,

No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Your last post makes that quite clear. This is also not the appropriate place to debate with Zz. Nor is this the appropriate site to espouse your tenuous "theory."

- Warren

So I can't respond to " As far as I am concerned I solved the DSE by drawing a single line, between the electron gun and the double slits, calling the line a quantum well" ?