How do people explore new ideas in physics?

[PeterDonis]

I think a short summary of that would be of interest to this community.

"A short summary" is still personal research and off topic here.

 

[Hornbein]

Don't know this history, but your track record above leaves me thinking there is a lot more to the story.

History says that Oliver Heaviside was self taught and did highly original and important work. But that was in the 19th century. Faraday was 200 years ago.

No one knows whether all the easier things have already been discovered, but it seems that way.

 

[.Scott]

"A short summary" is still personal research and off topic here.

Despite his sales pitch, his idea is just computational. He saying he has a better way of doing some calculations. If his way of computing the red shift comes up with a different number - it wouldn't be new Physics, it would just be a mistake.
It's the same nature of "research" that someone would use in finding a different way to figure out a homework problem. All I am doing is asking him to be very explicit in explaining his solution - to make it easier to verify.

 

[PeterDonis]

Despite his sales pitch, his idea is just computational. He saying he has a better way of doing some calculations.

That's still personal research. PF is not for reviewing that kind of work.

 

[PeterDonis]

All I am doing is asking him to be very explicit in explaining his solution - to make it easier to verify.

If you want to spend the time and effort doing that via PM with the OP, that's up to you. But it's off topic in a public thread.

 

[PeroK]

If you want to spend the time and effort doing that via PM with the OP, that's up to you. But it's off topic in a public thread.

That said, it looks more like "advanced physics homework". The problem is in the expectation that it's something for a physics journal or publication, rather than something for a tutor or homework helper to review.

 

[PeterDonis]

it looks more like "advanced physics homework"

A question about the relevant equations might be. But this...

it's a pure math refactoring of general relativity that reproduces the exact same results with different pedagogical understanding and has some real computational benefits. I hesitate to get into to much details for fear of being warned for self promotion.

...is not.

 

[Rive]

One of the biggest things I'm noticing about the physics community is that there are some serious barriers to entry.

Sure. Physics has that pesky 'reality' thing above all, what makes a difference: those who did not prove beforehand to be able to walk the walk will have clear difficulties.

My paper is ... pure math refactoring of general relativity that reproduces the exact same results.... and has some real computational benefits.

I think you will need to prove two things really carefully in a paper.

First is, that there is significant benefit: this part is just a benchmark of calculations with different methods.
This part may seem simple, but you need to be extremely familiar with the calculation methods in use and the cutting edge problems people has. Basic university grade stuff won't cut it, not even close.

Second, most important part: mathematically prove that your method is really equivalent with GR within the whole already proven framework (or within a significant and important enough part of it) of GR. Just pointing out that at the end the numbers are the same won't cut it.

If you frame your idea as a computational benefit and not some 'new pedagogical understanding' or whatnot then you might pass the hurdle. There is a decent heritage of seemingly competing but (at least within a range) mathematically equivalent approaches in physics (with different benefits) so if your stuff is sound, then it's not entirely hopeless.

But: not here.

 

[pinball1970]

This is exactly the attitude I'm talking about. There is a "holier than thou" vibe. The idea that someone couldn't possibly have taught themselves is just objectively wrong. Some of the most important contributions in the history of physics came from people that were outsiders.

Michael Faraday had almost no formal mathematical education, worked as a bookbinder's apprentice. Self taught from books he was binding.

Einstein was a patent clerk, not in academia.

Oliver Heaviside was self taught, worked as a telegraph operator.

The patent clerk who revolutionized physics might not get past today's gatekeepers.

Damn it, I did not read this post, just the first one.
Ok so my crankometer just went off a little.
Comparing yourself to Faraday and Einstein really is not the way to go, and believe it or not this is not the first time we have heard that.

 

[TensorCalculus]

If you want the opinion of someone who’s also self-taught in physics, though maybe not to the same level as you are, it’s the same as most of the people on this thread.

- You could spend one hour learning python and ship a basic text-based game on GitHub. You can spend a couple months learning game dev and ship a really decent game on GitHub.
- One hour of physics and you probably haven’t even started to describe any physical systems yet, let alone post something of meaning online. A couple months of physics and even if you were an astoundingly quick learner you wouldn’t be past the stage where everything is drastically “dumbed down” and sometimes twisted just to make life simpler for people learning physics. You still probably wouldn’t even understand a good chunk the conversations on online forums like PF (especially the technical conversations), let alone make worthwhile contributions to science.

The difference between the amount you can contribute to the coding and physics community after a certain amount of time only increases from there. Someone who has been teaching themselves coding for 10 years will be able to contribute much more to the community than someone who has been teaching themselves physics for 10 years. That’s just the nature of the subject.

And we have much more powerful computers and tools to help us learn as well... Taught myself a crash course in quantum mechanics with 11 hour youtube videos like this:

If learning off a YouTube video gave you the neccesary knowledge and tools to make a groundbreaking contribution to science, wouldn’t the person who made the video have already made said contribution by now?

 

[.Scott]

A question about the relevant equations might be. But this...

[... refactoring of general relativity ...]
...is not.

I think you have succumbed to his sales pitch. I strongly suspect that the alternative equation he is using is already well-known.
In the code he presents no "argument" in its favor - seeming to presume that it is known to be valid.
In fact, I would add that as another complaint to him - he needs a citation for that as well.
His "claim to fame" is that he is picking the right equation to implement in code.

 

[Dale]

Einstein was a patent clerk, not in academia.
…
The patent clerk who revolutionized physics might not get past today's gatekeepers.

Einstein was in academia. He published in the professional scientific literature of his time. He was an academic that also worked as a patent clerk, not a scientific outsider. He followed the standard processes of the scientific community of his day, I see no reason why he would have had any difficulty doing the same thing today.

when people reject new things without even considering or looking at what they are, potential opportunities are lost.

Potential opportunities are also lost when people do consider each new thing and look at what they are. There is an opportunity cost either way.

My paper isn't some crazy theory, it's a pure math refactoring of general relativity that reproduces the exact same results with different pedagogical understanding and has some real computational benefits.

Do you have a recommendation for a journal that would be interested in a full refactoring of GR math?

Seems like it would be suitable for a math or computational physics journal. I don’t know that area of the literature well enough to suggest a journal.

Often, you can get a good idea of which journal to publish in based on which journals you have researched during the project. Which journals did you research and how many papers from each did you study?

 

[PeterDonis]

I think you have succumbed to his sales pitch.

No, I'm just pointing out that his "sales pitch" makes his proposal off topic. The fact that his "sales pitch" might not be an accurate description of what he's actually doing is irrelevant; he's still making the "sales pitch" claim, and that's how the thread is going to be treated.

I strongly suspect that the alternative equation he is using is already well-known.

Again, if you want to try to work that out with him via PM, that's up to you. Doing the work to try to figure out whether the "sales pitch" claim is really true or not is off topic for this public thread.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

Taught myself a crash course in quantum mechanics with 11 hour youtube videos

Such a thing is impossible. It's a delusion.

Just as you can freely release open source software that you've created, you can also self-publish your physics ideas. Having a degree, or even being published in a peer-reviewed journal, is no assurance that your work will be taken seriously, or indeed even looked at, by the physics community.

The same is true of the software you create. Releasing open source code is equivalent to self-publishing.

 

[ersmith]

@adam_snyder if you have a software development background, and believe you have found some improved ways to do computational general relativity, why don't you contribute to one of the many open source GR programs? A Google search turns up a number of projects on GitHub, and some other projects associated with universities and research groups. Your actual working code should be welcome there (subject to the usual requirements of peer review and such).

May I humbly suggest, though, that you not compare yourself to Faraday or Einstein when submitting your pull requests. You're probably quite a smart person, but *very* few people indeed are in Faraday 's league, and fewer still are in Einstein 's. Plus, as others have pointed out, neither of them were self taught outsiders.

 

[PAllen]

A little off topic, but since I alluded to Faraday's long apprenticeship with Sir Humphrey Davy that acted as bridge from self teaching to actual research, an amusing quote from Davy is that when asked, late in life, what he thought his greatest discovery was, he said Michael Faraday.

 

[sbrothy]

@adam_snyder if you have a software development background, and believe you have found some improved ways to do computational general relativity, why don't you contribute to one of the many open source GR programs? A Google search turns up a number of projects on GitHub, and some other projects associated with universities and research groups. Your actual working code should be welcome there (subject to the usual requirements of peer review and such).

May I humbly suggest, though, that you not compare yourself to Faraday or Einstein when submitting your pull requests. You're probably quite a smart person, but *very* few people indeed are in Faraday 's league, and fewer still are in Einstein 's. Plus, as others have pointed out, neither of them were self taught outsiders.

Also, a little humility is a becoming character trait. Opening an exchange by pointing out your own brilliance invites skepticism.

You can always impress people later.

 

[fresh_42]

I just explained in a DM how math proofs must be read. I think it is a nice, though very simple example of why it is a big deal to proofread scientific texts. It is not as if you could read them like an essay. Here is my example:

Proposition: The square root of a prime number is an irrational number.

Proof: If there is a prime number $p$ such that $\sqrt{p}\in\mathbb{Q}$, then we have an equation
$$
\sqrt{p} = \dfrac{r}{s}\quad (*),
$$
where we may assume that $r,s$ are coprime. Hence, $p \cdot s^2=r^2.$ Thus $p$ divides $r,$ say, $r=q\cdot p.$ Then $r^2=q^2\cdot p^2$ and $s^2=q^2\cdot p.$ This, however, implies that $p$ divides $s$ and $r/s$ wasn't coprime, contradicting our assumption. This means that the equation $(*)$ does not exist and $\sqrt{p}\not\in \mathbb{Q}.\quad\blacksquare$

This is one of the shortest proofs I know. Yet, it is full of questions whose answers are not included: Why can we make those assumptions, the existence of such a $p$, the fraction, coprimality? Where did we use that $p$ is prime? It must have been used, since $\sqrt{36}$ is definitely rational.

Now for the extended version of how it has to be read:

Proof: If there is a prime number $p$ such that $\sqrt{p}\in\mathbb{Q},$ ...

[Indirect proof by contradiction. We want to show non-existence, so we assume existence and require that our conclusions will inevitably lead to a contradiction. Since FALSE cannot follow from TRUE, the assumption had to be FALSE.]

... then we have an equation
$$
\sqrt{p} = \dfrac{r}{s}\quad (*),
$$

[By the definition of rational numbers, and our assumption.]

where we may assume that $r,s$ are coprime.

[Why may we assume that? Imagine $\sqrt{p}=\dfrac{r'}{s'}$ and $r',s'$ weren't coprime. This means that there is an integer $t'$ such that $r'=r''\cdot t'$ and $s'=s''\cdot t'.$ Next, we may cancel $t'$ and receive an expression $\sqrt{p}=\dfrac{r'}{s'}=\dfrac{r''\cdot t'}{s''\cdot t'}=\dfrac{r''}{s''}.$ If $r'',s''$ are still not coprime, then we continue with that procedure. But why does it have to come to an end? $r',s'$ are finite numbers and as such can only have finitely many, proper (not $\pm 1$) divisors. Every cancellation leads to a smaller value of $|r''|,|s''|$ by the Euclidean division since we excluded $\pm 1.$ Note that we used that the integers are a Euclidean domain. (Maybe there are other ways to show that the procedure has to halt. I just took what I had anyway.) But the positive integers $|r''|,|s''|$ are bounded from below by $0,$ so we cannot go on forever. At the end, we have a coprime representation in $(*).$]

Hence, $p \cdot s^2=r^2.$

[Simple algebra.]

Thus $p$ divides $r,$ ...

[Why? This is where we use that $p$ is prime. We have $p \,|\,p\cdot s^2=r\cdot r$ and a prime number is one, that whenever it divides a product, in our case $r\cdot r,$ then it has to divide one of its factors. We have only the factor $r,$ so $p$ has to divide $r.$ This argument fails for non-prime numbers. E.g., $36\,|\,12\cdot 12$ but $36\,\nmid\,12.$ Pretty hidden, isn't it?]

... say, $r=q\cdot p.$ Then $r^2=q^2\cdot p^2$

[Algebra.]

and $s^2=q^2\cdot p.$

[Substitution plus cancellation of the common factor $p.$ Note that the cancellation can only be done since $\mathbb{Z}$ is an integral domain. We have $a\cdot x= b\cdot x.$ How can we conclude $a=b$? We first get $a\cdot x- b\cdot x=(a-b)\cdot x=0.$ If there are no zero-divisors, we may conclude $x=0$ OR $a-b=0$ which means, if $x\neq 0$ that $a=b.$ That's how cancellation works. It does not automatically work if there are zero-divisors. Consider $\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}.$ Then $2\cdot 3=0$ although $2\neq 0$ and $3\neq 0.$ ]

This, however, implies that $p$ divides $s$ ...

[By the same argument as before. We use that $p$ is prime and divides a product, this time $s\cdot s.$]

... and $r/s$ wasn't coprime, contradicting our assumption.

[This is the contradiction we needed: ($r,s$ are coprime) AND ($r,s$ have a common factor $p$) is FALSE. Note that we used $p>1$ here. We use that units cannot be primes!]

This means that the equation $(*)$ does not exist ...

[as we falsely assumed]

... and $\sqrt{p}\not\in \mathbb{Q}.$

[Again, by definition of $\mathbb{Q}.$]
$\blacksquare$

Sure, this example is more or less trivial. Nevertheless, it shows all the hidden properties of primes and integers that I have used without mentioning. One sees that the written-out thoughts are significantly longer than the proof itself. Now, that happens with every scientific text, only that the parts in brackets are way longer, often requiring looking up many references, scribblings to convince the reader, and so on. This is why it is not a matter of kindness to read a paper. It is hard work!

 

[sbrothy]

OK. Your move Sir. I’m out of here.

 

[PeroK]

Proposition: the square root of a positive integer is either an integer or irrational (it cannot be a proper rational).

Proof (by contraposition). Let $m/n$ be a proper rational, where $m, n$ have no common factors (and $n \ne 1$). This implies that the prime factors of $m$ and $n$ are disjoint sets. Note that $m^2$ and $n^2$ have the same prime factors as $m$ and $n$ respectively. Those are the same disjoint sets, hence $m^2$ and $n^2$ have no common factors, $n^2 \ne 1$, hence $m^2/n^2$ is a proper rational. QED

That's my contribution to the development of mathematics. Why that proof is not taught to undergraduates is beyond me. That said, there must have been a mathematician somewhere, sometime who taught it that way. That the square root of any whole number is irrational (unless the number is a perfect square) seems like the sort of reason we study mathematics in the first place. Being prime is not the issue. It's not being a perfect square.

But, in 2025, my proof hardly counts as original research. It must already be somewhere.

 

[ergospherical]

I think software engineers can make useful contributions. Physicists aren’t programmers (at least, not by training), and a lot of Physics code is not well designed. There are lots of open source projects that I’m sure would appreciate high quality contributions.

 

[adam_snyder]

I think OP could have a more productive discussion by posting in the relativity subforum using the homework template. It really sounds like OP has manipulated some GR equations for a Schwarzschild black hole and then solved them numerically. The claim doesn't seem to be that the algorithm for the numerical solution is faster but just that the PDE starting point is somehow advantageous.

The algorithm does actually show real world 10x-19x improvements. I have a github repo with the full code example and tests and have issued a DOI for it, but if I share it on here again i'll probably get banned.

 

[PeterDonis]

I have a github repo with the full code example and tests and have issued a DOI for it

Then anyone who wants to look at it can ask you for a link via PM. You're correct that it is off topic for this thread and for any public thread here at PF.

And with that, this thread is closed.