Do you have to be an expert make an original contribution

[harryjoon]

In a world so diversified and specialised, where it is almost impossible to be an expert in a fraction of a field, how can anyone make a contribution which might be critical of ideas in a number of different fields.

 

[MeJennifer]

In a world so diversified and specialised, where it is almost impossible to be an expert in a fraction of a field, how can anyone make a contribution which might be critical of ideas in a number of different fields.

Actually it is easy to criticize what others have theorized, that hard thing is to come up with something better.

 

[harryjoon]

Actually it is easy to criticize what others have theorized, that hard thing is to come up with something better.

That is actually what I meant. How to dare criticize in order to replace it with something new and be taken seriously as an alternative to the expert opinion.

 

[Demystifier]

That is actually what I meant. How to dare criticize in order to replace it with something new and be taken seriously as an alternative to the expert opinion.

If you have a new theory, there are 4 ways how your theory can be taken seriously by experts community:
1. You are an already famous (or at least very respectable) expert.
2. An already famous (or at least very respectable) expert is signed as a coauthor of your theory.
3. At least one already famous (or at least very respectable) expert took your work seriously and expressed it clearly in at least one of his papers.
4. Your theory is very good.
Neither of these conditions can guarantee that your theory will indeed be taken seriously, but if neither of these conditions is satisfied, then your chances are rather weak.

 

[matthyaouw]

There's always chance for anyone to discover something new- take those recent examples of people discovering meteor craters with Google Earth. If a person wishes to take their discovery further though, they will need a good degree of familiarity with the field, otherwise they won't be able to put the discovery in its proper scientific context and critically assess it next to other research.

 

[Noone]

In a world so diversified and specialised, where it is almost impossible to be an expert in a fraction of a field, how can anyone make a contribution which might be critical of ideas in a number of different fields.

By those people bringing proof of those ideas and back them with logical finding's then it wouldn't be a problem... about how they would make a contribution in some way.

But you also asked "where" is it almost impossible to be an expert in a fraction of a field.

Being an expert in a field is only possible if other precieve you as an expert in that section of that field or the whole thing.

The answer is Almost every where... its just about the same amount of vauge that was displayed within the question it's self :) philosophy would most likly have the highest % rate

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

That is actually what I meant. How to dare criticize in order to replace it with something new and be taken seriously as an alternative to the expert opinion.

Bearing in mind the above caveats, it's not just easy it's considered de rigueur, well in scientific circles at least. Survival of the fittest.

Criticise away. What are you criticising by the way?

 

[Poop-Loops]

Criticizing scientists would be totally fine if it weren't for all the crackpots who make it look ridiculous.

http://www.einsteinwrong.com/main/

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Criticizing scientists would be totally fine if it weren't for all the crackpots who make it look ridiculous.

http://www.einsteinwrong.com/main/

Funny that there's another similar but antithetical site called.

http://www.Godwaswrong.com/

 

[Evo]

Criticizing is meaningless unless you can show you are correct. A friend of mine found an error in a calculation in some math/physics book by a notable author and e-mailed the author. The guy was rather embarrassed but thankful. So, if you're right, you're right.

 

[harryjoon]

Originally I posted this question in the physics section hoping to get the views of the peers who have crossed the line and are now looking from the other side of the glass. It has been moved so many times that I can't even find the thread any more let alone who is reading or replying to it, not that their opinion is any less appriciated. My problem is that I am in a catch 22 situation. I have been away from accademic field so long (rasing a family) that I am now considered an amature (no published work and no accademic resume). My kids have now left the nest and I am trying finish what I started almost 30 years ago. I have formulated a complete and logical theory with ample scientific proofs and experimental verification. It is however, substantially different from the main stream physics, both in content and language. I feel in order to translate it into the modern language, I would have to learn a lot of things which would be redundant, once I have turned everyone to my way. In addition, the lesser experts do not dare put their name on my work for fear of losing their position. The proper experts do not have the time nor the inclination to even give me a second of their time, for more or less the same reasons, in addition to the undeclared belief that If it was right we would have thought of it. If we can't or didn't it proves that it is wrong. In short I can not get even reviewed let alone get published. There are other reasons this lack of response, least of which is perhaps as our friend mentions is the action of the crackpots which perhaps I am one. There are also borderline bias.

 

[Evo]

Are you able, without doubt, to prove your ideas correct? If you are, e-mail the scientists involved. If you truly are correct, I am sure they will listen. If all you have is an opinion but no proof, don't expect much.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Are you able, without doubt, to prove your ideas correct? If you are, e-mail the scientists involved. If you truly are correct, I am sure they will listen. If all you have is an opinion but no proof, don't expect much.

I've seen that happen on this forum with André. They did listen to him even if they did dismiss his theories as flawed. There's a global warming thread somewhere where he gives a link to a dialogue with a scientist about a particular web debate, that got very technical and kind of carried on by other means off the site.

So yes given the media types available these days its much easier to criticize anyone.

 

[Astronuc]

That is actually what I meant. How to dare criticize in order to replace it with something new and be taken seriously as an alternative to the expert opinion.

As others have mentioned, one has to have some competence and expertise in order to be able to make a valid criticism of whatever is being criticized. If one identifies an error in something, a bit of math or a scientific theory, then one simply brings it to the attention of someone(s) in that field then present the evidence of why the math or theory is wrong (the contradiction) and then a proposed correction.

As Evo mentioned, if you're right, the merits of one's case stand on their own.

Some folks who criticize and an accepted (and tested) theory, likely don't understand it and in the case of crackpots, propose something erroneous.

 

[Astronuc]

Originally I posted this question in the physics section hoping to get the views of the peers who have crossed the line and are now looking from the other side of the glass. It has been moved so many times that I can't even find the thread any more let alone who is reading or replying to it, not that their opinion is any less appriciated. My problem is that I am in a catch 22 situation. I have been away from accademic field so long (rasing a family) that I am now considered an amature (no published work and no accademic resume). My kids have now left the nest and I am trying finish what I started almost 30 years ago. I have formulated a complete and logical theory with ample scientific proofs and experimental verification. It is however, substantially different from the main stream physics, both in content and language. I feel in order to translate it into the modern language, I would have to learn a lot of things which would be redundant, once I have turned everyone to my way. In addition, the lesser experts do not dare put their name on my work for fear of losing their position. The proper experts do not have the time nor the inclination to even give me a second of their time, for more or less the same reasons, in addition to the undeclared belief that If it was right we would have thought of it. If we can't or didn't it proves that it is wrong. In short I can not get even reviewed let alone get published. There are other reasons this lack of response, least of which is perhaps as our friend mentions is the action of the crackpots which perhaps I am one. There are also borderline bias.

One can click on one's profile and select find posts.

If you work is 'substantially' different from established theory, then it is a matter of presenting the evidence to a knowledgeable group, such as we have here at PF.

When one mentions, "translate it into the modern language", I have to wonder about that? Math and physics have evolved with a history or legacy, and the language has evolved with knew ideas and understanding.

If one's work contradicts observation, then obviously there is a flaw in one's work.

The universe is what it is, and the challege before us is to understand it, and perhaps appreciate it.

 

[harryjoon]

One can click on one's profile and select find posts.

If you work is 'substantially' different from established theory, then it is a matter of presenting the evidence to a knowledgeable group, such as we have here at PF.

When one mentions, "translate it into the modern language", I have to wonder about that? Math and physics have evolved with a history or legacy, and the language has evolved with knew ideas and understanding.

If one's work contradicts observation, then obviously there is a flaw in one's work.

The universe is what it is, and the challenge before us is to understand it, and perhaps appreciate it.

I thank you for your comments. Let me explain my problem a little more without lecturing you about my theory, which I believe is against the rules here.
There a number of very important experiments in 20th century. One of them being the Michelson and Morley experiment which essentially led to the special theory of relativity. The modern unification theories predict a violation of the postulates of STR. The above mentioned important experiments, called violation tests of STR, are also interpreted as verification of STR, since they have all produced a null result. This further fuels the problem of unification. Faced with this difficulty, a lot of ingenious people have put forward a lot of ingenious theories with the appropriate mathematics which is unbelievable complicated, to an extent that no one knows what they actually mean physically. This trend by no means at an end and it is generally believed that either some new mathematics or some new observation (physical data) is needed (short of a miracle!).
What I have found is that there is a pattern in all of those experiments, and I mean all not just some, by retracing the development of modern physics to its origin. The pattern is series erroneous assumptions. Based on these corrections, all of those experiments can be modified slightly to produce the expected positive result.
Here is where the plot thickens. It is universally believed that a positive result of any of these experiment contradicts or violates the STR. Even though I have clearly proved that it does not, No one wants to read it. The same erroneous assumption have been carried over into GR and Quantum Mechanics, atomic physics and a vast part of physics, preventing a unified theory.
Such is the scope of the theory, that leads almost every one, sometimes myself included, to think that it can not be possible, and it must almost certainly be a delusion. But the proof is in the underlying thread, or the pattern, which is undeniably there for all to theoretically see, and experimentally verify.
I guess by now you are wondering what is this secret of life that you have discovered despite all the ingenious minds and experiments that have examined them. The final problem I have is the very simplicity of these erroneous assumptions, to a point that at first they perhaps appear almost trivial.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

That's not exactly an unusual area of thought. OK you don't read about new ideas too much except in the science mags, but just about every scientist thinks like you do. They just don't publish unless they can put their money where there mouth is, after all their professional reputation is on the line. All is not lost though, that's what the internet is for, or your colleagues. I doubt Bohr sat around all day in his own little world before he came up with the rather annoying Copenhagen Interpretation. That said if you really want to get anywhere, first try modelling it with the maths. Without anything more than an idea it's unlikely that people will listen. Of course that means you'll have to learn some advanced maths but that's physics.

Wake up with a hypothesis, disprove it over breakfast, then you are ready to work.

Anon (scientist)

 

[Vanadium 50]

While it is possible for an amateur to make a contribution, it's probably not possible for a non-expert: to make a contribution, one needs to thoroughly understand the area of physics he or she is trying to improve.

Also, you have to be right, and you have to present your argument in a way that will be accepted - which means scrupulously avoiding arguments made by crackpots and cranks.

As I understand it, your claim is to have found an error - not an improved theory, not a more interesting and fruitful starting point or model - but an actual error. This error pervades almost all of physics and has gone undetected by everyone except you for over a century. If so, this would be unprecedented. I can't think of a single example anywhere in science - yes, models that have later shown to be incomplete have lasted that long, but I don't believe an actual error has lasted that long.

If such a thing were true - you've found an error that a century of experts and Nobel prize winners didn't - any of your "lesser experts" (lesser than whom, anyway? You?) would have their careers made by being able to co-author a paper that shows this. Claiming they would lose their position if they did this flies in the face of how scientific reputations are made - and is the sort of argument advanced by crackpots.

Furthermore, if you want to argue that a million man-years of physicists missed an error that you caught, it's vital to your argument that you not make any errors of your own in presentation. Michelson-Morley was not mentioned in the 1905 paper by Einstein, and there is some debate among historians of science as to how familiar Einstein was with the results. It's not true that unification necessarily requires a violation of relativity (and the one example we have so far, electroweak unification, does not), and when you suggest that modern theorists don't understand their own theories, again you are using an "argument" (in quotes because it's really not deserving of the name) that is also favored by crackpots.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I think you forgot the unification of electricity and magnetism. They were discreet originally believe it or not. Just to be extraordinarily pedantic.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think you forgot the unification of electricity and magnetism. They were discreet originally believe it or not. Just to be extraordinarily pedantic.

As an example of what? As an error? I don't think so - I took pains to distinguish between an error and a better theory. Theories improve all the time. It's rare for an error to stick around for even a few years, much less a century,

Or is this a unification example? This is the reverse of that - it's a case where SR is required to make the unification work.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I don't know you've confused me now. I just meant that electricty and magnetism are examples of unification without violating SR or not violating it, obviously, being as they are and were unified before SR existed.

Unless my logic chip has malfunctioned, they are examples of unification not requiring violation or non violation of SR for that matter. I realize it's extraordinarilly pedantic, but it had to be said because I have been stimping on the pedantry recently and I wanted to achieve my monthly quota.

 

[wolram]

In a world so diversified and specialised, where it is almost impossible to be an expert in a fraction of a field, how can anyone make a contribution which might be critical of ideas in a number of different fields.

Just get it published in any old mag, you will get get feed back if you are right.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

In a world so diversified and specialised, where it is almost impossible to be an expert in a fraction of a field, how can anyone make a contribution which might be critical of ideas in a number of different fields.

Just get it published in any old mag, you will get get feed back if you are right.

Scientific American assuming you're in the US would be your best bet. It's laymen accessible without being too journal like. However I doubt you'd get very far unless you could convince them your points had merit either, as their staff are no doubt quite well educated themselves.

 

[ZapperZ]

I thank you for your comments. Let me explain my problem a little more without lecturing you about my theory, which I believe is against the rules here.
There a number of very important experiments in 20th century. One of them being the Michelson and Morley experiment which essentially led to the special theory of relativity. The modern unification theories predict a violation of the postulates of STR. The above mentioned important experiments, called violation tests of STR, are also interpreted as verification of STR, since they have all produced a null result. This further fuels the problem of unification. Faced with this difficulty, a lot of ingenious people have put forward a lot of ingenious theories with the appropriate mathematics which is unbelievable complicated, to an extent that no one knows what they actually mean physically. This trend by no means at an end and it is generally believed that either some new mathematics or some new observation (physical data) is needed (short of a miracle!).
What I have found is that there is a pattern in all of those experiments, and I mean all not just some, by retracing the development of modern physics to its origin. The pattern is series erroneous assumptions. Based on these corrections, all of those experiments can be modified slightly to produce the expected positive result.
Here is where the plot thickens. It is universally believed that a positive result of any of these experiment contradicts or violates the STR. Even though I have clearly proved that it does not, No one wants to read it. The same erroneous assumption have been carried over into GR and Quantum Mechanics, atomic physics and a vast part of physics, preventing a unified theory.
Such is the scope of the theory, that leads almost every one, sometimes myself included, to think that it can not be possible, and it must almost certainly be a delusion. But the proof is in the underlying thread, or the pattern, which is undeniably there for all to theoretically see, and experimentally verify.
I guess by now you are wondering what is this secret of life that you have discovered despite all the ingenious minds and experiments that have examined them. The final problem I have is the very simplicity of these erroneous assumptions, to a point that at first they perhaps appear almost trivial.

1. How many experiments, and I mean, properly conducted experiments, have you done?

2. How do you explain why your modern electronics work if QM and SR were based on faulty theory?

Zz.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Scientific American assuming you're in the US would be your best bet. It's laymen accessible without being too journal like.

I think that's a very bad choice. First, it's not directed towards the audience that Harryjoon needs to address. If he wants to convince physicists they have been making a mistake for a century, he needs to write in a journal that physicists read. Second, Scientific American is unlike Nature in that it does not take primary articles - it's entirely review articles. Finally, they must get zillions of letters from people explaining how the rest of science gets it wrong, and that they, and only they, know the Truth. To get your ideas taken seriously, you want to stay far, far away from this bunch.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

OK, Z

Why don't you list ALL of the properly conducted experiments that Einstein did

I wouldn't ask that if I was you, I suspect he was present or involved in most of them, he didn't actually have to do them himself. However they did have to have been done. Wow that's odd grammar. So the point still remains, how many experiments have been carried out by you or anyone?

I think basically what you have at the moment is a hypothesis, this encourages people to be a lot more cynical about the arguments than they would be of a law say, and the fact that you are self admittedly no expert is probably setting off Zz's crackpot detector.

I think the answer is yes you can criticize anything, if you are right. However the nature of science is that it likes to see why you are right within the framework of science. Take this example: say I were to say Jesus never existed because I had a theory based on reading the NT. How likely do you think the canonical scholars in the Catholic Church would be to take me seriously. If I said I could prove that I did not exist after reading Sartre, if I told an existentialist that was the only book I had ever read about philosophy, how likely would they be to take me seriously?

 

[rewebster]

OK--how many properly conducted experiments did that guy who came up with string theory do? (relating to string theory, that is)

 

[Astronuc]

OK, Z

Why don't you list ALL of the properly conducted experiments that Einstein did

Einstein was primarily a theoretician who worked in conjunction with experimentalists. There was a lot of communication among many physicists, as well as many conferences in which theoretical and experimental physicists gathered to discuss their work.

Experimental obsevations of stars made during the 1919 and 1922 eclipses provided evidence of GR theory.
http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/bsparcs/physics/eclipse.htm

In 1921, Einstein won the Nobel Prize in Physics. It was given to him, not for his theories of relativity, but for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect. This scientific law explained how and why some metals give off electrons after light falls on their surfaces. The discovery led to the development of modern electronics, including radio and television. In one paper, he stated that light travels both in waves and in particles, called photons. This idea is an important part of what is called the quantum theory. Another paper was about the motion of small particles suspended in a liquid or gas called Brownian motion. It confirmed the atomic theory of matter.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/Albert-einstein-faq.htm

http://search.nobelprize.org/search/nobel/?q=Einstein&i=en&x=6&y=10

Einstein won the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for the Photoelectric Effect. He also did work on Brownian motion.

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-brownian.htm

Einstein, A. (1905), "Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen.", Annalen der Physik 17: 549-560
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/5006612/549_560.pdf

 

[rewebster]

yes---but the point is, how many experiments did Einstein do, himself, relating to his theories before he published his paper(s) , or to 'prove' his paper(s)?

Asking anyone who has a hypothesis/theory to prove 'by experiment' that theory isn't necessary. It just has to have merits (and still may not be 'right'--it's just got to be 'more right' than the existing ones) that may or can be proved later, as in string theory (which still may never be proved).

There was a period of 'years' between the hypothesis and the experiment for the starlight bending around the sun---and, still, Einstein did not do the experiment himself.

 

[Moonbear]

In a world so diversified and specialised, where it is almost impossible to be an expert in a fraction of a field, how can anyone make a contribution which might be critical of ideas in a number of different fields.

If you're not an expert in those fields, you won't. How can you write an intelligent critique of something if you don't have the expertise to understand it or know what you're talking about? Your lack of understanding of a subject does not constitute a valid critique.

The usual way that people bridge knowledge across multiple fields is to work in collaborative teams. For example, a chemist purifies a molecule, then the physicist comes along and conducts the experiment to determine the 3D structure of that molecule, and the biologist then takes that information to help interpret how it functions in an organism.