If you were to come up with a new science theory....

To be even more realistic, here is a full list of important discoveries in science made by non-experts without contact to experts:


It is not completely impossible to start this list, but how likely is this? How much more likely is it to be one of the thousands that just did not understand science?

 

You could always pay a predatory publisher an exorbitant fee to publish it to a small group of crackpots.

 

I think I have a better idea, though it will take about 9 years...

 

Galileo and Newton invented science itself. There was no formal education to be had in something brand new. Farraday helped invent a new branch and died 150 years ago. Today, a lot is known and in order to expand what is known you have to know what is known. That's why, in modern times, no one without a full knowledge of their subject matter, achieved through formal schooling, has made a significant contribution to an established branch of science.

The first one is right, the second one is wrong. You start off by getting the basic credential - an advanced degree - thus gaining entry to the scientific community. Then you put forward your ideas. Before that, you can't possibly even have a useful idea. I'm sorry if this is harsh, but it is a reality: We can guarantee without question that what you have come up with:
1. Has no value.
2. Has been thought of before.

Perhaps in an "anything's possible" sort of way, but look at it like this: do you want to succeed? Then you should do the things required to give you the best possibility of success.

Narrow or not, it's the truth.

 

Out of the population of people developing new theories in physics there are crackpots, experts, and advanced students about to become experts. If you are not in one of the latter two categories then you are in the former.

I don't know which category you are in, but you should evaluate yourself realistically. Have you put in the years of work and study needed to learn the existing body of knowledge and data? If not, then why are you trying to take a shortcut and demand unearned recognition.

No one is born with the ability to develop a new theory of physics either. It is no coincidence that the process for building the credentials is the same as the process for building the necessary skills.

 

I agree with pretty much everything that's already been said about this comment, but I'll provide another point of view for your to consider.

People exist along a continuum, starting from essentially no knowledge of physics or science in general, and running all the way to undending everything about the specific field of science they're trained in. Formal education is by far the most effective way of moving along this continuum for most people, though I'm sure a few people manage to move pretty far along it purely through self-study.

A key thing to understand is that this continuum exists for everything. Whether you're a hairdresser, engineer, car mechanic, or a farrier there was a point where you knew next to nothing about the field and had to learn it prior to performing that job. In your training you move along the continuum from a complete newbie to (hopefully) an expert in that field. Many times this training takes place on-the-job, but it's training nonetheless.

Now, I'm sure you don't expect a random person who's had next to no experience or training at fixing cars to come up with some revolutionary new way of fixing cars, or someone who has little knowledge of mechanical engineering to design a complicated new bridge. The same thing happens in science. As you move along in your training, you become more and more experienced and more capable of contributing to science. Undergrad students can do basic experiments that were invented hundreds of years ago, so they aren't going to be contributing anything to developing a cutting edge theory based on those experiments. They've been done a million times and are very well understood. And that's really the key here. We already understand those experiments and the theory that describes them. As these students progress in their training and become Grad students and possibly get PHD's they gain experience and learn more about what we do and don't know and, importantly, why we know these things and where our understanding breaks down.

Of course you can. Basic acknowledgement comes from completing your schooling in a field and shows that you (hopefully) understand the field well enough to make meaningful contributions to it.

No one is arguing that it is impossible. The fact is the chances of someone without training coming up with a radical new theory is so utterly remote that it is completely pointless to even consider a theory from someone untrained in science. If I wanted to hear a fine sonnet, I'd find a poet, someone who'd studied poetry and had plenty of experience under their pen. I wouldn't go to every elementary school poetry contest in hopes that one of the youngsters had written a masterpiece.

 

This thread has been answered repeatedly and the OP has chosen not to respond, closed.