Publishing as a citizen scientist

[Rick Jenkins]

So how many genuine ground breaking discoveries based on sound scientific principles have been made by citizen scientists in the last, say 100 years?

I cannot think of a single example.

Before the 20th century, when there were 'easy' discoveries to be made, this was possible. Now, you very rarely see individual professional scientists making 'ground breaking discoveries', rather you see marginal contributions coming from very hard work by well funded teams of scientists. There is no science today that does not require $millions or $billions of funding to move forward

I stumbled across this "citizen scientist" just the other day. A very surprising contribution indeed: the actress Hedy Lamarr's invention of frequency-hopping. She came up with the idea after hearing that radio-controlled torpedoes could be jammed and set off-course. She and her co-inventor were awarded a US Patent for their frequency-hopping designs. The technology to implement her idea was not possible in 1942, but was finally implemented by the US Navy in 1962.

 

[StevieTNZ]

just getting hard to keep up been up all night now 5.13am here in Sydney Australia.

Go to bed.

 

[Matterwave]

A little calculus would be useful to understand that you are at a point in the graph below where the first derivative is zero (and it ain't the second one)View attachment 237139
This forum is a very good place to minimize this function BTW

The minimum of the function is obviously at (0,0)...not sure that's a great goal... :P

I don't know if I agree with the (0,0) origin though...It seems a lot of people who have 0 experience in a field nevertheless think they are experts.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Here's an interesting example (from the field of mathematics) of citizen scientists devising a new proof, and the community crediting them despite the fact that the proof was posted online anonymously:

Now, Houston and Pantone, joined by Vince Vatter of the University of Florida in Gainesville, have written up the formal argument. In their paper, they list the first author as “Anonymous 4chan Poster.”

https://www.quantamagazine.org/sci-...th-whiz-advance-permutation-problem-20181105/

 

[bugs007]

You're wasting time on here as a) you're not prepared to post your theory here; and, b) it's PF policy not to discuss new, personal theories in any case! You should do what others have suggested: put it on the Internet somewhere and send a copy to a physics journal. Send another copy to a lawyer if you really are worried about it getting stolen.

I assume anyone with a serious original idea can seek advice on here on how to best manage such ideas without revealing them. OK handy to know this policy as I definitely wish to remain within the rules of the group. I understand that there is a lot of crackpot stuff which can quickly descend into chaos. Your suggestion to use a lawyer is interesting but would like to follow whatever the normal accepted procedure is for lodging papers such as this for publication.

 

[Evo]

Your suggestion to use a lawyer is interesting but would like to follow whatever the normal accepted procedure is for lodging papers such as this for publication.

If you want to know what is required to publish in a journal, you need to go to that journal and read their requirements.

For example, here is the page for the journal Nature.

https://www.nature.com/authors/author_resources/index.html

 

[russ_watters]

I assume anyone with a serious original idea can seek advice on here on how to best manage such ideas without revealing them.

Yes, but it is too easy and tempting to ask for and give hints about what the subject is. That's what turns such threads south (north?).

Your suggestion to use a lawyer is interesting but would like to follow whatever the normal accepted procedure is for lodging papers such as this for publication.

Sure, but securing proof of ownership and publication are separate issues and securing proof of ownership comes first. It would not interfere with publication to use a lawyer (or notary) for that purpose.

 

[bugs007]

This is your own self-evaluation of your knowledge and skills. No field of study, be it in science or not, uses such evaluation. You think you are good. That isn't enough to get you a job in anything. So why should we simply take your word for it? Would you take MY word that you aren't that good?

So my question still stands. How do you know?

Zz.

I do not think I am that good and merely study these subjects privately not in any academic capacity whatsoever. Not interested in working in this field. So yes I expect you to take my word for the fact that I have a simple solution to a problem because that is why I am here but not to divulge details of such solution only to seek opinion on how to best manage something of this nature.

 

[ZapperZ]

You do not need to know calculus and only need basic math in this solution. I admit not knowing most math is, I do know some algebra what I recall from year 10 and barely recall some trigonometry as I had no ambition in this field then.

This solution will actually be described as an extension of an existing very well accepted theory. One that Einstein seriously overlooked. So I wish to treat this with a lot of respect especially for those whose discoveries this relies on and in the professional manner that it deserves.

This, another symptom describe by Warren Siegel.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

I do not think I am that good and merely study these subjects privately not in any academic capacity whatsoever. Not interested in working in this field. So yes I expect you to take my word for the fact that I have a simple solution to a problem because that is why I am here but not to divulge details of such solution only to seek opinion on how to best manage something of this nature.

Will you take my word for it that I can perform surgery, even though I'm not certified as a surgeon? After all, I've looked at various text on surgery, and I even teach Pre-Med students! So will you let me perform a surgery on you the next time you are in need of one?

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

So yes I expect you to take my word for the fact that I have a simple solution to a problem because that is why I am here but not to divulge details of such solution only to seek opinion on how to best manage something of this nature.

For the purpose of offering advice we can assume you have a real idea, but for the purpose of having it evaluated, nobody worth talking to will be willing to talk to you on that basis alone...

...so I guess that means for the purpose of offering advice we should also try to prepare you for what will almost certainly happen.

 

[ZapperZ]

@bugs007 : Before proceeding any further, and before proclaiming the amazing feat that you have accomplished, please contact a physicist and have him/her review your work. Even the best and most brilliant physicists on Earth often sought advice/opinion from their colleagues, so why shouldn't you? This is the ONLY means for you to verify the validity and importance of your work.

Otherwise, you are asking us to take your word for it, and again, I have my kitchen knives ready whenever you need to be cut open!

Zz.

 

[bugs007]

Yes it is. Wave-particle duality is explained by QM. If you have been reading popular science books or youtube videos then you may get the strong impression that the riddle of wave-particle duality is alive and kicking. But, as far as the professional science of QM is concerned, wave-particle duality was explained in the 1930's by "modern" QM. And you have the whole development of QED and QFT since then.

It never ceases to amaze me how unwilling the people we see on PF who say they believe they have discovered something are to put any real money or effort into their idea (even after years or decades!). This tells me they don't really believe in it (or maybe their belief is not stronger than their fear). If you watch a TV show like "Shark Tank", you'll see the majority of the people who are on the show go all in on their idea, investing enormous amounts of time and money into it before it gets to the point where it is ready to be presented to billionaire investors. A patent application alone probably costs upwards of $10,000. Then there's prototyping and if it goes well, setting up manufacturing and distribution. People with even small, simple ideas often spend a $100,000 or more developing an idea to get it far enough that it is ready to sell - and therefore invest in.

For someone who has a scientific idea, here's all it takes to get a quick review: $600 and an afternoon. Find a random physicist at a nearby university and offer him/er $150 an hour to spend the afternoon with you at a coffee shop to read your paper, review and discuss.

Don't trust the answer you got? Go get another opinion.

I'm a mechanical engineer, not a physicist, but if someone local made me that offer to review their perpetual motion machine idea, I'd do it. I bet you can find a physicist who would too.

@bugs007, you say you've put 30 years into this idea. I urge you to take just a little bit of time and money and find out if your idea does or doesn't have merit. The worst case outcome from that is just that if you find the idea doesn't have merit you save yourself any further waste of time. So even that would be a win.

Many thanks Russ. I haven't put the whole 30 years into it, just thought of the basic concept 30 years ago which I could not resolve completely then and quite honestly had forgotten all about it until more recently where I decided to attempt to resolve it again and think I have hit an actual bulls eye in doing so. If this does pan out you will 100% find it jaw dropping and the consequences for QM are enormous.

 

[bugs007]

@bugs007 : Before proceeding any further, and before proclaiming the amazing feat that you have accomplished, please contact a physicist and have him/her review your work. Even the best and most brilliant physicists on Earth often sought advice/opinion from their colleagues, so why shouldn't you? This is the ONLY means for you to verify the validity and importance of your work.

Otherwise, you are asking us to take your word for it, and again, I have my kitchen knives ready whenever you need to be cut open!

Zz.

Thanks ZapperZ this should be quite easy to accomplish and shall make some inquiries. Hope your knives are sharp enough to cut open the double-slit experiment lol.

 

[bugs007]

Yes it is. Wave-particle duality is explained by QM. If you have been reading popular science books or youtube videos then you may get the strong impression that the riddle of wave-particle duality is alive and kicking. But, as far as the professional science of QM is concerned, wave-particle duality was explained in the 1930's by "modern" QM. And you have the whole development of QED and QFT since then.

I interpret the current explanation as quoted from the current wikipedia page "Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum entity may be partly described in terms not only of particles, but also of waves. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behaviour of quantum-scale objects." If so it does not explain why this occurs and as such is not incorrect but incomplete.

 

[ZapperZ]

Thanks ZapperZ this should be quite easy to accomplish and shall make some inquiries. Hope your knives are sharp enough to cut open the double-slit experiment lol.

The double-slit experiment is so 1900s. We have moved on to interferometers.

Zz.

 

[PeroK]

I do not think I am that good and merely study these subjects privately not in any academic capacity whatsoever. Not interested in working in this field. So yes I expect you to take my word for the fact that I have a simple solution to a problem because that is why I am here but not to divulge details of such solution only to seek opinion on how to best manage something of this nature.

This solution is so damn simple it is quite frankly laughable and in my opinion they should have figured this out easily. With the double slit experiment results as a definitive proof here this will be extremely hard to refute. As far as I know double slit wave function collapse during observation has not been explained and if so not to anyone's satisfaction.

Here's a rough analogy of why we are inclinded to doubt that you have anything of value. Imagine, instead of physics we were talking about chess. By your own admission, you are an amateur player that knows the rules of the game and has been studying it. You have also been looking at the games from the recent world championship. You noticed that in many cases you saw "obviously good" moves for one player that both players, and all the expert commentators missed. To you it was "laughable" that the best players in the world could not see what you saw. Simple, obviously winning moves that were overlooked by the players and that they should "easily have seen".

Now, there are two possibilities. First, you may indeed be seeing moves the the rest of the chess world overlooks. And, you might be asking our advice about how you go about entering the next world championship. Or, what I would tend to believe, it is you that are overlooking the problem with the moves that you consider to be obviously winning; problems that the top players - and indeed any professional chess player - can see. What you think are clear winning moves are simply not. The top players and all the analysts can see them and can see why they are not the best moves.

So, if you were asking us to believe that, as a casual chess player, you have found aspects of the game generally or moves in specific cases that all the experts have missed, then we would all be inclinded to doubt this very much.

Likewise, if you claim that you can see a simple solution to the double-slit experiment that has been overlooked by several generations of physicists - and, as a result, hold their efforts in disdain - then again we are inclinded to believe that it you who has misunderstood the experiment, and the existing solutions. And that it is you who are misguided in your beliefs.

 

[bugs007]

The double-slit experiment is so 1900s. We have moved on to interferometers.

Zz.

OK handy to know which are the preferred methods in use today.

 

[bugs007]

Here's a rough analogy of why we are inclinded to doubt that you have anything of value. Imagine, instead of physics we were talking about chess. By your own admission, you are an amateur player that knows the rules of the game and has been studying it. You have also been looking at the games from the recent world championship. You noticed that in many cases you saw "obviously good" moves for one player that both players, and all the expert commentators missed. To you it was "laughable" that the best players in the world could not see what you saw. Simple, obviously winning moves that were overlooked by the players and that they should "easily have seen".

Now, there are two possibilities. First, you may indeed be seeing moves the the rest of the chess world overlooks. And, you might be asking our advice about how you go about entering the next world championship. Or, what I would tend to believe, it is you that are overlooking the problem with the moves that you consider to be obviously winning; problems that the top players - and indeed any professional chess player - can see. What you think are clear winning moves are simply not. The top players and all the analysts can see them and can see why they are not the best moves.

So, if you were asking us to believe that, as a casual chess player, you have found aspects of the game generally or moves in specific cases that all the experts have missed, then we would all be inclinded to doubt this very much.

Likewise, if you claim that you can see a simple solution to the double-slit experiment that has been overlooked by several generations of physicists - and, as a result, hold their efforts in disdain - then again we are inclinded to believe that it you who has misunderstood the experiment, and the existing solutions. And that it is you who are misguided in your beliefs.

Perok I love your analogy ! And I expect you to doubt me very much ! That is what science is all about. In this case it is all about perspective. I viewed the problem from a whole different perspective which it seems nobody has considered. If I am misguided I need to find out and am happy for someone to scientifically prove this wrong.

 

[ZapperZ]

Perok I love your analogy ! And I expect you to doubt me very much ! That is what science is all about. In this case it is all about perspective. I viewed the problem from a whole different perspective which it seems nobody has considered. If I am misguided I need to find out and am happy for someone to scientifically prove this wrong.

This is assuming that your idea is falsifiable.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Many thanks Russ. I haven't put the whole 30 years into it, just thought of the basic concept 30 years ago which I could not resolve completely then and quite honestly had forgotten all about it until more recently where I decided to attempt to resolve it again and think I have hit an actual bulls eye in doing so. If this does pan out you will 100% find it jaw dropping and the consequences for QM are enormous.

Fair enough. I sincerely wish you good luck however it goes.

 

[bugs007]

This is assuming that your idea is falsifiable.

Zz.

True had not really considered that.

 

[bugs007]

Fair enough. I sincerely wish you good luck however it goes.

Thanks Russ seems I shall need it. I look forward to the day I can reveal details, but I believe I cannot do that on this forum due to its rules.

 

[phinds]

Thanks Russ seems I shall need it. I look forward to the day I can reveal details, but I believe I cannot do that on this forum due to its rules.

Well, you could just put it out and maybe someone would tell you why it's wrong (assuming it is) before the thread is closed due to personal speculation. And if, by chance, your idea has merit, it's possible the thread could stay open. In any case, given the length of this thread, you are not going to get banned for putting it here when several people in the thread have basically asked you to do so.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks Russ seems I shall need it. I look forward to the day I can reveal details, but I believe I cannot do that on this forum due to its rules.

Well if you're right and your idea gets published, it will no longer be against the rules to post it here. Heck, if your idea is correct but you weren't aware that someone had already thought of it, it would still be an impressive accomplishment worth sharing!

 

[nuuskur]

I haven't read the the other posts, but surely there is a more immediate concern. Background research. How can you claim this idea to be yours? Perhaps, something similar was suggested and disproved? The prioritising seems strange to me, though I'm a to-be-semigroup-theorist and not a physicist. At any rate, I would first check the background on whatever major topic your hypothesis concerns and find out what is known.

 

[mfb]

Because wave/particle duality is not explained by QM

The double-slit experiment is so 1900s. We have moved on to interferometers.

Zz.

OK handy to know which are the preferred methods in use today.

I don't know what you studied these 30 years, but you have shown a few times in this thread (not limited to these quotes) that you are unaware of even very basic results and developments in quantum mechanics. In the chess analogy: You haven't heard of the concept of Zugzwang yet.
How can you possibly expect to find something completely new in a topic you know that little about? And even if it would be right: How do you know no one else found it decades ago? If you missed that particle-wave duality is not a thing any more, how much more is there you missed? You don't even know how much you don't know. You are fully in the first peak of the Dunning-Kruger picture.

Go ahead and hire a physicist, but I can tell you what the result will be. There are two possible ways to go from there:

• You accept it, learn from it, and maybe learn more about the topic properly if you want
• You become a full-blown crackpot, reject the advice of that physicist and claim the whole world is against you and your revolutionary idea

 

[Dale]

how does one proceed cautiously to publication and retain credit for their discovery without their idea being stolen ?

If you want to ensure that it isn’t stolen then you can simply publish a cryptographically secure hash of it in some public place like a newspaper classified ad. Then you can share it in the usual peer review process and if it is stolen you can prove that you had it first.

It is a complete non-issue anyway, but that would be one safe way.

the consequences for QM are enormous.

Hard to see how explaining an already explained experiment would have any consequences. The results of the double slit experiment and all of the many modifications of it are completely in accordance with standard QM already. Scientifically, that means QM already explains it.

 

[Dale]

if someone local made me that offer to review their perpetual motion machine idea, I'd do it

Me too, but I would definitely get payment in advance since I am going to deliver bad news.

Will you take my word for it that I can perform surgery, even though I'm not certified as a surgeon? After all, I've looked at various text on surgery, and I even teach Pre-Med students! So will you let me perform a surgery on you the next time you are in need of one?.

He is actually claiming even more than this. He is claiming not only that he can do surgery but that he invented a new surgical technique which is both obvious and undiscovered and which will cure congestive heart failure.

 

[Klystron]

The double-slit experiment is so 1900s. We have moved on to interferometers.
Zz.

Teacher's humor? Young performed his experiments before "wave-particle duality" was a popular concept and without a coherent source like a laser. By definition experiments that measure light (electro-magnetic radiation) interference patterns can be considered to be using some form of interferometer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Either way, interferometers were invented and in use in the 19th. See the famous Michelson-Moreley interference experiments cerca 1897 that among other results obviated requirements for an ineluctable aether.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson_interferometer

Nearly 100 years after Michelson-Moreley my physics class repeated this experiment using mirror interferometers in lab. So can you. (For instance, join or ask to audit a physics course with labs at a local college. Age is not a disqualification though one should meet prerequisites in order to understand the material.)