Is it time to rethink the name of Theory Development in the Physics section?

[jtbell]

<<All science is either physics or stamp collecting>>
Ernest Rutherford, in J. B. Birks "Rutherford at Manchester" (1962)
British chemist & physicist (1871 - 1937)

Thanks! I'm going to make a little sign out of that right now and tape it up on the wall above my desk.

By the way, a better candidate for the "knows everything" claim would have been the late Hans Bethe. Some years ago, the American Philatelist magazine had a short writeup about him and his son when they joined the American Philatelic Society. I think at that point Bethe had just retired from full-time status at Cornell and was planning to spend more time on his stamp collection.

 

[NoTime]

Er... if you want science ideas that failed, look in any physics journal! Or may I recommend you read Bob Park's book "Voodoo Science". He explored several physics ideas that didn't make it. I wouldn't call the garbage you get in TD as "science".

I'm not disagreeing with you.
However, I think that mistakes can be more educational than success.
Simply think TD could be made to serve a useful purpose.

Whoa! You mean people were already making transistors before Bardeen, Brittain, and Shockley invented it? What a travesty! You need to report this to the Nobel prize committee immediately so that we can yank away the imposters' Nobel prizes!

Just recalling a very old magazine I read as a kid in the 50's.
I would imagine that repeatability was just about zero, since natural crystals were used.
So I would have to say that Bardeen, Brittain, and Shockley deserve the prize if only for fixing that.

Er... who? What kind of "photelectric work" did he exactly do? The photoelectric effect was well-known well before the 1900's and became a thorn in the side of classical physics. So if you're claiming that 1905 is way outside my 100 year span...
Zz.

I'm inclined to say that your question, as written, forms a logical null.
So I choose to interpret it as people who were considered cranks that made good on their claims.
Since a number of the papers you listed are material science, I think the Xerox process constitutes a major advance in that area.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm not disagreeing with you.
However, I think that mistakes can be more educational than success.
Simply think TD could be made to serve a useful purpose.

I disagree. Think of the TONS of postings one has to go through line-by-line. Would YOU like to do this day in and day out? And not only that, explain it to deaf ears of the originators who simply have decided that THEY hold the key to understanding the universe?

I suggest you go to Crank Dot Net and pick out one to start on.

Just recalling a very old magazine I read as a kid in the 50's.
I would imagine that repeatability was just about zero, since natural crystals were used.
So I would have to say that Bardeen, Brittain, and Shockley deserve the prize if only for fixing that.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place? It has no relevance to what I was asking for.

I'm inclined to say that your question, as written, forms a logical null.
So I choose to interpret it as people who were considered cranks that made good on their claims.
Since a number of the papers you listed are material science, I think the Xerox process constitutes a major advance in that area.

I don't believe it is. Most of the papers I listed was in CONDENSED MATTER physics. It is the study of the physics of material. Not one of those had to deal with the APPLICATION of the material (in the real of Material Science). I'm not saying it isn't important, but unless I'm missing something, I am emphasizing the body of knowledge in physics. I know people want to tag biology, medicine, etc. etc. to my claim, but I won't be forced to play that game.

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

However, my biggest gripe about science is that it is very difficult (or impossible) to find information on ideas that didn't quite work out. Or how they fail.
I think the TD forum can fill a void in this regard.

First, TD is not going to address that question. TD does not contain posts with ideas that didn't "quite" work out; they are just plain wrong.

To address that question, though, as has been mentioned, old journals are FULL of articles about work that has been later found to be wrong. Another great source for this information is to look through old abstracts of work presented at conferences and do a follow-up on that author's publications to see what never made it to a full article. Conferences are for sharing preliminary ideas for discussion with peers.

There can be many reasons why things don't work out. Some examples are: 1) Some sort of technical barrier was run into where something just could not be done due to lack of technology to do it. 2) A flaw in the experiment was identified. 3) Funding got cut and the project was dropped. 4) The researcher changed directions and lost interest. Of course I'm talking about legitimate work and ideas here, not the sort of things that get tossed into TD.

 

[NoTime]

I disagree. Think of the TONS of postings one has to go through line-by-line. Would YOU like to do this day in and day out? And not only that, explain it to deaf ears of the originators who simply have decided that THEY hold the key to understanding the universe?

Oh, I agree it would be a LOT of work.
I was really just suggesting a slightly different direction, not the same as keep TD as is.
As I noted before, the threads with reasonable discussion going on generally stay in the main line forums.
It is the ones that start out with some sort of rational thought and then loose it, that I was thinking of.
Was that because the idea was invalid? (likely )
Or was it because the poster ran out of personal resources and took an unfortunate approach?

Anyway once again I think this is an excellent site.

I don't believe it is. Most of the papers I listed was in CONDENSED MATTER physics. It is the study of the physics of material. Not one of those had to deal with the APPLICATION of the material (in the real of Material Science). I'm not saying it isn't important, but unless I'm missing something, I am emphasizing the body of knowledge in physics. I know people want to tag biology, medicine, etc. etc. to my claim, but I won't be forced to play that game.

Alas, I put that badly. My bad.
What is the physics of the material that makes Xerox work?
My guess is that it is more easily understood than the high-Tc ceramic you listed.
However, is that just a difference in degree of difficulty or somehow a difference in kind?
That would seem to be the key as to you being allowed to discard the data.

I'm just attempting to provide potential data points.
It is, after all, your proposed theory, not mine.

 

[NoTime]

To address that question, though, as has been mentioned, old journals are FULL of articles about work that has been later found to be wrong. Another great source for this information is to look through old abstracts of work presented at conferences and do a follow-up on that author's publications to see what never made it to a full article. Conferences are for sharing preliminary ideas for discussion with peers.

Ah Moonbear, you have a real knack for making things clear.
I wish I had a little more of your talent.

I was kind of thinking of how life seems to work.
The bad things that happen tend to make you appreciate the good things more.
If all you get to eat is chocolate cake then you might get sick of it pretty quick.
Ok, maybe not

Usenet seems to have turned into a combat zone with the flame warriors and the cranks who intentionally yank their chain.
Many (most?) actually do not believe the things they are saying.
I have talked to a few of these so called cranks backchannel and been explicitly told this.
They just want to argue, for whatever amusement this gives them.

I agree that the people who end up in TD belong there.
Some of this group are chain yankers. These should simply be deleted.
Others just seem to run out of personal resources.
Or have not learned to present an idea in a clear unambiguous way.
As in what you read was not what I wrote.
Something I am often guilty of

Anyway, I do think there is some instructional value in TD.
Even if that has nothing to do with physics.
For example: Things you don't want to do when posting here.

Perhaps you disagree. I don't know.

 

[ZapperZ]

Alas, I put that badly. My bad.
What is the physics of the material that makes Xerox work?
My guess is that it is more easily understood than the high-Tc ceramic you listed.
However, is that just a difference in degree of difficulty or somehow a difference in kind?
That would seem to be the key as to you being allowed to discard the data.

I'm just attempting to provide potential data points.
It is, after all, your proposed theory, not mine.

Not the difference in "degree of difficulty", but degree of "newness". There's no new physics in the photocopy technique, important as it is. There's new "engineering" knowledge, but that's not what I'm asking, is it?

Zz.

 

[NoTime]

Not the difference in "degree of difficulty", but degree of "newness". There's no new physics in the photocopy technique, important as it is. There's new "engineering" knowledge, but that's not what I'm asking, is it?

Zz.

I don't know enough about the amorphous semiconductor involved to say.
I suspect it would get published if discovered today.

So where is the physics in
4. The high-Tc discovery of Bednorz and Muller + the MgB2 discovery by Akimitsu and Co.
These are discoveries.
The first the original discovery.
The second was an attempt to find out if a similar physical arrangement would do the same thing.
Just "engineering" knowledge on how to build particular ceramics.
Important as it is.

I will accept your objection if you show that he used cookbook knowledge for an existing material, rather than develop his material himself.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't know enough about the amorphous semiconductor involved to say.
I suspect it would get published if discovered today.

So where is the physics in
4. The high-Tc discovery of Bednorz and Muller + the MgB2 discovery by Akimitsu and Co.
These are discoveries.
The first the original discovery.
The second was an attempt to find out if a similar physical arrangement would do the same thing.
Just "engineering" knowledge on how to build particular ceramics.
Important as it is.

There are SEVERAL important PHYSICS advancement here, especially the high-Tc discovery (or else it does not warrant the Nobel Prize). First, it was a discovery of superconductivity in perovskite ceramics, a family of material that was NOT known to be superconducting. Second, it was achived out of a parent material that was INSULATING, unlike other known superconductors at that time that starts off as being metallic. Third, it broke the "35K barrier" that was thought to be the theoretical limit for superconductivity.

That discovery caused the major revolution in physics - the 1987 APS March Meeting in NY was dubbed the Woodstock of physics especially after a similar compound, the YBCO123 broke the LN2 temperature barrier. Since then, condensed matter physics had never been the same, and the area of strongly-correlated system just exploded with such a rich variety of new physical phenomena.

The Akimitsu discovery of MgB2, if it was discovered before the high-Tc superconductors, would surely warrent a Nobel Prize. The major physics here is that MgB2 is now thought to be a conventional superconductor with phonon-mediated pairings, but it has a Tc of >40K, something that phonons were not expected to achieve. This has caused the theorists to literrally go back and try to rewrite the theory of phonons in solids. This material achieves a high Tc without the same mechanism as the high-Tc superconductors and without the same structure and compounds. So there are more new physics here.

I will accept your objection if you show that he used cookbook knowledge for an existing material, rather than develop his material himself.

Go look in Journal of Applied physics, or any material science journal. There are many of such "new" materials being synthesized. New materials does not ALWAYS mean "new physics". If you believe that he has advanced the body knowledge of physics, PROVE IT!

Zz.

 

[NoTime]

The Akimitsu discovery of MgB2... The major physics here is that MgB2 is now thought to be a conventional superconductor with phonon-mediated pairings, but it has a Tc of >40K, something that phonons were not expected to achieve.

Interesting. I read the original papers when they came out, but haven't kept up. Although I have heard that there is some evidence for Cooper pairing, I don't recall hearing that anybody has proved it yet.

The fact remains that it was an accidental result.
One that was so outrageous, at the time, that they repeated it a few times before publishing, least they end up like Pons/Fleischmann.

PROVE IT!

Its your theory. Not mine.

 

[ZapperZ]

Interesting. I read the original papers when they came out, but haven't kept up. Although I have heard that there is some evidence for Cooper pairing, I don't recall hearing that anybody has proved it yet.

The fact remains that it was an accidental result.
One that was so outrageous, at the time, that they repeated it a few times before publishing, least they end up like Pons/Fleischmann.

I will not even touch the "evidence for Cooper pairing" part because it isn't even an issue here. However, when you said it was "so outrageous", that's the WHOLE point! It IS surprising and highly unexpected - thus, a NEW entry in the body of knowledge of physics where one wasn't thought to be possible. It really is completely irrelevant if it was "accidental" or not. That has NEVER been a criteria for something being new and significant in physics.

Its your theory. Not mine.

No, you're arguing that photocopying technology should be considered in my criteria of "significant advancement in the body of knowledge of physics". I disagree and asked you to prove YOUR point, rather than having me to prove why it isn't. I have already stated that from what I have read the last few days, it is a technological advancement, not a physics advancement. You have made no case why it should also be considered as an advancement in physics. Material scientists and condensed matter physicists may study the same material, and their work may even overlap. But their aim and focus are on two very different areas of knowledge. You should not confuse the two.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Anyway, I do think there is some instructional value in TD.
Even if that has nothing to do with physics.
For example: Things you don't want to do when posting here.

Perhaps you disagree. I don't know.

We do agree that there is some instructional value in TD. But we have decided that its not enough of a positive to outweigh its negatives.

 

[NoTime]

We do agree that there is some instructional value in TD. But we have decided that its not enough of a positive to outweigh its negatives.

Thanks.
You moderators are the ones that have to do all the work.
Once again, I think you all are doing a fine job.

Cheers

 

[NoTime]

However, when you said it was "so outrageous", that's the WHOLE point! It IS surprising and highly unexpected - thus, a NEW entry in the body of knowledge of physics where one wasn't thought to be possible. It really is completely irrelevant if it was "accidental" or not.

Personally, I think the significant thing that Bednorz and Muller did was to show that BCS theory was wrong or incomplete. That's new science! How they did it is not particularly relevant, imo.
Akimitsu and Co. baked up a whole bunch of different ceramics. Most showed no activity at all. One came up better than the one Bednorz and Muller found.
Not the same class at all. No significant science here. Just new data.
But, I will agree with you that it is significant physics.

For one http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/research/brochure/tms.html says there is interesting science in amorphous silicon.

My understanding is that Chester Carlson made his own special amorphous silicon.
I think that puts him in the same class as Akimitsu and Co.

 

[ZapperZ]

Personally, I think the significant thing that Bednorz and Muller did was to show that BCS theory was wrong or incomplete. That's new science! How they did it is not particularly relevant, imo.

And who brought up the issue of "how they did it"? Why is this even discussed here?

Akimitsu and Co. baked up a whole bunch of different ceramics. Most showed no activity at all. One came up better than the one Bednorz and Muller found.
Not the same class at all. No significant science here. Just new data.
But, I will agree with you that it is significant physics.

Hello? MgB2 is a well-known material! It was sitting in my lab the day I heard about the Akimitsu reporting this at a conference (it appeared in Nature MONTHS later). In fact, almost EVERYONE had this thing already. It wasn't invented by Akimitsu at all! It was a common, well-known stuff! So who was claiming that this is "new physics" in terms of "materials invention" or discovery? I certainly didn't!

No significant science? The fact that it broke the possible phonon limit for superconductivity isn't significant science? The fact that it was the first 2-band superconductor isn't significant science? The fact that it spurned a whole new family of superconductors isn't significant science? Have you seen how many papers on MgB2 were published in Nature and PRL, especially the first couple of months after the Akimitsu's Nature paper? Were you there at Seattle, WA for the APS March Meeting in 2001 that were dubbed "Woodstock West" for the late evening session at a huge, packed, ballroom devoted entirely on the MgB2 compound?

You will understand if I find it incredulous that you would claim that there's no new "science" associated with this.

Zz.

 

[NoTime]

Zz.

The findings you list are not contained in the referenced paper.
They are all subsequent work from this paper.
People are writing papers from Carlson's discovery as well.
The physics poster I pointed you at references amorphous semiconductor as found in xerox copiers.
Not just any photocopier, but explicitly xerox.
That would be Chester Carlson's discovery.

 

[ZapperZ]

The findings you list are not contained in the referenced paper.
They are all subsequent work from this paper.

So? All the importance of high-Tc superconductors were not contained in Bednorz-Muller paper either. That, again, is besides the point. Unless you have forgotten, I asked for papers that made significant CONTRIBUTION to the advancement of the body of knowledge in physics. You seem to be looking for one paper that contains everything. That would be absurd and even *I* didn't ask for it. I'd say that being the paper that started it all is a damn good criteria for making a significant contribution.

People are writing papers from Carlson's discovery as well.
The physics poster I pointed you at references amorphous semiconductor as found in xerox copiers.
Not just any photocopier, but explicitly xerox.
That would be Chester Carlson's discovery.

Well, good for them. People are writing tons of stuff in Journal of Applied Physics also that, even while they are useful, are not considered as significant advancement in physics. So what's your point? Are you saying that he was the FIRST person to discover amorphous semiconductor, AND that such a discovery is a major advancement of knowledge in not just material science/technology, but also physics? And it is so because of what? What "new" physics has it spawned?

Zz.

 

[NoTime]

A reference to your work is a reference to your work.
That means that someone thought it is somehow significant.

 

[ZapperZ]

A reference to your work is a reference to your work.
That means that someone thought it is somehow significant.

.. and it is why we have so many different physics journals, and so many different tiers of physics journals. Each one has its place and purpose. Just because something appears in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean it HAS to be a paper of significance in the body of knowledge of physics. It can easily be useful for a particular technology, or to a specific field. This is the case for MOST physics papers published. 95 percent of physics papers do not have the criteria to be accepted into Science, Nature, and Phys. Rev. Lett., even if they are of importance to a particular application or field.

You have not presented the case why this one in particular made a significant advancement in physics. If you are claiming that he was the first person to discover and studied amorphous semiconductor, then I'd say you may have a leg to stand on. But you are not even claiming this (and neither does he from what I have gathered).

Zz.

 

[NoTime]

The citation is the standard for significance in science.

Oh well, I guess you are just trying to make your case regarding TD.
I will admit that you are making some progress with that.

Cheers

 

[ZapperZ]

The citation is the standard for significance in science.

And you think I don't know that?

That would be VERY strange considering that I highlighted the 10 most cited papers from PRL. But just because something is cited doesn't mean it has made my criteria of being "significant". The Podkletnov paper from Physica B has also been cited, but for the WRONG reasons.

Zz.

 

[marlon]

Although I have heard that there is some evidence for Cooper pairing, I don't recall hearing that anybody has proved it yet.

marlon

edit : i think it's time to move this TD-thread to the TD-section. Maybe it can become a sticky there

 

[NoTime]

edit : i think it's time to move this TD-thread to the TD-section. Maybe it can become a sticky there

I did take the trouble to look that up
So for a sample of one, there was some educational value to this thread
Cheers

 

[Gokul43201]

marlon

edit : i think it's time to move this TD-thread to the TD-section. Maybe it can become a sticky there

In all fairness marlon, I think that comment was made in the context of MgB2. But that makes it only a tad bit less preposterous ! (no ill intended here)

 

[marlon]

In all fairness marlon, I think that comment was made in the context of MgB2. But that makes it only a tad bit less preposterous ! (no ill intended here)

In that case, should i apologize ? If so, i will

regards
marlon

 

[NoTime]

In that case, should i apologize ? If so, i will

regards
marlon

Thanks. No offense taken.
I did realize why you selected the quote.
As I noted in the original post, the information was out of date.
People do not always read what I thought I wrote.
I consider this to be a personal failure.

I found Lanzara, Gweon and Lee to be quite interesting.
Well worth the price of the trip.

BTW, ignorance is curable.
Perhaps my main objection to the demise of TD.

Enjoy

 

[ZapperZ]

Thanks. No offense taken.
I did realize why you selected the quote.
As I noted in the original post, the information was out of date.
People do not always read what I thought I wrote.
I consider this to be a personal failure.

I found Lanzara, Gweon and Lee to be quite interesting.
Well worth the price of the trip.

It was seriously out-of-date because cooper pairing has to occur in superconductivity AND this is plainly obvious for MgB2 within a month of the Akimitsu paper since that's how long it took for the first tunneling experiment on the critter to appear.

Not sure why you bring out Lanzara and co. What their phonon picture for High-Tc superconductors have anything to do with this escapes me.

Zz.

 

[Nereid]

Since I first read Zapper's challenge, I've had an eye out for something that would show 'he woz rong', and thought it would be fairly easy ... Zapper won't be at all surprised to hear that I haven't come across anything yet.

There is a small boundary issue - "physics", yes; "astrophysics", yes; "cosmology", maybe?; "geophysics", maybe?; "biophysics", maybe not; "astronomy", maybe not; ... Andre's comment about continental drift (a.k.a. plate tectonics) and Wegener points us towards 'planetary science', much of which has been 'physics' from Day 1, but much is (still) very clearly 'geology'.

It's been mentioned a few times already, but deserves repeating ... there are thousands upon thousands of papers published in peer reviewed journals that we would today say are 'wrong' - there's a rather sobering asymmetry when you spend some time reading a random selection of threads here in PF's TD!

One grey area is 'curiosity, poorly expressed' - I feel that helping someone who's curious work through their thinking and approach is one of the things we try to do here in PF; it's sometimes difficult, partly because the thickets of misunderstanding and 'physics by press release' may addle the brain. Partly for this reason, I try not to be too hasty about moving a thread or a post off to TD.

Finally, what about renaming TD 'Pseudoscience'? I feel TD's greatest educational value is to help give PF readers a better sense of what distinguishes 'science' from 'pseudoscience' (after all, merely repeating '... self-consistent, consistent with good observational and experimental results in its domain of applicability, ...' is dry - to learn often involves looking at good examples and counter-examples). Perhaps we could put it together with the 'Credible Anomalies Awaiting Proper Investigation' part of S&D?

 

[marlon]

I think we should call the TD-section : Personal Science Philosophy

:)

marlon

 

[ZapperZ]

Since I first read Zapper's challenge, I've had an eye out for something that would show 'he woz rong', and thought it would be fairly easy ... Zapper won't be at all surprised to hear that I haven't come across anything yet.

.. and I'm sure many people will continue to scour all over to prove me wrong. :)

There is a small boundary issue - "physics", yes; "astrophysics", yes; "cosmology", maybe?; "geophysics", maybe?; "biophysics", maybe not; "astronomy", maybe not; ... Andre's comment about continental drift (a.k.a. plate tectonics) and Wegener points us towards 'planetary science', much of which has been 'physics' from Day 1, but much is (still) very clearly 'geology'.

While I don't consider "planetary science" within the same traditional boundaries of physics, it certainly does make use of physics. Furthermore, journals like PRL, Science, and Nature would count it as a "physical science" subject and would categorize it as such. I just do not include it in my counting simply because I am ignorant of that area of study and haven't paid much attention to it. Thus, my challenge is limited to within the body of knowledge of physics in the traditional sense since that is what I have "data" for.

It's been mentioned a few times already, but deserves repeating ... there are thousands upon thousands of papers published in peer reviewed journals that we would today say are 'wrong' - there's a rather sobering asymmetry when you spend some time reading a random selection of threads here in PF's TD!

Exactly. I've said this often, that even AFTER a paper is published, there is no guarantee that it will amount to anything. Publishing isn't a sign for "validity". It isn't a necessary and sufficient criteria. However, it certainly is a NECESSARY criteria for it to eventually make a significant impact in physics.

One grey area is 'curiosity, poorly expressed' - I feel that helping someone who's curious work through their thinking and approach is one of the things we try to do here in PF; it's sometimes difficult, partly because the thickets of misunderstanding and 'physics by press release' may addle the brain. Partly for this reason, I try not to be too hasty about moving a thread or a post off to TD.

Finally, what about renaming TD 'Pseudoscience'? I feel TD's greatest educational value is to help give PF readers a better sense of what distinguishes 'science' from 'pseudoscience' (after all, merely repeating '... self-consistent, consistent with good observational and experimental results in its domain of applicability, ...' is dry - to learn often involves looking at good examples and counter-examples). Perhaps we could put it together with the 'Credible Anomalies Awaiting Proper Investigation' part of S&D?

I could go for that Pseudoscience name. It certainly is more accurately descriptive than "Theory Development".

Zz.

 

[arildno]

Now, I think the Wegener case might be a typical case in which scientifically sound results may be overlooked/rejected at first:

A somewhat "obscure", or at least non-mainstream area in physics in which there are actually very few scientists at work, so that there really isn't a peer community which can evaluate a piece of unfamiliar work properly.
(It would at least be interesting to test this on the Wegener case; who, and how many scientists at his time were actually sufficiently familiar with/interested in the issues to give his work a proper evaluation?)

It is quite indicative of crackpots that they are not interested in "minor", very specialized areas in physics; rather, they want to prove Einstein wrong or QM wrong, or, occasionally, to prove old Isaac wrong.

 

[NoTime]

One grey area is 'curiosity, poorly expressed' - I feel that helping someone who's curious work through their thinking and approach is one of the things we try to do here in PF; it's sometimes difficult, partly because the thickets of misunderstanding and 'physics by press release' may addle the brain. Partly for this reason, I try not to be too hasty about moving a thread or a post off to TD.

Finally, what about renaming TD 'Pseudoscience'? I feel TD's greatest educational value is to help give PF readers a better sense of what distinguishes 'science' from 'pseudoscience' (after all, merely repeating '... self-consistent, consistent with good observational and experimental results in its domain of applicability, ...' is dry - to learn often involves looking at good examples and counter-examples). Perhaps we could put it together with the 'Credible Anomalies Awaiting Proper Investigation' part of S&D?

Nice
I like Marlon's name better though

 

[Reshma]

There are more "guesses" than theories, and there's barely anything "developing" other than making its way into oblivion.

I could go for that Pseudoscience name. It certainly is more accurately descriptive than "Theory Development".

I think Zapper's indeed being correct about the stuff posted in Theory Development. You cannot propose any new theory unless there is a strong experimental evidence supporting it. For students like me though it is difficult to distinguish between the 'genuinely' good theories from pseudo-ones. This might lead to furthur confusion between the facts and the hoaxes.

To put in cruder or rather harsher terms, no matter how intriguing, fascinating or convincing a theory sounds, IF it lacks experimental evidence, it HAS to be chucked out!

 

[NoTime]

For students like me though it is difficult to distinguish between the 'genuinely' good theories from pseudo-ones. This might lead to furthur confusion between the facts and the hoaxes.

Don't know about that. For me it just led to a lot of trips to the library researching the various claims.

IF it lacks experimental evidence, it HAS to be chucked out!

Like the various string and quantum gravity theories?

 

[Reshma]

Don't know about that. For me it just led to a lot of trips to the library researching the various claims.

I was searching the net hoping to find some answers.

Like the various string and quantum gravity theories?

OK..I agree, in the realm of theoretical physics it is difficult to come up with experimental evidence. The problem is that relativity and the quantum theory are precise opposites.

General relativity is a theory of the very large: galaxies, quasars, black holes, and even the Big Bang. It is based on bending the beautiful four dimensional fabric of space and time.

The quantum theory, by contrast, is a theory which deals with the sub-atomic world. It is based on discrete, tiny packets of energy called quanta.

BUT, over the past 50 years, many attempts have been tried to unite these polar opposites, and have failed. The road to the Unified Field Theory, the Theory of Everything, is littered with the corpses of failed attempts.
By far the only successful theory is QED. The rest according to me are highly speculative and dubious by nature.

 

[Zanket]

Even in the true sense of theory development (not the PF definition), a theory that is unpublished is still a work in progress. It may still be untrue, and it would still lack sufficient evidence to be publishable. Once sufficient evidence is obtained to support it, it can be published. No person in their right mind would discuss such a theory on an open forum such as this lest someone in a bigger and better funded lab scoop the project and beat you to the publication. Scientists do share these ideas with each other at this early stage, but it is done in scientific meetings accompanied by published abstracts that offer some protection that the original idea is yours.

Why wouldn’t a copyright provide the same or better level of protection? Unpublished works can be registered for a copyright. An unpublished work is no more or less protected than a published work. It seems to me that a “bigger and better funded lab” would lose credibility hence future funding if it tried to retain originator status for work legally held as prior by a copyright registration, so they wouldn’t do it. Then it seems that discussing such a copyrighted theory in an open forum such as this is no more a risk (and probably less risk) than discussing such an uncopyrighted theory in a scientific meeting accompanied by a published abstract. What do you think?

Also, anything discussed in this forum is published to an audience in electronic form, which is recognized as a valid form of publishing hence copyrighted by default by the US copyright office. The advantage to registering is primarily to get a government-issued timestamp in advance. But if someone discussed an original idea here, and it was subsequently scooped by a big lab, US courts would defer to the prior work if the forum timestamp were deemed reliable (a bigger if than I’d rely on).

 

[Zanket]

If someone has a brilliant idea, an open physics forum is NOT the place to do it. Find a knowledgeable person in that subject area, and get his/her review of that idea. Then if it passes that test, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal.

For a good idea, I don’t see the big advantage of the peer-reviewed journal over the open forum (see my post to Moonbear immediately above). Seems like a lot more work to jump through the hoops (formatting, submitting, publishing delay, other bureaucracy) of the journal. Can you elaborate? A semi-open forum (i.e. limited moderation) seems to me to be the best place overall to submit. Arxiv is the best I’ve seen for those with the ability to post there. I agree on passing the test of review by those in the know.

 

[ZapperZ]

For a good idea, I don’t see the big advantage of the peer-reviewed journal over the open forum (see my post to Moonbear immediately above). Seems like a lot more work to jump through the hoops (formatting, submitting, publishing delay, other bureaucracy) of the journal. Can you elaborate? A semi-open forum (i.e. limited moderation) seems to me to be the best place overall to submit. Arxiv is the best I’ve seen for those with the ability to post there. I agree on passing the test of review by those in the know.

You are forgetting that I have a rather obvious and tested evidence: the advancement of physics so far (at least within the past 100 years) have come SOLELY via the communication through peer-reviewed journals!

The arxiv has its purpose. I have several preprints uploaded there. But for most of us in this field, that's the major use of that site - to upload preprints as a quick way to inform others of a paper that is going through the review process. I read them as I would read a newspaper, but I do not use them as I would use a physics textbook. I will still wait till the final version appear in a peer-reviewed journal, and trust me, a manuscript can change, and change A LOT by the time it gets to its final form!

The arxiv is the quickest way to know what people are up to, especially your competitors in the field. It, however, is not the source that one wants to use to base one's entire set of knowledge. Again, I will challenge anyone to show where something that has only appeared in such a medium has made any significant impact in advancing the body of knowledge. Till that can be shown, I don't see how it can rivaled, even anywhere near, the peer-reviewed system.

Zz.

 

[Monique]

The arxiv has its purpose. I have several preprints uploaded there. But for most of us in this field, that's the major use of that site - to upload preprints as a quick way to inform others of a paper that is going through the review process.

I don't understand this: so you are in the process of publishing a paper and then you put the 'unreviewed' preprint online? Is that not against the guidelines of the journal you are aiming to publish in: you are not supposed to have published the work in any form, except at meetings, or have it in review by another journal. You sign away the copyright of the text to the journal you are publishing in, so how can you put it online in an open source?

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't understand this: so you are in the process of publishing a paper and then you put the 'unreviewed' preprint online? Is that not against the guidelines of the journal you are aiming to publish in: you are not supposed to have published the work in any form, except at meetings, or have it in review by another journal. You sign away the copyright of the text to the journal you are publishing in, so how can you put it online in an open source?

Nope. In fact, if you are submitting to any of the Physical Review journals, you can upload to them AND the arxiv server simultaneously. They even accept "pointer" to the arxiv server. Furthermore, both Nature and Science have indicated that their embargo does NOT include arxiv and scientific conference presentation. The only risk here being that if a commercial media picked up the results you're presenting and reported it in print, then you have violated their embargo.

I believe that most physics journals do not have any restrictions on preprints appearing in arxiv. It has become the leading source for the community to get the fastest info on what is going on.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v390/n6659/full/390427b0_fs.html

Zz.

 

[Monique]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v390/n6659/full/390427b0_fs.html

That is the first time I see that, I never quite got the concept of Arxiv as in biology it is not used; the guidelines are as I described. The link explains:

In other areas, where the communities are larger and the variability in quality and sheer volume of preprinted material somewhat daunting, preprint servers are active but appear to be considered less useful for those reasons.

Scientific communication is speeded up with the fact that journals now publish electronic pre-prints several days after a manuscript has been accepted. There are some unfortunate cases where manuscripts are rejected by grumpy reviewers, but I'd hesitate to dive into unreviewed archives.

 

[ZapperZ]

Scientific communication is speeded up with the fact that journals now publish electronic pre-prints several days after a manuscript has been accepted. There are some unfortunate cases where manuscripts are rejected by grumpy reviewers, but I'd hesitate to dive into unreviewed archives.

I don't use the unreviewed preprints in the arxiv servers as "references" in terms of scientific content, unless I already know the authors or groups that those work came from. In those cases, I can usually tell the "validity" of the work and how careful results coming from such a group are usually obtained. This is where knowing the history of the subject area is important. But most people do not have such knowledge on deciding which is which. I also do not use as references articles from people I am not familiar with and would certain wait till that particular manuscript appears in print.

The exception so far to this rule is those in the String/Superstring/etc. area where the Arxiv has almost taken over as the preferred means to communicate. Maybe it's due to the nature of the field or the fact that a lot of "conjectures" are being made, but the arxiv is a very common citation references in many of such papers and presentation. However, keep in mind that this is a VERY small section of physics [I will refrain on giving my personal opinion on that subject area].

The moral of the story is, people who don't know any better should NOT rely on Arxiv as their source of information. It is more suited for those who are working in the subject area.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

You are forgetting that I have a rather obvious and tested evidence: the advancement of physics so far (at least within the past 100 years) have come SOLELY via the communication through peer-reviewed journals!

I don’t dispute that, but it seems irrelevant unless I take it to mean that, because of that, a paper published outside of a peer-reviewed journal has a nil chance of being read by physicists. Is that what you mean?

The arxiv is the quickest way to know what people are up to, especially your competitors in the field. It, however, is not the source that one wants to use to base one's entire set of knowledge.

It seems that arxiv just needs to add journal-quality peer-reviewed sections to satisfy your need and put the journals out of business.

Again, I will challenge anyone to show where something that has only appeared in such a medium has made any significant impact in advancing the body of knowledge. Till that can be shown, I don't see how it can rivaled, even anywhere near, the peer-reviewed system.

That’s putting the cart before the horse. If someone had an idea and didn’t have the credentials even for arxiv, it seems to me that forums like this one are decent places to post it. Even forums like this, being that some professional physicists (or impending ones) are here, are a form of peer review. Just look at how fast the bad ideas are shot down here, saving the poster the bureaucracy and long wait of a journal.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don’t dispute that, but it seems irrelevant unless I take it to mean that, because of that, a paper published outside of a peer-reviewed journal has a nil chance of being read by physicists. Is that what you mean?

That, and a whole lot of others. A paper outside of peer-reviewed journals has NEVER, in the last 100 years, made ANY significant contributions to the advancement in the physics body of knowledge. So why would I want to waste my time reading something that would amount to nothing? If it has any relevance, or any CHANCE to even be considered to be either valid or any signficance, it would have appeared in a peer-reviewed journals. Just think of how many papers a typical physicist read, and figure out of one wants to waste time reading something that is not even published, especially considering the historical records.

It seems that arxiv just needs to add journal-quality peer-reviewed sections to satisfy your need and put the journals out of business.

Then this is no different than any peer-reviewed journals! Most physics journals already put their stuff out on the web. Adding peer-reviewed to Arxiv would make then no different.

You are also forgetting that journals such as PRL, Nature, and Science not just select and publish "high-impact" papers, they also have their publicity machines that advertizes and highlights some of the papers that they publish. It is why those 3 journals are the most sought-after publications for physics. A medium for publication just doesn't get the prestigue and respect overnight out of nothing.

That’s putting the cart before the horse. If someone had an idea and didn’t have the credentials even for arxiv, it seems to me that forums like this one are decent places to post it. Even forums like this, being that some professional physicists (or impending ones) are here, are a form of peer review. Just look at how fast the bad ideas are shot down here, saving the poster the bureaucracy and long wait of a journal.

But this is purely conjecture! We have had arguments like this for as long as I can remember (do a search on PF if you don't believe me). Point out to me a case where someone with a valid work in physics that could not put it out in a peer-reviewed journal because of lack of "credientials", and have managed to use forums such as this as a stepping stone to "credibility". I put it to you that what you imagined has not happened.

Using a forum such as this to work out an idea is a rather dubious way to go about something like this. How do you know the credentials of the person who's responding? Is that person an expert in that area of physics even though he/she has a "Science Advisor" medal? Besides, quacks have very seldom pay any particular attention to valid physical arguments - please visit the TD section of you don't believe me. Instead, forums such as this is a means for them to advertize their flaky idea and websites. It is the only means for what they do to see the light of day.

I suggest you look at a typical 'work' in the TD section and figure out the amount of effort required to apply "a form of peer-review" that you have in mind. If you are able to sustain the same level of effort for a month straight, then we'll talk.

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

Why wouldn’t a copyright provide the same or better level of protection? Unpublished works can be registered for a copyright. An unpublished work is no more or less protected than a published work. It seems to me that a “bigger and better funded lab” would lose credibility hence future funding if it tried to retain originator status for work legally held as prior by a copyright registration, so they wouldn’t do it. Then it seems that discussing such a copyrighted theory in an open forum such as this is no more a risk (and probably less risk) than discussing such an uncopyrighted theory in a scientific meeting accompanied by a published abstract. What do you think?

Also, anything discussed in this forum is published to an audience in electronic form, which is recognized as a valid form of publishing hence copyrighted by default by the US copyright office. The advantage to registering is primarily to get a government-issued timestamp in advance. But if someone discussed an original idea here, and it was subsequently scooped by a big lab, US courts would defer to the prior work if the forum timestamp were deemed reliable (a bigger if than I’d rely on).

I'm not sure the purpose of obtaining a copyright on flawed work. If the idea you publish is flawed, there's nothing to stop someone from building upon that to identify the flaws and publish something better. They can cite your work for your original idea, but what does it accomplish to have a citation that points out that you were wrong?

If I discuss an idea with someone else, any thoughts they contribute that help me, I need to acknowledge and give them credit for; if it is substantial, then they will be a co-author on the publication, and if it is minor, I will mention them in the acknowledgments section. The same would apply here. Once you put up the idea for discussion, any contributions you receive that help you modify your idea or design an improved experiment need to be acknowledged and credit given to those discussing it. If you missed something and they supplied that missing detail, that key detail is not your idea but theirs, and they are free to use it.

In generally, however, ideas that are the product of discussion, where two or more people are all providing input, are very hard to disentangle with regard to ownership. Unless there is a prior agreement of collaboration and/or co-authorship, the ideas that come out as a product of a discussion would most likely be considered a collective idea rather than something individually owned, thus are free for anyone participating in that group to use as they wish. If I approach someone else to discuss an idea with them, perhaps someone in that bigger and better equipped lab, the conversation usually begins with a statement, "I have an idea that I think you can help me with, would you be interested in a possible collaboration?" As the discussion continues, if indeed they are able to help out and have the set-up needed to do the work I can't do myself, then we not only discuss the general idea of collaboration, but follow up with, "If you do ... work/experiments for me, I will include you as a co-author on any manuscripts that result from this work." This is the verbal contract that protects our shared ideas as shared. If this is not part of the conversation, they are free to do what they want with the product of our discussion, as they are equal owners of those ideas.

 

[Moonbear]

That’s putting the cart before the horse. If someone had an idea and didn’t have the credentials even for arxiv, it seems to me that forums like this one are decent places to post it. Even forums like this, being that some professional physicists (or impending ones) are here, are a form of peer review. Just look at how fast the bad ideas are shot down here, saving the poster the bureaucracy and long wait of a journal.

No, this is not a way around peer-review. For one, those who are here who are qualified to be peer reviewers are already doing so for journals, and are not going to take time away from those to waste time on an idea that's not even worked out enough to be submitted to one of those other journals. Second, there is absolutely no assurance that among the practicing physicists who visit this site that any of them has expertise in the specific area addressed by your theory sufficient to give you a quality critique. What journals do is for an editor to screen articles by topic and then send them out to suitable reviewers. They aren't just sent randomly to any scientist, they are sent to those who have sufficient expertise in the area addressed by the paper to give a qualified critique. Of course, if you're presenting something so flawed that even those outside your area of expertise can identify major problems, then you have no hope of getting it past the experts. Indeed, they probably won't even waste their time on a detailed critique, but will do the same thing of pointing out a few fatal flaws and reject it. Why pick through details when there's a giant, glaring flaw? Most of those posting in TD have such flaws in what they present, and don't seem to understand that there's no point in going through details when the bigger idea is seriously flawed, yet if you read through the posts there, you will see that over and again, where a major flaw is pointed out and they ignore that comment going on to ask for comment on picky details that is just wasted effort.

 

[Zanket]

Just think of how many papers a typical physicist read, and figure out of one wants to waste time reading something that is not even published, especially considering the historical records.

You don’t read any of the junk here?

Then this is no different than any peer-reviewed journals! Most physics journals already put their stuff out on the web. Adding peer-reviewed to Arxiv would make then no different.

Makes sense.

You are also forgetting that journals such as PRL, Nature, and Science not just select and publish "high-impact" papers, they also have their publicity machines that advertizes and highlights some of the papers that they publish. It is why those 3 journals are the most sought-after publications for physics. A medium for publication just doesn't get the prestigue and respect overnight out of nothing.

Good info.

Point out to me a case where someone with a valid work in physics that could not put it out in a peer-reviewed journal because of lack of "credientials", and have managed to use forums such as this as a stepping stone to "credibility". I put it to you that what you imagined has not happened.

I don’t dispute that. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen though. Supposing lack of credentials is not an issue (as it is on arxiv), journals still have inefficient hurdles. A submitter spends days reformatting a paper to the journal’s exacting specifications and then waits months for a reply, whereas this forum takes plain text and a reply might take only minutes. I think a good idea can transcend the drawbacks of a forum like this, in which case the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Using a forum such as this to work out an idea is a rather dubious way to go about something like this. How do you know the credentials of the person who's responding?

Whether they are qualified seems easy to verify sans credentials, for it’s tough to sound logical while spewing crap.

 

[Zanket]

I'm not sure the purpose of obtaining a copyright on flawed work. If the idea you publish is flawed, there's nothing to stop someone from building upon that to identify the flaws and publish something better. They can cite your work for your original idea, but what does it accomplish to have a citation that points out that you were wrong?

Such idea is flawed regardless how it’s published. But it seems the original idea is still better protected by the copyright method than by the “published abstract in a scientific meeting” method.

As to the rest of that post, let me paraphrase and correct me if I got it wrong: The reason “No person in their right mind would discuss such a theory on an open forum such as this” is because the flaws could then be corrected by anyone, who gets credit for the completion, whereas in a collaboration and/or co-authorship setting there’s an agreement (implied or otherwise) that all involved will equally share credit for the completion.

No, this is not a way around peer-review. For one, those who are here who are qualified to be peer reviewers are already doing so for journals, and are not going to take time away from those to waste time on an idea that's not even worked out enough to be submitted to one of those other journals.

I see time spent on such ideas by presumably-qualified people here. Poorly-conceived ideas don’t last long here, for example.

Second, there is absolutely no assurance that among the practicing physicists who visit this site that any of them has expertise in the specific area addressed by your theory sufficient to give you a quality critique.

For obscure areas, sure. But if the area is popular, there’s decent assurance.

What journals do is for an editor to screen articles by topic and then send them out to suitable reviewers. They aren't just sent randomly to any scientist, they are sent to those who have sufficient expertise in the area addressed by the paper to give a qualified critique.

And if the author is sans credentials, don’t they then reject the article sight unseen? Isn’t that prudent given the unlikelihood, historically given, that such article would pass even the initial screening?

Of course, if you're presenting something so flawed that even those outside your area of expertise can identify major problems, then you have no hope of getting it past the experts. Indeed, they probably won't even waste their time on a detailed critique, but will do the same thing of pointing out a few fatal flaws and reject it. Why pick through details when there's a giant, glaring flaw?

Indeed. That’s why it would seem more efficient to post here first, where flaws can be pointed out in hours rather than months. The author can weigh that benefit against the drawback that you pointed out regarding credit of the corrected idea. And if no flaw is found here, then it seems that time has potentially been gained and nothing has been lost.

 

[ZapperZ]

You don’t read any of the junk here?

No, I don't. As soon as something is relegated to the TD section, it might as well not even be on here as far as I'm concerned.

I don’t dispute that. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen though. Supposing lack of credentials is not an issue (as it is on arxiv), journals still have inefficient hurdles. A submitter spends days reformatting a paper to the journal’s exacting specifications and then waits months for a reply, whereas this forum takes plain text and a reply might take only minutes. I think a good idea can transcend the drawbacks of a forum like this, in which case the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

So you're asking for us to consider ALL eventual possibilities, no matter how small or how unlikely it will happen? In this case, the possibility of it occurring is ZERO, based on history. But we just have to accommodate that possibility no matter how extremely it is to occur?? Do you know how unreasonable of a request that sounds?

Whether they are qualified seems easy to verify sans credentials, for it’s tough to sound logical while spewing crap.

Logic has nothing to do with it. I can make things up VERY easily and sound as if I know what I'm talking about. Many quacks are masters at making their arguments vague and ambiguous. There's nothing "illogical" about it. Only someone who is an expert in that particular field would be able to either spot the flaw, or the inconsistencies, or the incrediblly dubious way of how the physics has been mangled. This takes a LOT of effort. I suggest you try your hand at it sometime if you can.

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

So you're asking for us to consider ALL eventual possibilities, no matter how small or how unlikely it will happen?

I’m saying that, without asking for anything, a good idea posted to forums like this will likely be received by physicists eventually. People like you will read it, and finding nothing wrong with it, will not relegate it to the TD section. And if it would affect their own research if valid, it is unlikely they would ignore it outright simply because of where it was published.

Logic has nothing to do with it. I can make things up VERY easily and sound as if I know what I'm talking about. Many quacks are masters at making their arguments vague and ambiguous. There's nothing "illogical" about it.

A vague and ambiguous argument is illogical, isn’t it? The risk of being fooled can be greatly lowered by getting corroboration. But you have a good point.