Advice on Discovery: What Would You Do?

[QMessenger]

Hi,
I am not a physics major, but attend a small university and am working on my PhD. I stumbled across something, and just accepted what I saw and went from there. It helped that I
1. accepted that we are all human and make mistakes
2. didn't know what had already been disproven

So I need advice: Hypothetically, you have stumbled across the solution to a theory that has been highly sought after by some very big names in physics. The most likely alternate conclusions are that you are just very very wrong or of unsound mind, but no matter what you see a possible danger within your lifetime if you are correct.
1. So plod along researching this on your own as no one in your school has a clue what you are doing. Maybe even with the help of your tiny physics department you could be done in about 250 years judging from the size of a physics book. You would then try submitting to some journals (and you don't even have one published paper yet).
2. You are a slow thinker, but you could take some time to study abstract math and write out just the theory for only part of it. This would be more feasible as it is time manageable, but you still have that ticking clock in your head. Plus eventually your advisor and school will want to know what the bloody hell you are doing.
3. Just admit what you see laying before you is beyond the ability for one person to fully fathom. Just dump it out to the world for it to digest, if they will. This would be a challenge as the bigger the claim, the bigger the proof.


What would you do?

Regards,
QMessenger

 

[DaveC426913]

Danger?

Like, dogs and cats living together danger? Or the Earth being swallowed by a black hole danger?

 

[QMessenger]

Not going to answer that. My goal is for real advice on how to proceed forward. Me being banned wouldn't help.

Would you try to get a few minutes with a notable physicist? Do you think they would even listen? Should I start a web site, stick up my data and theories? Probably be labeled a crank at first, but there are always curious people in the world, maybe get a buzz going?

 

[DrummingAtom]

You found a physics theory I take it? What are you doing your PhD in? If it's physics, why not change your thesis?

 

[QMessenger]

My PhD isn't in physics. My school doesn't offer a PhD in physics. No one in my school is qualified to even say if it is a good dissertation topic or not. I had no idea that there was a theory about it until my brother asked if it was related to it. I would have no problem at least trying to switch to MIT or Stanford, but what would be the best route to get an audience with a faculty member without them walking out? Is that even the best route to take? Not really familiar with how physics academia view things.

 

[micromass]

So, you're doing a PhD? Is it in physics? Why not show your work to your advisor, that's what they're there for...

Otherwise, you could publish your theory here in PF, in the independent research forum. If you're afraid your idea will be stolen, then a post in PF will show the date and will show that you had the idea first.

You could also publish your idea on the ArXiv...

 

[G01]

Forget "notable," any physicist will do.

You are at a university. Use your resources. Try to talk your idea over with some people in the physics department. Chances are, especially if you are untrained in the subject, any physicist, including the grad students, could offer you constructive criticism and advice.

 

[QMessenger]

So, you're doing a PhD? Is it in physics? Why not show your work to your advisor, that's what they're there for...

Otherwise, you could publish your theory here in PF, in the independent research forum. If you're afraid your idea will be stolen, then a post in PF will show the date and will show that you had the idea first.

You could also publish your idea on the ArXiv...

ArXiv? Not aware of what that is, I will definitely check that out.

 

[QMessenger]

Forget "notable," any physicist will do.

You are at a university. Use your resources. Try to talk your idea over with some people in the physics department. Chances are, especially if you are untrained in the subject, any physicist, including the grad students, could offer you constructive criticism and advice.

I think I saw most of your reply before you edited it. In either case, I fully agree with your sentiments. I am not a typical grad student as I started school late and just decided to keep on truckin' with the PhD. I have been wrong enough times to cool down any ego I had. There is one physics professor that I had who I am strongly considering to hit up, and probably should have done that weeks ago.

 

[DaveC426913]

Or you could discuss it with a Physics https://www.physicsforums.com/help/mentorforums/" here in private.

It shouldn't be hard to discuss it without letting everything out of the bag. I would trust them to do right by you. It's not like they're going to sieze the idea and become millionaires.

Perhaps PM Doc Al or ZapperZ and ask them if they'd be willing.

 

[QMessenger]

Or you could discuss it with a Physics https://www.physicsforums.com/help/mentorforums/" here in private.

It shouldn't be hard to discuss it without letting everything out of the bag. I would trust them to do right by you. It's not like they're going to sieze the idea and become millionaires.

Perhaps PM Doc Al or ZapperZ and ask them if they'd be willing.

Will give that a shot. Thanks.

 

[G01]

I think I saw most of your reply before you edited it. In either case, I fully agree with your sentiments. I am not a typical grad student as I started school late and just decided to keep on truckin' with the PhD. I have been wrong enough times to cool down any ego I had. There is one physics professor that I had who I am strongly considering to hit up, and probably should have done that weeks ago.

Yes, I cut my response down, quite I bit. (I'll admit I may sometimes over edit a bit. )

What I said seemed like too much at once. (And, since you're a grad student, I felt a lecture on "being ok with being wrong" sounded condescending.) So I thought I'd cut it down to focus on what I think the important point is:

If you really think your onto something, you need to let your idea be vetted by others in the community. It's the only way you will know your good ideas from your bad ones.

 

[eri]

Start with your own physics department. With no physics background yourself, and professors with PhDs in the subject hanging around, they're the people to start with. It's very likely that you are overlooking something basic, or unaware of a great deal of research that's been done in the area. Certainly don't dismiss the people you have access to in favor of those you might have heard of, because the top people in the field aren't going to listen to you. They get tons of email from cranks. Heck, even I do, and I'm not a top person in my field. And no matter what your idea is, you can't get into a physics PhD program without significant background in the field, and one idea isn't enough to bother trying.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Hi,
I am not a physics major, but attend a small university and am working on my PhD. I stumbled across something, and just accepted what I saw and went from there. It helped that I
1. accepted that we are all human and make mistakes
2. didn't know what had already been disproven

So I need advice: Hypothetically, you have stumbled across the solution to a theory that has been highly sought after by some very big names in physics. The most likely alternate conclusions are that you are just very very wrong or of unsound mind, but no matter what you see a possible danger within your lifetime if you are correct.
1. So plod along researching this on your own as no one in your school has a clue what you are doing. Maybe even with the help of your tiny physics department you could be done in about 250 years judging from the size of a physics book. You would then try submitting to some journals (and you don't even have one published paper yet).
2. You are a slow thinker, but you could take some time to study abstract math and write out just the theory for only part of it. This would be more feasible as it is time manageable, but you still have that ticking clock in your head. Plus eventually your advisor and school will want to know what the bloody hell you are doing.
3. Just admit what you see laying before you is beyond the ability for one person to fully fathom. Just dump it out to the world for it to digest, if they will. This would be a challenge as the bigger the claim, the bigger the proof.


What would you do?

Regards,
QMessenger

As long as you're not a philosophy major. The world probably doesn't need another "theory" about quantum mechanics or some such from someone who neither understands math nor physics and thinks Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" or anything by Brian Greene or Michio Kaku constitutes a "textbook". If it relates to something like interpretation and cannot be presented in a quantitative framework (from which prediction can be made that differ from accepted theory) I'd probably make absolutely sure you understand the science before moving forward. There's no shortage of philosophers who see a PBS Nova TV Show or some such and are convinced that physicists CLEARLY don't realize that universe is just like these splitting waves of... I dunno, grapefruits or some such. I'm sure this sounds really harsh I just want to put things in context. If you've honestly got something concrete (i.e. quantitative) and you understand the science (math, partial differential equations, functional integration, etc.) and you know there is a difference between what is in textbooks and what you've found then by all means put in a paper and post it on arxiv or the like. However, I should tell you that Arxiv uses a computer algorithm to toss out any submissions with certain combinations of keywords (essentially a crackpot filter) so what you put on has to be serious work.

 

[QMessenger]

Start with your own physics department. With no physics background yourself, and professors with PhDs in the subject hanging around, they're the people to start with. It's very likely that you are overlooking something basic, or unaware of a great deal of research that's been done in the area. Certainly don't dismiss the people you have access to in favor of those you might have heard of, because the top people in the field aren't going to listen to you. They get tons of email from cranks. Heck, even I do, and I'm not a top person in my field. And no matter what your idea is, you can't get into a physics PhD program without significant background in the field, and one idea isn't enough to bother trying.

Understood. All advice appreciated.

 

[QMessenger]

As long as you're not a philosophy major. The world probably doesn't need another "theory" about quantum mechanics or some such from someone who neither understands math nor physics and thinks Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" or anything by Brian Greene or Michio Kaku constitutes a "textbook". If it relates to something like interpretation and cannot be presented in a quantitative framework (from which prediction can be made that differ from accepted theory) I'd probably make absolutely sure you understand the science before moving forward. There's no shortage of philosophers who see a PBS Nova TV Show or some such and are convinced that physicists CLEARLY don't realize that universe is just like these splitting waves of... I dunno, grapefruits or some such. I'm sure this sounds really harsh I just want to put things in context. If you've honestly got something concrete (i.e. quantitative) and you understand the science (math, partial differential equations, functional integration, etc.) and you know there is a difference between what is in textbooks and what you've found then by all means put in a paper and post it on arxiv or the like. However, I should tell you that Arxiv uses a computer algorithm to toss out any submissions with certain combinations of keywords (essentially a crackpot filter) so what you put on has to be serious work.

Nope, no philosophy major. I will come back here and post before I release anything to Arxiv.

 

[ZapperZ]

Nope, no philosophy major. I will come back here and post before I release anything to Arxiv.

Posting to Arxiv for the first time requires an endorsement.

Look, I'm not going to sugar-coat this. I've heard this all before. In the many years that I've been a physicist and being involved in online discussion, hardly a month goes by without someone I don't know contacting me and proclaiming that he/she has discovered something important. I will flat out tell you that, in my experience, 100% of the time, these people were wrong. When one doesn't know what Clebsh-Gordon coefficient is and when one has never heard of the WKB approximation, it is difficult to accept that the same person thinks that he/she has solved anything in quantum mechanics, for example.

So if you think you have a theory that is the best thing since sliced cheese, get in line! There are others before you vying for our attentions, and they were here first!

Zz.

 

[QMessenger]

Posting to Arxiv for the first time requires an endorsement.

Look, I'm not going to sugar-coat this. I've heard this all before. In the many years that I've been a physicist and being involved in online discussion, hardly a month goes by without someone I don't know contacting me and proclaiming that he/she has discovered something important. I will flat out tell you that, in my experience, 100% of the time, these people were wrong. When one doesn't know what Clebsh-Gordon coefficient is and when one has never heard of the WKB approximation, it is difficult to accept that the same person thinks that he/she has solved anything in quantum mechanics, for example.

So if you think you have a theory that is the best thing since sliced cheese, get in line! There are others before you vying for our attentions, and they were here first!

Zz.

In other words, money talks, BS walks. Point taken. Maybe, if nothing else, this conversation can dissuade someone from wasting finite resources and energy until they can write a coherent argument.

 

[QMessenger]

So here is another thought. What if I wanted to anonymously just post some lab data, a few definitions and a general heading with no theory. Then interested people could take a look at the data, which is basically a plot with axes labeled. I would then want subforums where discussions could take place. Where would be the best place to do that?

 

[mal4mac]

As long as you're not a philosophy major...

Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Pascal... all of them were 'philosophy majors', but they did some work that physicists found useful...

 

[QMessenger]

Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Pascal... all of them were 'philosophy majors', but they did some work that physicists found useful...

Ah, wow, excellent point. I didn't realize it, but I had been musing some philosophical questions over in my head. Your post was like a slap upside my head. I agree with the basis of your reply. Thanks.

 

[ZapperZ]

Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Pascal... all of them were 'philosophy majors', but they did some work that physicists found useful...

You can't really use those as valid points, because the times they lived in is very different with respect to what is considered to be "philosophy" versus what is considered to be "science". Often those two are the same thing during those times. Philosophers TODAY make little to no contribution to expanding the body of knowledge of physics. On the other hand, physicists have introduced many new concepts that challenges many philosophical ideas.

Zz.

 

[DaveC426913]

Look, I'm not going to sugar-coat this. I've heard this all before. In the many years that I've been a physicist and being involved in online discussion, hardly a month goes by without someone I don't know contacting me and proclaiming that he/she has discovered something important. I will flat out tell you that, in my experience, 100% of the time, these people were wrong.

We all know this. So much so that I believe it should go without saying.

This is why I tend to proceed optimistically. There is no upside in expecting failure, and no downside in expecting success. So there is no harm* in proceeding as if this is legit, even if we all know that the chances are that of a whelk's in a supernova.

If his idea is wrong it likely won't take much effort to show it. It is far better to show him the actual flaws and have him accept that than to say "you can't possibly have discovered anything new".


*except the time of the expert who volunteers