I think popular science is ruining science

[ZapperZ]

Yes, but even before you would ever get to steps (i-iv) there would have to be some incubation period within your own mind during which you would try to gather together every conceivably relevant notion (to be sorted through in due time). Nevertheless, I'm only talking about science, not pop-science.

OK, but you seem to be only talking about the "back-end" of the scientific process where someone steps up to a microphone to tell everyone like it is. I'm thinking of the entire process from start to finish.

Did you just make a switch? You never stated this before. All you did was to make an assertion about someone in another physics of physics intruding into cosmology (see the first post that I responded to you). So where is the initial "incubation" here? That person is similar to me.

You can falsify this by showing me another physicist who made another contribution in another field of physics without going through point i-iv.

Zz.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Moonbear addressed the other parts of your post pretty well, let me just comment on the cosmological aspects (though debates about cosmology probably belong in the astro forum).

Right now, conventional cosmology requires you to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day (thanks to L.C.).

This is complete nonsense. There is nothing in standard cosmology that runs against standard physical theory -- in fact, we think it's one of the very few working cosmological model that uses known physics. Most of the others have to modify GR.

If you think that one must become an expert in that arcane puzzle factory before questioning its validity, you are missing the point of epistemology entirely. When a theory becomes very complex, highly constrained, and requires lots of fine-tuning, that should be a sign that there are some problems.

Standard cosmology is not nearly as complex as you say. With the appropriate background in math and physics, LCDM is a very natural and straightforward extension. This is yet another reason why it's important to study the foundations of the theory before trying to denounce or challenge it. Until you've gotten your hands dirty, you just won't have any perspective.

When the problems stretch back for decades (like DM), that is a sign that flaws in the theory predate the discovery of the problem, and that the resolution of the problem requires re-examination of earlier assumptions.

There are groups of professional astronomers working on alternatives to dark matter theory (like MOND), but they just can't fit the data as well. Dark matter is not just a "fix" anymore, it's a well-developed theory with specific predictions. We've questioned our assumptions and questioned our theories, but so far, they've held strong. At the moment, I don't really see it as a problem.

 

[Aether]

Did you just make a switch?

I don't think so.

You never stated this before. All you did was to make an assertion about someone in another physics of physics intruding into cosmology (see the first post that I responded to you). So where is the initial "incubation" here? That person is similar to me.

Here is the initial "incubation" period:

"...a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator? They may not start out with much knowledge of conventional cosmology at all, but they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis, for example..."

You can falsify this by showing me another physicist who made another contribution in another field of physics without going through point i-iv.

I didn't say that steps i-iv aren't important, only that an incubation period typically comes first.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't think so.
Here is the initial "incubation" period:

"...a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator? They may not start out with much knowledge of conventional cosmology at all, but they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis, for example..."

I didn't say that steps i-iv aren't important, only that an incubation period typically comes first.

I disagree. This is just speculation without proof that such a thing actually occurs. I can easily speculate that such a thing doesn't occur, and how are you going to prove that I'm wrong? I can prove my point by pointing out that I haven't seen such a case, and you haven't proven your point.

My point, which you have missed, is that for that "someone" who is working at a particle collider to make a "new cosmological theory" would have to know what is already established. If not, how else does one know it is new?

It has always been my assertion that if one is ignorant of the state of a field of study, one will never know what is "new" even if it comes up and bites one's rear end. Particle physicists are keenly aware of cosmology. The MINOS project is one such example. This clearly proves my point that anything "new" has to be accompanied by knowledge. You'll never know that what you do or discover can be meaningful to cosmology if you have no clue what cosmology is.

Zz.

 

[SpaceTiger]

This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator? They may not start out with much knowledge of conventional cosmology at all, but they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis, for example.

People need to understand whatever it is they're trying to challenge. Measuring the cross section of a particle (for example) is not itself a direct challenge of standard cosmology until it is put within a proper context. If the particle physicist wanted to go and apply it to cosmology, they would have to learn a few things about primordial nucleosynthesis, crunch the numbers, and give us a new helium abundance (again, for example). If it turned out that this new number was inconsistent with measurements, then we might require fundamental modifications to cosmology. If the same experimenter wanted to do this, they would have to continue studying, developing a more complete picture of standard cosmology. Then maybe they could write a paper with a new theory of the origin of the universe.

All along the way, it is important that those things which are being changed are understood by the person changing them. If they fail to do so, it's likely they will, at best, make a lot of errors. At worst, their theory could be completely wrong.

If what you mean by "challenge the establishment" is a formal and public challenge, then I agree that it is better if one comes to an understanding of what they are talking about first. Otherwise, people have to be generally free to explore in the mean time.

I certainly never suggested that people within a certain sub-field are the only ones allowed to contribute to it.

 

[Aether]

My point, which you have missed, is that for that "someone" who is working at a particle collider to make a "new cosmological theory" would have to know what is already established. If not, how else does one know it is new?

If someone who is "working" at a particle collider learns something new about particle collisions, then that person may wonder how this extrapolates to cosmology; assuming that this person is not completely ignorant of the world around them. Then that person may take this as motivation to study cosmology to resolve a specific question in their own mind. They have no need (starting out) to know everything that is already established, and may in fact benefit greatly from their initial ignorance of such knowledge.

It has always been my assertion that if one is ignorant of the state of a field of study, one will never know what is "new" even if it comes up and bites one's rear end.

Take Penzias & Wilson for example, they discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) having not a clue (at first) what it was that they were looking at.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp65co.html

Particle physicists are keenly aware of cosmology. The MINOS project is one such example. This clearly proves my point that anything "new" has to be accompanied by knowledge. You'll never know that what you do or discover can be meaningful to cosmology if you have no clue what cosmology is.

Tell that to Penzias & Wilson!

 

[ZapperZ]

If someone who is "working" at a particle collider learns something new about particle collisions, then that person may wonder how this extrapolates to cosmology; assuming that this person is not completely ignorant of the world around them. Then that person may take this as motivation to study cosmology to resolve a specific question in their own mind. They have no need (starting out) to know everything that is already established, and may in fact benefit greatly from their initial ignorance of such knowledge.
Take Penzias & Wilson for example, they discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) having not a clue (at first) what it was that they were looking at.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp65co.html
Tell that to Penzias & Wilson!

But YOU are the one extrapolating, not them! They discovered CMB! Period. They did not go on to use them at that time to extrapolate the whole of the origin of our cosmology. Do you see the difference?

It took many years before the significance of the CMB, even after repeated measurement, is understood. Someone who discover something should report it as that, and NOT make this as some cosmological theory. You might as well argue that the persons who discovered the electrons are doing Cosmology! This is absurd!

Besides, look at all the argument on here being done by so many other people who are refusing to study the field they want to stick their noses in. How many of you are experimentalists? How many? I can't hear you!

This means that a lot of you are theorists, or think you are theorists. Now tell me how you are going to discover a "new anything" in cosmology without understanding cosmology. I am an experimentalist. I can discover something new if I'm lucky, and that may be relevant in another field, even if I don't understand that field. A valid observation is a valid observation, no matter where. But show me where some theorist who discovered something new in another field without putting any effort in that field.

Zz.

 

[Aether]

People need to understand whatever it is they're trying to challenge.

At some point they need to come to an understanding of this, but this doesn't necessaily have to be a starting point. Penzias & Wilson had data, and then figured out what to make of it.

Measuring the cross section of a particle (for example) is not itself a direct challenge of standard cosmology until it is put within a proper context. If the particle physicist wanted to go and apply it to cosmology, they would have to learn a few things about primordial nucleosynthesis, crunch the numbers, and give us a new helium abundance (again, for example). If it turned out that this new number was inconsistent with measurements, then we might require fundamental modifications to cosmology. If the same experimenter wanted to do this, they would have to continue studying, developing a more complete picture of standard cosmology. Then maybe they could write a paper with a new theory of the origin of the universe.

I agree.

All along the way, it is important that those things which are being changed are understood by the person changing them. If they fail to do so, it's likely they will, at best, make a lot of errors. At worst, their theory could be completely wrong.

Those "things which are being changed" need to be understood eventually, but all along the way? When will you be prepared to say "Now I am ready, and understand everything that I need to know"?

 

[Aether]

But YOU are the one extrapolating, not them! They discovered CMB! Period. They did not go on to use them at that time to extrapolate the whole of the origin of our cosmology. Do you see the difference?

The point is that they came upon an important clue without having any uncommon advance knowledge of cosmology. If anyone else comes upon such a clue in the couse of their work, then why shouldn't they pursue it if they so desire?

It took many years before the significance of the CMB, even after repeated measurement, is understood. Someone who discover something should report it as that, and NOT make this as some cosmological theory.

It is their choice how to pursue it. If they want to report it, that's fine. If they want to study it and try to make a theory out of it then that is fine too.

Besides, look at all the argument on here being done by so many other people who are refusing to study the field they want to stick their noses in.

There is no excuse for that.

How many of you are experimentalists? How many? I can't hear you!

I am an experimentalist.

This means that a lot of you are theorists, or think you are theorists.

What is wrong with that?

Now tell me how you are going to discover a "new anything" in cosmology without understanding cosmology.

Tell that to Penzias & Wilson! If you mean to limit this to "pure theorists" who are not guided by some more-or-less tangible motivation, then I agree.

I am an experimentalist. I can discover something new if I'm lucky, and that may be relevant in another field, even if I don't understand that field. A valid observation is a valid observation, no matter where. But show me where some theorist who discovered something new in another field without putting any effort in that field.

A pure theorist, or wannabe theorist, probably does need to formally study a subject from the ground up. An experimentalist, or specialist in any field, may be motivated from something that they have learned to explore applications of their knowledge within any other field.

 

[ZapperZ]

The point is that they came upon an important clue without having any uncommon advance knowledge of cosmology. If anyone else comes upon such a clue in the couse of their work, then why shouldn't they pursue it if they so desire?

Oh great. Then you're saying everyone on the Nobel Prize list in Physics are cosmologist, because, y'know, all of those, even electron microscopes, have made discoveries that adds to our undertanding of cosmology.

Oh hey, then I'm doing cosmology too! Fancy that!

I am an experimentalist.
What is wrong with that?
Tell that to Penzias & Wilson!
A pure theorist, or wannabe theorist, probably does need to formally study a subject from the ground up. An experimentalist, or specialist in any field, may be motivated from something that they have learned to explore applications of their knowledge within any other field.

Experimentalists produces reproducible facts. Unless you are psychic, you have little idea of the significance of that fact in OTHER fields. Do you think Penzias and Wilson were formulating the origin of the universe? No! They discovered a non-terrestrial signal! Done! It took cosmologists and astrophysicists to put that discovery into perspective - to give it a MEANINGFUL place. We had to do several other mapping of the CMB to really gain enough data to actually gain useful knowledge of it.

You might as well say that everyone is working in everyone's field. So now let me referee your paper and we'll see how much you appreciate my expertise in your field.

Zz.

 

[Aether]

Oh great. Then you're saying everyone on the Nobel Prize list in Physics are cosmologist, because, y'know, all of those, even electron microscopes, have made discoveries that adds to our undertanding of cosmology. Oh hey, then I'm doing cosmology too! Fancy that!

I didn't say that. if you had Penzias & Wilson's data in-hand before it was released, wouldn't you make an effort to search out the implications to the best of your ability prior to reporting the discovery?

Experimentalists produces reproducible facts. Unless you are psychic, you have little idea of the significance of that fact in OTHER fields.

Sometimes when one is holding a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

Do you think Penzias and Wilson were formulating the origin of the universe? No! They discovered a non-terrestrial signal! Done! It took cosmologists and astrophysicists to put that discovery into perspective - to give it a MEANINGFUL place.

Perhaps.

We had to do several other mapping of the CMB to really gain enough data to actually gain useful knowledge of it.

Wasn't the monopole temperature immediately useful?

So now let me referee your paper and we'll see how much you appreciate my expertise in your field.

Now that you are a moderator of "Independent Research", this might really happen one day.

 

[ZapperZ]

I didn't say that. if you had Penzias & Wilson's data in-hand before it was released, wouldn't you make an effort to search out the implications to the best of your ability prior to reporting the discovery?

Not if I have no clue of what the data MEANS and if I have no idea what cosmology is. But I've already said this. Someone can take a data, a discovery, a technique, etc. and use it in an area in which he or she is an expert of. I know photoemission. The accelerator physics people here want me to use my expertise and apply it to photoinjectors. But before I can do that, I have to learn what is a photoinjector, how it works, what are the needs of accelerator physics community, what physics are they trying to study, etc.. etc. so that I can make MEANINGFUL contribution. Just photoemission alone is worthless to them! A set of data or even knowledge without being adopted into a proper context is useless! To be able to adopt it into useful form, now THAT requires the knowledge of a particular field.

Now that you are a moderator of "Independent Research", this might really happen one day.

Exactly. So if I give you a negative review, don't ever use the argument that I know nothing about your field. I, on the other hand, would never recommend you to review my papers.

Zz.

 

[Aether]

A set of data or even knowledge without being adopted into a proper context is useless! To be able to adopt it into useful form, now THAT requires the knowledge of a particular field.

Such knowledge can be acquired, one doesn't necessarily need to have it all to begin with.

Exactly. So if I give you a negative review, don't ever use the argument that I know nothing about your field.

Why not?

I, on the other hand, would never recommend you to review my papers.

I haven't claimed to be a particle accelerator expert, so what are you implying?

 

[ZapperZ]

Such knowledge can be acquired, one doesn't necessarily need to have it all to begin with.

Then go acquire it and we'll talk.

I haven't claimed to be a particle accelerator expert, so what are you implying?

I implied nothing. You seem to think everyone that produced something that eventually gets used in a particular field, are people who should be considered to be experts in that field. Just because someone discovered the CMB somehow meant that they're doing astrophysics and cosmology and are already equipped to deal with that field. This is what I earlier said to be absurd. Just because I work with electron sources and how they behave in vacuum does not make me a cosmologist.

Bottom line: for someone to call him or herself to be a cosmologist and make MEANINGFUL contribution, he/she must acquire the knowledge of that field. If you disagree, say so and tell me why. If not, this conversation is over because I refuse to continue going around in circles.

Zz.

 

[Aether]

I implied nothing.

OK.

You seem to think everyone that produced something that eventually gets used in a particular field, are people who should be considered to be experts in that field. Just because someone discovered the CMB somehow meant that they're doing astrophysics and cosmology and are already equipped to deal with that field. This is what I earlier said to be absurd. Just because I work with electron sources and how they behave in vacuum does not make me a cosmologist.

Not at all. I'm saying that it isn't unusual for a line of inquiry to lead into unknown territory, and that people can cope with that situation by learning a subset of another field (as opposed to dropping everything to go run out and get another PhD).

Bottom line: for someone to call him or herself to be a cosmologist and make MEANINGFUL contribution, he/she must acquire the knowledge of that field. If you disagree, say so and tell me why.

I disagree, but only because "he/she must acquire the knowledge of that field" is not properly limited so as to be a practical expectation. I would agree that "for someone to call him or herself to be a cosmologist and make MEANINGFUL contribution, he/she must acquire some knowledge of that field." How much "knowledge of that field" is sufficient depends on the circumstances. If a person isn't motivated by something tangible from another field that they already do know something about, and they are interested in making an incremental advance to the field, then yes this person probably needs to acquire a more thorough knowledge of the field.

If not, this conversation is over because I refuse to continue going around in circles.

 

[SpaceTiger]

some examples...

This is not the place to discuss the ins and outs of cosmology. None of the things you listed are impossible in modern physics. If you would like an explanation, please feel free to start a thread in the A&C forum. I will be happy to elaborate, as I'm sure will be the other resident experts.

 

[SpaceTiger]

At some point they need to come to an understanding of this, but this doesn't necessaily have to be a starting point. Penzias & Wilson had data, and then figured out what to make of it.

Penzias & Wilson were not responsible for the theoretical prediction or explanation of the microwave background, they just described the observations:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...xt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1"

As they say in the abstract, the theoretical explanation was provided by:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...pe=HTML&format=&high=424800249007954"

If I dig up some rare dinosaur bones while weeding my garden, does that make me a "dreamer"? Penzias & Wilson had no aspirations to change cosmology when they made their observations, so it would seem to be irrelevant to what turbo and I were talking about.

 

[Aether]

Penzias & Wilson were not responsible for the theoretical prediction or explanation of the microwave background, they just described the observations: As they say in the abstract, the theoretical explanation was provided by: Dicke, Peebles, Roll, & Wilson 1965

OK, that is correct.

If I dig up some rare dinosaur bones while weeding my garden, does that make me a "dreamer"?

That depends on you, doesn't it?

Penzias & Wilson had no aspirations to change cosmology when they made their observations, so it would seem to be irrelevant to what turbo and I were talking about.

I said: "This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator?"

Then we agreed on this:

Measuring the cross section of a particle (for example) is not itself a direct challenge of standard cosmology until it is put within a proper context. If the particle physicist wanted to go and apply it to cosmology, they would have to learn a few things about primordial nucleosynthesis, crunch the numbers, and give us a new helium abundance (again, for example). If it turned out that this new number was inconsistent with measurements, then we might require fundamental modifications to cosmology. If the same experimenter wanted to do this, they would have to continue studying, developing a more complete picture of standard cosmology. Then maybe they could write a paper with a new theory of the origin of the universe.

Penzias & Wilson are just an example of how someone can be led to a frontier of cosmology by questions arising within their own seemingly unrelated field. Had they not hooked-up with Dicke, Peebles, Roll, & Wilson, they might just as easily have gone to a research library and inquired into cosmology for themselves. A cursory literature search should have turned up Dicke, Beringer, Kyhl, and Vane, Phys. Rev., 70, 340, 1946. I don't have that paper, but (Dicke et al., 1965) seems to suggest that everything may have been laid out in there if Penzias & Wilson had simply bothered to look.

 

[turbo]

This is not the place to discuss the ins and outs of cosmology. None of the things you listed are impossible in modern physics. If you would like an explanation, please feel free to start a thread in the A&C forum. I will be happy to elaborate, as I'm sure will be the other resident experts.

I pointed out above that this would be OT, and I have started a new thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105433

 

[tribdog]

I think this is all a bunch of "white, dielectric material" and I wouldn't have known what that was without pop sci.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

PF is very fact-driven. Given the medium, I think it was inevitable that it would turn out this way. For an academic, being right is like the ultimate status symbol, so many posts turn into a banter about the details of a particular point. This is not so good if you're looking to be inspired, but it's an excellent place to go if you're looking for the hard facts. I suspect this type of competition is exactly what makes the scientific method so successful in the first place.

I think PF fills a niche that can be useful to professionals and amateurs alike, but it would be unfortunate if we actually discouraged many of the dreamier folks. I suppose that's why we have moderators like yourself to keep people in line.

Yes, I didn't like the way that sounded. There are practical considerations that make it so; that is, that we can't allow wild speculation and imagining, etc. If I could figure out a better way to manage the reality of internet science and keep things under control, I would certainly speak up, but I do fully support what PF has done. We have tightened things up a lot over the last few years, many valuable new members like you have joined, and I for one am proud of everyone has accomplished.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am more of a beer and frisbee with Mexcian food at the beach person, although a nice dinner followed by some nice single malt Scotch, say an 18 or 25 yr old Macallan and 10 or 15 yr Glenmorangie, would be excellent!
Perhaps some young folk may seem immersed in an analytic, sterile, deductive cynicism, but I don't think that is necessarily the case.
When I was in grade school, besides reading encyclopedias for fun, I read real science books devoted to topics in physics and mathematics. I seem to remember one equation on general relativity, which I probably read when I was 10-11, and rather than be initimidated by it, I was inspired to try to understand it, and that meant learning calculus. Unfortunately, no one around me could help, not my parents and not my high school teachers. I finally got to study calculus in grade 12, but I had wasted a lot of time by then. I also read texts on cosmology, astrophysics, particle physics, plasma physics, etc., but I had no guidance.
I also read biographies of physicists, many of whom were Nobel prize winners, and I was inspired by their curiosity and tenacity at tackling problems.
By the time I finished high school, I found pop sci literature rather irritating.

I did much the same thing. I started reading my dad's college physics books around age ten or so... I used to watch Star Trek, and I guess Lost in Space might be included, but I guess Cosmos might have been my first exposure to so called pop science as well. But I think we need to clarify what we mean by pop science. Do we mean books by Hawking...Sagan...Kaku...Gleick...Wolf? I find that the definition tends to float according to personal preferences. Or, do we mean anything that is not purely academic material. Or, do we mean anything that is based on personal opinion rather than experimental results? By some standards, one might argue that the philosophical prologues in my QM books are pop science.

 

[SpaceTiger]

If I dig up some rare dinosaur bones while weeding my garden, does that make me a "dreamer"?

That depends on you, doesn't it?

Yep. Thus,

Penzias & Wilson had no aspirations to change cosmology when they made their observations, so it would seem to be irrelevant to what turbo and I were talking about.

Penzias & Wilson are just an example of how someone can be led to a frontier of cosmology by questions arising within their own seemingly unrelated field.

As best I can tell, nobody is or was disagreeing with this point. What exactly is your goal here?

Had they not hooked-up with Dicke, Peebles, Roll, & Wilson, they might just as easily have gone to a research library and inquired into cosmology for themselves. A cursory literature search should have turned up Dicke, Beringer, Kyhl, and Vane, Phys. Rev., 70, 340, 1946. I don't have that paper, but (Dicke et al., 1965) seems to suggest that everything may have been laid out in there if Penzias & Wilson had simply bothered to look.

That's right, they would have to have learned about the subject, exactly what I've been saying all along. The point of my posts was to discourage "scientific" debates based on philosophical prejudice and pure opinion. There are many folks who, believe it or not, feel the need to attack theories that, sometimes by their own admission, they don't understand. I don't see any relation between this and the accidental discovery of Penzias and Wilson.

 

[Aether]

As best I can tell, nobody is or was disagreeing with this point. What exactly is your goal here?...they would have to have learned about the subject, exactly what I've been saying all along.

You said:

If someone demonstrates that they do indeed have a thorough understanding of mainstream theory, then I will lend an ear. The nice thing about going through the traditional academic route is that one doesn't have to do much convincing. By getting a degree and a good job, they've already validated themselves...

And I said:

This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator?

Since then we have agreed (I think) that a "thorough understanding of mainstream theory...a degree and a good job" aren't a prerequisite to making a meaningful contribution to a field, particularly if someone approaches the field with knowledge (or data) gained from some other field. The amount of understanding required depends on the circumstances.

The point of my posts was to discourage "scientific" debates based on philosophical prejudice and pure opinion. There are many folks who, believe it or not, feel the need to attack theories that, sometimes by their own admission, they don't understand.

OK. I am not encouraging ""scientific" debates based on philosophical prejudice and pure opinion" or the "many folks who, believe it or not, feel the need to attack theories that, sometimes by their own admission, they don't understand" in general; although adversarial debate isn't always bad.

I don't see any relation between this and the accidental discovery of Penzias and Wilson.

I pointed specifically to "someone "working" at a particle accelerator" as an example:

This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator?

rather than to the " many folks who, believe it or not, feel the need to attack theories that, sometimes by their own admission, they don't understand". Penzias & Wilson are real-life examples to discuss instead of the anonymous "someone "working" at a particle accelerator".

 

[tribdog]

wow, I just don't have the energy or in inclination to do multiple quotes like all these posts. does that make my tiny comments look insignificant? Or is insignificance pretty much implied by my being the poster?

 

[Aether]

wow, I just don't have the energy or in inclination to do multiple quotes like all these posts. does that make my tiny comments look insignificant? Or is insignificance pretty much implied by my being the poster?

No, I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by a "white, dielectric material".

 

[tribdog]

lol, thanks for asking.
that's what Penzias and Wilson called the pigeon droppings they thought was causing the noise that turned out to be the CBR

edit:see how well that fit into the conversation, AND you learned something new and interesting. I keep telling everyone my posts aren't simply for my own entertainment. They have a value all their own.

 

[Aether]

lol, thanks for asking.
that's what Penzias and Wilson called the pigeon droppings they thought was causing the noise that turned out to be the CBR

Ohh, good one!

 

[SpaceTiger]

You said: And I said:Since then we have agreed (I think) that a "thorough understanding of mainstream theory...a degree and a good job"

Ok, first of all, that's an extremely unethical use of quotations because it implies I said that "a degree and a good job" are necessary to make a contribution. This is clearly not what I said or meant.

Second of all, no, I haven't agreed that people can make a meaningful contribution to a field without "a thorough understanding of mainstream theory". We already agreed that Penzias and Wilson would have to have obtained an understanding of Big Bang Theory in order to write the paper describing the meaning of their results. The observations in of themselves do not represent a development of cosmological theory. I thought we had already agreed on that as well.

If all you're saying is that people with no knowledge can make discoveries that end up being significant, then you're pushing a triviality. If that's all that is important to your argument, I think you're missing the point of this thread. A responsible (and, generally, a successful) scientist does not submit a theoretical paper without first understanding its context.

 

[Aether]

Ok, first of all, that's an extremely unethical use of quotations because it implies I said that "a degree and a good job" are necessary to make a contribution. This is clearly not what I said or meant.

How is it "extremely unethical" when the same quote in full context is presented immediately before? I'm merely trying to narrow down the precise issue that prompted my first post (and what I thought we were in agreement on) since you keep asking about that.

Second of all, no, I haven't agreed that people can make a meaningful contribution to a field without "a thorough understanding of mainstream theory". We already agreed that Penzias and Wilson would have to have obtained an understanding of Big Bang Theory in order to write the paper describing the meaning of their results. The observations in of themselves do not represent a development of cosmological theory. I thought we had already agreed on that as well.

Penzias & Wilson would have to have obtained something of an understanding of CMB, not including density perturbations, not nucleosynthesis, etc.. The material contained within (Dicke et al., 1965) summarizes everything that they would have needed to know in about four pages! That is the distinction that I am drawing between a "thorough" understanding of mainstream theory (e.g., all of cosmology), and a subset of all cosmology. I agree that they would have needed to have a thorough understanding of that subset of mainstream theory that they were presenting in a paper had they chosen to do so; but not a thorough understanding of all of mainstream cosmology, not a degree in cosmology, and not a job in cosmology. My apologies if I haven't made this clear before now.

If all you're saying is that people with no knowledge can make discoveries that end up being significant, then you're pushing a triviality. If that's all that is important to your argument, I think you're missing the point of this thread. A responsible (and, generally, a successful) scientist does not submit a theoretical paper without first understanding its context.

That is not all I am saying, but my point is a simple one that I think we can agree on.

 

[Aether]

Finally, one of my babies has grown into an adult thread :)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled adult programming...

 

[FeynmanMH42]

Popular Science books are cheap, but textbooks are expensive.
Most pop sci books are around £10. The average textbook is around £30.
The best pop sci book I've seen (Roger Penrose's The Road To Reality) is something like £40.
I don't think that textbooks are greater than popular science though!
At school I'm being forced to "learn" things from textbooks that I learned from popular science books at about six years old.
And textbooks are strict, they tell you what to learn and how old you should be on learning it. You have a wide choice of popular science books to read at any age at all. I find it sick that I'm not supposed to know what quantum mechanics is.

And physics education is getting worse. Nowadays science in schools is getting vocational, based on "real life." Fair enough if you want to be a cook or something, but you need physics if you actually want to be a physicist!
Science education is not progressing as fast as the other subjects, it's sick, wrong, and evil.
Students should be taught physics, not how to keep your home warm.

 

[ZapperZ]

Popular Science books are cheap, but textbooks are expensive.
Most pop sci books are around £10. The average textbook is around £30.
The best pop sci book I've seen (Roger Penrose's The Road To Reality) is something like £40.
I don't think that textbooks are greater than popular science though!
At school I'm being forced to "learn" things from textbooks that I learned from popular science books at about six years old.
And textbooks are strict, they tell you what to learn and how old you should be on learning it. You have a wide choice of popular science books to read at any age at all. I find it sick that I'm not supposed to know what quantum mechanics is.
And physics education is getting worse. Nowadays science in schools is getting vocational, based on "real life." Fair enough if you want to be a cook or something, but you need physics if you actually want to be a physicist!
Science education is not progressing as fast as the other subjects, it's sick, wrong, and evil.
Students should be taught physics, not how to keep your home warm.

I don't know how old you are, or what you are majoring in. But in case you end up going to college and, heaven forbid, end up with a degree in physics, I would like to suggest you copy what you have written here, save it, and then look at it THEN to see how SILLY you were when you wrote this.

Zz.

 

[FeynmanMH42]

I don't know how old you are, or what you are majoring in. But in case you end up going to college and, heaven forbid, end up with a degree in physics, I would like to suggest you copy what you have written here, save it, and then look at it THEN to see how SILLY you were when you wrote this.
Zz.

... OK, I haven't got a degree in physics in the past few hours but I do see that that was an incredibly silly thing to post, I'm sorry. I probably didn't express myself well.
If I wasn't planning on going to college or getting a degree in physics I wouldn't be here.
I think I'm out of my depth on these forums... everyone's older than me and they all seem to have a degree in physics...
Can anyone suggest any books for someone who wants to learn physics,
rather than learn about it?
Or do I have to wait four years?

 

[Plastic Photon]

I do not have a degree of science, I am a freshman at a junior college going for a BS in chemistry. I have read two popular science books completely, but I never read them for any pursuit of knowledge about science or to learn science. I read them to better understand the history around two events. One book was Making of The Atomic Bomb and the other Leon Foucalt's Pendulum. There was information about science, but like others have stated no formulas. IN fact of the two books I can only remember something about sin0 something or another in the book about Foucalt.

WHy I read them? I always enjoy watching HC specials on the Manhattan Project so I figured why not and I read the book on FOucalt because the museum in my town has such a pendulum and I thought why not. Plus it was summer and I was bored.

I also read pop sci magazines such as Popoular Science and Scientific American. I try to read some journals such as the editor's choices in Science, but much of the reading in the journals is above my head.

 

[Aether]

Can anyone suggest any books for someone who wants to learn physics, rather than learn about it? Or do I have to wait four years?

There isn't anything at all wrong with learning about physics as long as you realize that it isn't the same thing as learning physics per se. Even after you learn physics, you will probably still want to watch tv programs, read pop-sci books & magazines, etc. to learn about biology, the brain, UFOs, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, dinosaurs, etc...see?

To learn physics, all you have to do is take physics and math in school and do your best. If you're not ready for a class, you can still get the book for a future class that you think that you might want to take in the future and skim through it on your own if you want.

 

[Plastic Photon]

My bad, I didn't give feedback to the statement...

Hard to say, many of my friends are not very interested in science. Many are focused on BBA, Law and Pharmacy. In fact I helped a friend out to pass Intro to IngChem. Besides, those with a pursuit and an interest in science should be able to distinguish the differences between pop sci publications and science publications.

I am a member of a forum (ATS) where people frequently post information on their latest permanent magnet motor concepts, free energy devices they want to buy, how Newtonian mechanics is flawed, how to achieve FLT, etc. My best guess tells me that many of these folks have read pop sci publications and feel they have received an education equivalent to a modern physics class. Then again a lot of it is just good ole layman discussion.

Maybe people not pursuing and education in sciences like to read and learn about science but do not like reading and learning science. Learning science would mean learning math, and 'math is hard' according to certain Matel toy products.

 

[Mindscrape]

Well, on one hand it may be good if popular science refashions science into a more accepting light. Still, popular science seems to ignore large chunks of what makes science our most viable form of truth, including the scientific method, and a distinction between theory and law.

I'm new by the way, hello all.

 

[SpaceTiger]

How is it "extremely unethical" when the same quote in full context is presented immediately before? I'm merely trying to narrow down the precise issue that prompted my first post (and what I thought we were in agreement on) since you keep asking about that.

It's very poor form to piece together a quote in a way that makes it appear to have an alternate meaning. I'm sure the majority of forum-goers don't even read these pointless debates, let alone go back and review all of the proper context for quotations.

Penzias & Wilson would have to have obtained something of an understanding of CMB, not including density perturbations, not nucleosynthesis, etc.. The material contained within (Dicke et al., 1965) summarizes everything that they would have needed to know in about four pages! That is the distinction that I am drawing between a "thorough" understanding of mainstream theory (e.g., all of cosmology), and a subset of all cosmology.

So you really thought that, by "thorough understanding of mainstream theory", I was referring to everything in mainstream science? I find that a little hard to believe. In fact, in one of my first responses to you:

People need to understand whatever it is they're trying to challenge.

Yet you continued to push. Why?

 

[tribdog]

Well, on one hand it may be good if popular science refashions science into a more accepting light. Still, popular science seems to ignore large chunks of what makes science our most viable form of truth, including the scientific method, and a distinction between theory and law.

I'm new by the way, hello all.

actually I don't think there is much of a difference between theory and law, other than semantics. The theory of Evolution is just as true as Boyle's Law neither of which are as good as the Theory of Relativity.

 

[Aether]

It's very poor form to piece together a quote in a way that makes it appear to have an alternate meaning. I'm sure the majority of forum-goers don't even read these pointless debates, let alone go back and review all of the proper context for quotations.

Perhaps. No harm intended.

So you really thought that, by "thorough understanding of mainstream theory", I was referring to everything in mainstream science? I find that a little hard to believe. In fact, in one of my first responses to you: Yet you continued to push. Why?

I agreed with you by saying that "At some point they need to come to an understanding of this", and added "but this doesn't necessarily have to be a starting point. Penzias & Wilson had data, and then figured out what to make of it." Is that what you mean by "continued to push"? My intention there was simply to recognize that a person may need to challenge something as part of the process of their coming to an understanding of it.

 

[SpaceTiger]

My intention there was simply to recognize that a person may need to challenge something as part of the process of their coming to an understanding of it.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but I wonder if you could clarify what you mean by "challenge". I do think that it helps understanding to consider how things would be if the accepted explanation were not true, but that's more of a personal thing. Surely you must agree that a public challenge is inappropriate at this stage in the learning process.

 

[Aether]

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but I wonder if you could clarify what you mean by "challenge". I do think that it helps understanding to consider how things would be if the accepted explanation were not true, but that's more of a personal thing.

I think that you introduced the word "challenge" when you said:

People need to understand whatever it is they're trying to challenge.

So bear in mind that I had to guess at what you meant by that. To me the word encompasses everything from initial skepticism, to active probing/testing, to debates with peers (and others), and finally to "formal and public challenge".

Surely you must agree that a public challenge is inappropriate at this stage in the learning process.

I stipulated to that in my first post with respect to a "formal and public challenge":

If what you mean by "challenge the establishment" is a formal and public challenge, then I agree that it is better if one comes to an understanding of what they are talking about first. Otherwise, people have to be generally free to explore in the mean time.

What I intended by limiting this to "formal" and public challenges is simply to recognize the value of open debate, including informal discussions at PF of course.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I think that you introduced the word "challenge" when you said:So bear in mind that I had to guess at what you meant by that.

The fact that I used the word "challenge" in a previous post is largely irrelevant to your intended meaning here. I already know what I meant by it (and I'll be happy to elaborate if you so desire), but you weren't quoting that passage of my post. The question I was asking is what you were trying to communicate. Your explanation is...

To me the word encompasses everything from initial skepticism, to active probing/testing, to debates with peers (and others), and finally to "formal and public challenge".

...What I intended by limiting this to "formal" and public challenges is simply to recognize the value of open debate, including informal discussions at PF of course.

That sounds an awful lot like you aren't saying anything. Your definition of challenge seems to include everything anyone could have meant by the word, and yet you say you don't agree with "formal and public challenge" in the early stages of learning. Do you have any other caveats to your support of "challenges" to mainstream theory?

If you have a deeper meaning here, I'm genuinely curious to know it, but all of your explanations so far have been either vague or trivial. Of course I value "open debate". Who doesn't? Of course people can make accidental discoveries that turn out to be significant. Of course you don't need to know about mainstream molecular biology to make an advance in galactic dynamics. Nobody was disputing these things and I don't see how you could have read our posts to be doing so. If you think you have a genuine disagreement, please make it known. Otherwise, I don't see the point of this discussion...

 

[Pengwuino]

Grrrr there's more of these people coming in and arguing with only popular science knowledge!

I think we need to standardize a response for these people that basically tells them to go away until they read a BS degrees worth of physics and math textbooks if they are trying to argue against the appropriately studied members of the board.

 

[Moonbear]

Grrrr there's more of these people coming in and arguing with only popular science knowledge!

I think we need to standardize a response for these people that basically tells them to go away until they read a BS degrees worth of physics and math textbooks if they are trying to argue against the appropriately studied members of the board.

We do have a standardized response. We tell them to submit to the Independent Research forum if they are trying to argue things that are non-mainstream. If they are just here to learn, then we have no problem with people of any educational background joining in.

 

[Pengwuino]

We do have a standardized response. We tell them to submit to the Independent Research forum if they are trying to argue things that are non-mainstream. If they are just here to learn, then we have no problem with people of any educational background joining in.

No no, its not people who have actual real theories... its these people who read 2 or 3 popular science books but can barely spell 'electromagnetic' who just knoooooooooow they're right about special relativity being wrong.

 

[Moonbear]

No no, its not people who have actual real theories... its these people who read 2 or 3 popular science books but can barely spell 'electromagnetic' who just knoooooooooow they're right about special relativity being wrong.

Yes, that's why the IR forum is moderated and threads need to be approved.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes, that's why the IR forum is moderated and threads need to be approved.

you need to hop around the physics area more often to see what I am talken about

 

[Aether]

So you really thought that, by "thorough understanding of mainstream theory", I was referring to everything in mainstream science? I find that a little hard to believe. ...Of course you don't need to know about mainstream molecular biology to make an advance in galactic dynamics. Nobody was disputing these things and I don't see how you could have read our posts to be doing so.

No, not at all. I said:

That is the distinction that I am drawing between a "thorough" understanding of mainstream theory (e.g., all of cosmology), and a subset of all cosmology.