Ideal condition (or thought process) for a theory to be right.

[imran786]

hello,

This is my first post (attempt 2)

Question.

What is the probability of a theory being correct or valid if it was made under the following circumstances?

Conditions:
Very little knowledge of science, just a curious mind.
Not looking at knowledge that is known and came from history before hand.
Only looking at one major current problem.
Devising a model that makes scientific sense. (where other see a miracle)
Seems to have decoded a mystery paging man kind for decades.

From these conditions the following is noted:
A model is made that makes sense.
From this model, New theories or explication start to pour out at a fast rate.
Soon everything that is known by the author makes deeper sense.
Formulas like E=MC2 seems to make so much sense.
But other ideas come out of this model,
Too many in a few days.
Out of the many new ideas that come from the model later some of these ideas seem to
have already been discovered previously but was unknown by our armature philosopher.
So he finds that he has actually discovered what others have already discovered without previously knowing about it.

Is this normal? how credible could such a theory be?
I am not really looking for opinions, but rather how other theories were born.
Thank you for your guesses

And its nice to be part of the forum

 

[ZapperZ]

Imagination without knowledge is ignorance waiting to happen.

How would a credible theory come out of lack of knowledge? When has this ever occurred?

Zz.

 

[Pythagorean]

does de Broglie count?

 

[imran786]

Yes, there would be little knowledge, but not none. A general idea would be needed. but may not even be used.

The main knowledge would be from the one isolated problem. For example. If we were trying to explain why the world is round, the idea that the horizon is curved and the sun rises and falls and the light on the moon makes it seem like sphere would come to mind.

With only this knowledge there exists enough for one to conclude the world is round or at least may be round. Knowledge of gravity is not needed is it.

A new theory I find is more art like and deep thought rather then knowing a bunch of unrelated details.

I once read a quote saying that if something is not simple it probably is wrong. The less you know the less your are brainwashed to think like the rest. knowing little gives a fresh view on the problem and since it is probably simple it may actually be attainable.

I'm not trying to sway any votes here. I just know it is much to easy to say it is unlikely.

Thank you for your responce

 

[imran786]

de Broglie count. Wasn't he a doctor?

 

[micromass]

The main knowledge would be from the one isolated problem. For example. If we were trying to explain why the world is round, the idea that the horizon is curved and the sun rises and falls and the light on the moon makes it seem like sphere would come to mind.

With only this knowledge there exists enough for one to conclude the world is round or at least may be round. Knowledge of gravity is not needed is it.

Just saying "the horizon is curved and thus the world is round" is not really science yet. If you want to do science, then you will want to find a model that explains why the world is round. You want to find formula's that quantify things. And you want to test those formula's.

Just saying something like "what goes up must come down" is essentially useless. What science is interested in is in how fast it goes down, or what underlying principles make it come down.

I'm not saying that "the world is round" is a useless statement. It's a very important one. But it calls for closer investigation.

I once read a quote saying that if something is not simple it probably is wrong. The less you know the less your are brainwashed to think like the rest. knowing little gives a fresh view on the problem and since it is probably simple it may actually be attainable.

Am I getting you correctly: you think scientists are brainwashed? And you think that non-scientists can easily solve problems that a scientist can't?? I don't think there is any precedence in history that somebody with a little knowledge solved an important problem.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, there would be little knowledge, but not none. A general idea would be needed. but may not even be used.

The main knowledge would be from the one isolated problem. For example. If we were trying to explain why the world is round, the idea that the horizon is curved and the sun rises and falls and the light on the moon makes it seem like sphere would come to mind.

With only this knowledge there exists enough for one to conclude the world is round or at least may be round. Knowledge of gravity is not needed is it.

A new theory I find is more art like and deep thought rather then knowing a bunch of unrelated details.

I once read a quote saying that if something is not simple it probably is wrong. The less you know the less your are brainwashed to think like the rest. knowing little gives a fresh view on the problem and since it is probably simple it may actually be attainable.

I'm not trying to sway any votes here. I just know it is much to easy to say it is unlikely.

Thank you for your responce

You are beginning to sound like a crackpot. And we have seen this before, so much so that it has already been addressed:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Zz.

 

[micromass]

OK, let's put our cards on the table.

Imran, from your other posts, we can see that you have apparently discovered a new theory of physics that explains QM, right??

If you never formally studied physics, then I am completely certain that your theory is wrong. It is totally impossible for a layman to come up with a deep theory of Quantum Physics. It has never happened before and it will never happen in the future.

You now have two choices: you can choose to believe that your theory is correct and you can try to publish it in some journal. These people are commonly called crackpots.

You can also choose to say: "Ok, I have a new theory that I think is viable. But physicists have been studying the universe for years and certainly must have come up with something useful. Why don't I try and study what is already known about physics and mathematics and why don't I see whether that proves or disproves my theory?". In this case, you would start studying physics seriously. And you will likely come to a point that you will understand where you went wrong before. Furthermore, you will have learned some neat physics in the meanwhile.

 

[russ_watters]

If you never formally studied physics, then I am completely certain that your theory is wrong. It is totally impossible for a layman to come up with a deep theory of Quantum Physics. It has never happened before and it will never happen in the future.

I think you're being too charitable to call such an idea a "theory"!

+1 for it has never and will never happen.

 

[Evo]

This thread does not meet our criteria.