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

[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.