I Have a Hypothesis and No Degree

[WCOLtd]

I have a hypothesis regarding a confusion in people's understanding of Mach's Principle and I'd like to submit this hypothesis for peer review. This hypothesis is complete, I have a testable prediction. How would I go about doing that?

 

[Choppy]

You don't really submit an hypothesis alone for peer review. You submit a complete body of scientific work. It may be incremental in what it accomplishes, but it has to contain a full application of the scientific method and draw appropriate conclusions from that. A hypothesis alone is generally not enough to meet the standards of most peer reviewers.

 

[WCOLtd]

You don't really submit an hypothesis alone for peer review. You submit a complete body of scientific work. It may be incremental in what it accomplishes, but it has to contain a full application of the scientific method and draw appropriate conclusions from that. A hypothesis alone is generally not enough to meet the standards of most peer reviewers.

What constitutes a "complete body of scientific work"? Having a testable prediction isn't enough? What more is needed?

Full application of the scientific method... Let's see...
Guess - check
Compute consequences - check
Compare to experiment - need peer review for that

Seems like I'm caught in a catch-22. I need peer review for full application of the scientific method, but according to you I can't get peer review until I have full application of the scientific method. Regardless I think this hypothesis will qualify.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Let's keep discussion on how to publish for peer review.

 

[MattRob]

Let's keep discussion on how to publish for peer review.

A very good question with application beyond WCOLtd's own.

From my experience with faculty it looks like they generally collaborate on things so they have some small degree of peer review at least before they even send it in for actual peer review.

But outside of being a professor at a university or a researcher in a lab, how would you go about actually getting something submitted for peer review and to talk about things?

How did Einstein send in his theories while working as a patent clerk?

Of course, for every Einstein, there's a million people who just made up something and think they've come up with some theory of everything when really it's all crackpottery - so how does someone properly overcome the noise? Do you absolutely have to have a degree and work at a lab or university to get published? It seems like if the world was that way in the 1900's we'd be a lot poorer off.

 

[ZapperZ]

A very good question with application beyond WCOLtd's own.

From my experience with faculty it looks like they generally collaborate on things so they have some small degree of peer review at least before they even send it in for actual peer review.

But outside of being a professor at a university or a researcher in a lab, how would you go about actually getting something submitted for peer review and to talk about things?

How did Einstein send in his theories while working as a patent clerk?

Of course, for every Einstein, there's a million people who just made up something and think they've come up with some theory of everything when really it's all crackpottery - so how does someone properly overcome the noise? Do you absolutely have to have a degree and work at a lab or university to get published? It seems like if the world was that way in the 1900's we'd be a lot poorer off.

It is NEVER a good idea to use Einstein as an example. That is like planning one's life simply based on the exceptional and the extraordinary (win any lottery lately?).

Secondly, unless one has never been to college (and if one hasn't, how would one even know one has the proper knowledge to tackle a topic like this?), surely there is an old physics professor that one can contact and politely ask if he/she is willing to give a first look at what one has produced.

Keep in mind that many schools, and many physics professors, often get crackpot theories being sent for them to review. One only needs to look at the frustration faced by people such as Warren Siegel at Stony Brook. I could have gone on a nice vacation if I get a $1 for every e-mail that I get requesting that I look at this and that theory.

But this is an uphill struggle, because there are WAY too much noise, and I do not know of ANY instances of someone who has never produced anything or haven't had the necessary credentials being able to published anything worthwhile. The fact that the OP appears to not have a clue on what to do tends to tell me that he/she has not done an extensive literature search on the topic, and thus, not familiar with physics journals where such topics are published. Without doing that, how does one knows that what one has is valid, has not been published, or even worthwhile?

Zz.

 

[PeterDonis]

Compare to experiment - need peer review for that

No, you don't. You need to go work with experimentalists and look at their data and compare it with the theory. Then you need to write up what you found. If there is no experimental data in the regime your theory applies to, then you need to go work with experimentalists to figure out what experiments would need to be done, and go do them, and write up the results.

Peer review comes after that, when reviewers look at your writeup comparing your theory with experimental data and decide whether they think it merits publication.

 

[WCOLtd]

I just need one good physicist to give my hypothesis a review. Just one. I made video demonstrations explaining the idea as simply as possible, I programmed a simulation of this hypothesis in a game engine in Unity, I made a prediction. I honestly don't know how more easily I can make this hypothesis to people. But even getting them to click on a link to my video seems like an insurmountable challenge.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I just need one good physicist to give my hypothesis a review. Just one. I made video demonstrations explaining the idea as simply as possible, I programmed a simulation of this hypothesis in a game engine in Unity, I made a prediction. I honestly don't know how more easily I can make this hypothesis to people. But even getting them to click on a link to my video seems like an insurmountable challenge.

Hit up one of the colleges around you. Lots of them there. We will not entertain it here.

 

[WCOLtd]

No, you don't. You need to go work with experimentalists and look at their data and compare it with the theory. Then you need to write up what you found. If there is no experimental data in the regime your theory applies to, then you need to go work with experimentalists to figure out what experiments would need to be done, and go do them, and write up the results.

Peer review comes after that, when reviewers look at your writeup comparing your theory with experimental data and decide whether they think it merits publication.

That's what I'll do, I have to contact astronomical observatories and compare their redshift observations with my model.

 

[Orodruin]

I have a hypothesis regarding a confusion in people's understanding of Mach's Principle and I'd like to submit this hypothesis for peer review. This hypothesis is complete, I have a testable prediction. How would I go about doing that?

To put quite bluntly what others have already alluded to: How do you know that what you have done is not yet excluded or already done if you do not know where this type of research is typically published. You need to know where the box is to think outside it. Honestly, you are otherwise most likely to waste an editor’s and/or referee’s time. This is what PhD programs are for. They are not an introduction to a secret society - they are intended to train the students how to keep up with the latest results, follow them, and improve upon them when possible. If you do not have this training or the guidance of an experienced researcher, you will just be fumbling in the dark.

It is NEVER a good idea to use Einstein as an example.

Agreed. In particular when the comparison is to the case in point is flawed. Einstein did have the appropriate credentials. He knew very well where the boundaries of the box were and controlled the material at a very deep level. He was not, as many like to imagine, a random patent clerk sitting isolated in his chamber just thinking his own thoughts.

 

[MattRob]

Agreed. In particular when the comparison is to the case in point is flawed. Einstein did have the appropriate credentials. He knew very well where the boundaries of the box were and controlled the material at a very deep level. He was not, as many like to imagine, a random patent clerk sitting isolated in his chamber just thinking his own thoughts.

He did have a degree, iirc, but couldn't get into grad school. But yeah, he absolutely did have a strong knowledge of the actual relevant physics. Did he even cite Lorentz directly in his original paper?

But even better than that, a degree then probably meant being closer to the front than a degree now. The taller we pile the mountain of knowledge up, the higher people have to climb to build it any taller.

 

[Orodruin]

He did have a degree, iirc, but couldn't get into grad school.

I believe things worked differently back then, but indeed the tower was shorter as well.

 

[russ_watters]

It is NEVER a good idea to use Einstein as an example.

He isn't even a good example, since at the time of his early work he was a PhD student or recent grad! He was quite well plugged into the physics community and knowledgeable in the state of the art. When Einstein is cited in this context, it is almost always based on the myth that he was an amateur. He wasn't.

 

[russ_watters]

He did have a degree, iirc, but couldn't get into grad school.

You can verify that's wrong with a quick look at his wiki article; He published his early works in 1905, the same year he completed his phd.

 

[PeterDonis]

He did have a degree, iirc, but couldn't get into grad school.

No, that wasn't the problem. The problem was that after he got his degree, he couldn't get a job teaching at a university, because none of his professors would give him good recommendations. So he ended up working at the Swiss patent office while he finished the phd that @russ_watters refers to.

 

[jtbell]

How did Einstein send in his theories while working as a patent clerk?

Einstein had completed all the requirements for a PhD except for the dissertation, which he finished and submitted about the same time he published his famous first relativity paper. He was not isolated from his university peers. He could meet with them on his days off. Switzerland is a small country. He had snail mail and presumably telephones.

 

[PeterDonis]

He was not isolated from his university peers. He could meet with them on his days off. Switzerland is a small country. He had snail mail and presumably telephones.

He also had trains which ran a lot more reliably and efficiently than trains in the US do today.

 

[jtbell]

He also had trains

...which I of all people should have remembered! My excuse is that on my single (so far) visit to Switzerland, my wife and I stayed with friends in Basel and were driven around by them, including an excursion to Bern.

 

[MattRob]

He also had trains which ran a lot more reliably and efficiently than trains in the US do today.

He certainly made reference to them quite a bit.

I think I confused Tesla's educational challenges with Einstein's employment challenge, heh.

 

[Choppy]

What constitutes a "complete body of scientific work"? Having a testable prediction isn't enough? What more is needed?

Full application of the scientific method... Let's see...
Guess - check
Compute consequences - check
Compare to experiment - need peer review for that

Seems like I'm caught in a catch-22. I need peer review for full application of the scientific method, but according to you I can't get peer review until I have full application of the scientific method. Regardless I think this hypothesis will qualify.

You might find this Guide to Publishing in Peer Reviewed Journals helpful to learn more specifically about the publishing process.

Based on your statements above, it sounds like what you're really interested in is not the formal peer review process (at least not yet), but that you want to collaborate with someone who is working in your field of interest. "Peer review" is when you submit your work to a journal and then the editors assign it to a team of referees who evaluate the work as written and ultimately either recommend it for publication, revision or rejection. They don't 'contribute' to the work.

With regard to finding someone to collaborate with, unfortunately that can be very difficult if you don't have any formal education (nor are in the process of obtaining it). It's not impossible, but it is very difficult. Most academics are extremely busy with their own research, as well as mentoring graduate students, undergraduate students, keeping up a teaching load and performing any administrative duties. Even if someone off the street sounds credible with an idea, it's difficult to give up the time to work with that person, because it comes at the cost of cutting into the time that's already spoken for by everyone else.

So what can you do?

Well, the most obvious suggestion is to enroll in a formal program. Maybe that's not an option for you at this point in your life, but if this is something that's really driving you, then it might well be worth considering when you do have the opportunity. Aside from that, you might consider at least enrolling in a night school course. This gets your foot in the door and will likely put you in contact with someone who help steer you in the right direction.

Another option, if astronomy is your thing, is getting involved with your local astronomy club. Often these clubs will have people who are interested in doing research-type projects and the club may have academic affiliations (grad students, retired professors, PhDs now working in industry, etc.)

Sometimes universities have public lectures too. If there is something like this local to you, it might be an opportunity to go and listen to some really interesting stuff.

 

[WCOLtd]

By nature of my academic status, by nature of my condition, my thoughts and my insights are dismissed before they are ever considered. I will not give up on this effort because I've put too much work into this. I've created a hypothesis, come up with a prediction, modeled my hypothesis in a Game engine, I've made video demonstrations on youtube. I know what I have to do now. I'm sure there are astronomers on this site who can help me.

 

[Orodruin]

By nature of my academic status, by nature of my condition, my thoughts and my insights are dismissed before they are ever considered.

Bluntly, yes. You have clearly demonstrated that you have no actual knowledge in the forefront of cosmology and that most of your "knowledge" comes from reading popular accounts. Why should anybody listen to you when you are unwilling to take the time to listen to others and learn what current theories actually are saying and examine the experimental evidence available for why they are saying it?

modeled my hypothesis in a Game engine, I've made video demonstrations on youtube

To be honest, modelling something in a game engine and making a Youtube video holds absolutely zero scientific value.

 

[Dadface]

I'm glad that you're not going to give up WCOltd. but please take peoples advice. As Orodruin and others suggested look up the relevant existing theories and the observations that inform them. How do you know that you've got something new if you don't know what's already out there?

 

[Dale]

By nature of my academic status, by nature of my condition, my thoughts and my insights are dismissed before they are ever considered.

Tell me, what scientific peer reviewed journals do you read to keep up with the current progress on this topic? Which authors have made contributions to this field? How does your work fit with theirs? How do your experimental predictions fit with existing experimental results? How do your experimental predictions compare to general relativity’s predictions?

Even a purely theoretical paper with no experiment would need to contain all of that ground work. It seems that you have done none of that.

So why should you be surprised that your insights are being dismissed by the community? In fact, you have dismissed the insights of the community! Why should they listen to your insight when you are ignoring theirs?

 

[Vanadium 50]

It is NEVER a good idea to use Einstein as an example. That is like planning one's life simply based on the exceptional and the extraordinary (win any lottery lately?).

For many reasons:

1. He was a once in a few-century intellect
2. This was a century ago. Things were different then.
3. Einstein had a PhD.
4. Einstein got his job as a patent examiner because he was an expert in electromagnetism. The legend that he was just some sort of "clerk" mindlessly stamping pieces of paperwork has no basis in fact.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm sure there are astronomers on this site who can help me.

Why would astronomers want to help you? Orodruin summed it up nicely: "Why should anybody listen to you when you are unwilling to take the time to listen to others and learn what current theories actually are saying and examine the experimental evidence available for why they are saying it?" If you're not going to listen to them, why should they waste their time?

Furthermore, it's clear that when they point out a flaw in your theories, you reaction will not be "I guess I was wrong, then", but that you're going to get mad at them. Who needs this?