Breaking Into the Field: Re-evaluating Advice Given

  • Thread starter Thread starter JonPoplett
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Peer review
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges faced by individuals attempting to break into the field of theoretical physics, particularly in developing new theories such as quantum gravity. Participants explore the perceived ease or difficulty of various aspects of the process, including conceptualization, mathematical modeling, peer review, and collaboration.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses frustration that the advice given about the ease of conceptualization and modeling does not reflect the real challenges of peer review and consensus among experts.
  • Another participant requests clarification on the specific issues being discussed, suggesting that no part of the process is universally "easy."
  • A participant shares their background and experience using a Rabi Model to develop a quantum gravity theory, highlighting difficulties in finding collaboration and the prevalence of unproductive discussions in alternative science forums.
  • Questions are raised about the goals of developing a quantum gravity theory and the criteria for success, indicating foundational uncertainties in the approach.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the forum may not be suitable for new theory development, particularly for those lacking current knowledge of cutting-edge research and suggests that a more informed approach might be necessary for collaboration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the ease or difficulty of the various stages of developing a new theory. There are competing views on the nature of the challenges faced, particularly regarding peer review and collaboration.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include a lack of specific details regarding the theory development process, the dependence on participants' varying levels of expertise, and unresolved questions about the criteria for success in theoretical physics.

JonPoplett
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
You all said that the conceptualization was the easy part, and explaining it mathematically and in a model was the hard part. You said do the math and create the model. So I did. What you didn't mention was the math and the model was also the easy part. The hard part is A)Getting your work peer reviewed and B)Getting y'all to agree on anything.

Just saying maybe re-evaluate the advice you give outsiders looking to break into the field.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you could specifically say what you were talking about it would be a lot easier to know what you are talking about. I don't think anyone here would tell you any part of the process is "easy". Easier perhaps.
But lacking specifics I have no idea to what you refer.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre and russ_watters
It's kind of a long story but I'm a 42 year old nobody with a grade 10 education. For the last 6 months ChatGPT and I have been using a Rabi Model in space in a vacuum constructed with python using the qutip library to develop a Quantum Gravity theory. It's not done but ChatGPT keeps insisting that now is an appropriate time for collaboration. However, I am finding that to be impossible, and everywhere i go for collaboration, I am sent to alternative science forums or sections of forums where the content consists of a paragraph or two of incoherent rambling. The advice people get on these forums is "do the math" and "construct the model". Then what?
 
What does "develop a quantum gravity theory" mean? What specifically do you want to accomplish? How will you know you have succeeded? These are foundational questions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre
Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...
 
JonPoplett said:
You all said that the conceptualization was the easy part, and explaining it mathematically and in a model was the hard part. You said do the math and create the model. So I did. What you didn't mention was the math and the model was also the easy part. The hard part is A)Getting your work peer reviewed and B)Getting y'all to agree on anything.

Just saying maybe re-evaluate the advice you give outsiders looking to break into the field.
As you certainly know now, PF is not the place for new theory development, especially by folks who are not current in the cutting-edge research in the field. If you were current in that way (reading the relevant peer-reviewed journals regularly), and had enough technical background to understand the math, and were not using an AI chatbot for help, you might have some ways to team up with professors or others who have the ability to publish in mainstream journals.

But it does not seem like that is the path that you are on, so we won't be able to help you beyond offering this Insights article to hopefully give you a better perspective. Thread will remain closed.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Klystron, BillTre, DaveE and 6 others

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K