Publishing as a citizen scientist

[bugs007]

I would like some advice please. If a citizen scientist was to make a genuine ground breaking discovery based on sound scientific principles how does one proceed cautiously to publication and retain credit for their discovery without their idea being stolen ? I understand that such thing as preprint is available but not easy accessible unless you are affiliated somehow. I also understand that I must publish as an article in a recognised journal subject to peer review. Any and all advice on how to best proceed is much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

[DrClaude]

You can have a look at https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/guide-publishing-peer-reviewed-journals/

But the probability that a "citizen scientist" has made "a genuine ground breaking discovery" is so incredibly low that you should be prepared to have the work rejected.

Also, the fear of having one's scientific ideas stolen is not very rational. Yes, historically, I can't say it never happened, but it is extremely rare. Many people discovering the same thing on their own is much more common. More effort should be put in making sure that one's ideas are sound than in protecting these ideas.

 

[BWV]

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

 

[fresh_42]

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

https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.02385

O.k. Aubrey de Grey is a real scientist (biology), but not a mathematician. Maybe the improvement of a lower bound cannot be regarded as breakthrough, but to improve lower bounds is definitely one of the harder mathematical problems.

Of course, the quintessence of your statement is true: it is extremely unlikely for a non specialist to achieve major results, esp. in physics, where research teams often consist of dozens of scientists and extreme powerful computer capacities are necessary to deal with data. There is a significant difference between mathematics and physics: a single person can achieve mathematical results but less likely physical. In any case the major problem is to figure out what is new and what is not, and in physics, what has already been dismissed and what not.

 

[bugs007]

You can have a look at https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/guide-publishing-peer-reviewed-journals/

But the probability that a "citizen scientist" has made "a genuine ground breaking discovery" is so incredibly low that you should be prepared to have the work rejected.

Also, the fear of having one's scientific ideas stolen is not very rational. Yes, historically, I can't say it never happened, but it is extremely rare. Many people discovering the same thing on their own is much more common. More effort should be put in making sure that one's ideas are sound than in protecting these ideas.

Many thanks for the link. Agreed the chances are low but not impossible.

 

[bugs007]

Just to help clarify by example say a citizen scientist figured out why we see the results we do in Young's double-slit experiment and used sound scientific principles to provide an explanation. So the question is more of a citizen scientist finding a solution to a problem that science cannot currently explain.

 

[ZapperZ]

I would like some advice please. If a citizen scientist was to make a genuine ground breaking discovery based on sound scientific principles how does one proceed cautiously to publication and retain credit for their discovery without their idea being stolen ? I understand that such thing as preprint is available but not easy accessible unless you are affiliated somehow. I also understand that I must publish as an article in a recognised journal subject to peer review. Any and all advice on how to best proceed is much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

First things first. How would that "citizen scientist" even know that he/she has made a "genuine, ground-breaking discovery", and that is was based on "sound, scientific principles"?

Let's not put the cart before the horse here.

Zz.

 

[bugs007]

First things first. How would that "citizen scientist" even know that he/she has made a "genuine, ground-breaking discovery", and that is was based on "sound, scientific principles"?

Let's not put the cart before the horse here.

Zz.

By many years of privately studying the subjects required to help understand it. There are many extremely intelligent people who are not scientists but who understand things just as well if not better and can see things from a different perspective.

 

[ZapperZ]

By many years of privately studying the subjects required to help understand it. There are many extremely intelligent people who are not scientists but who understand things just as well if not better and can see things from a different perspective.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

Agreed the chances are low but not impossible.

Giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming you have found something, what now?

One beautiful thing about the internet is anyone can instantly publish anything and if proper identifying information is provided, it is instant and absolute proof of the origin and timing of the idea. You could publish it on facebook or Youtube to secure credit.

Your real issue is recognition. If you publish on facebook or youtube, no one important will notice or care. You need the scientific community to engage the idea.

Because the chances are low you found something and because you lack formal education and affiliation, it is going to be hard to get that attention. Before going after it, though, please do all you can to make sure your ducks are lined up. Read journals and textbooks, take/audit courses on the subject, maybe hire a physicist (under NDA) to review the idea and maybe even help polish the paper.

The worst thing that can happen is that you have a genuinely good idea but present it badly and get ignored.

 

[ZapperZ]

...maybe hire a physicist (under NDA) to review the idea ...

This is what many responsible "citizen scientist" and "citizen engineers" and "citizen inventors" do! You think you found something, be it new, interesting, revolutionary, etc... The first thing you need to do is present it in as clear and complete state as possible, and then find someone knowledgeable, with credentials and expertise, and have him/her evaluate your work! In other words, you need to have someone else, and someone independent to verify that what you found was the next best thing since sliced bread! You simply cannot just rely on your own intuition and knowledge because you do not have not only the expertise, but you also do not know what is the state of knowledge of that field! And as Feynman has stated, you are the easiest one to fool about your own work.

This is something the OP never indicated. The delusion that one has ample knowledge and expertise to evaluate the validity of one's work, even as an admitted amateur, is often puzzling. And as Warren Siegel has found out many times, this is one of the symptoms of a quack.

Zz.

 

[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.

How "good" one is at anything is comes down to how well they can analyze and interpret something. I admit I am not formally educated in quantum physics and only have a good year 10 education but I do understand very well the nature of quantum physics and all it's associated weirdness and have studied this for many years. I had this concept I speak of 30 years ago but could not fully resolve it due to my lack of education. Once the Internet came along I studied hard to fully understand the state of where physics was at and got to know more about the fundamentals of QM especially wave/particle duality. I was more interested in gravity in my studies but this double-slit experiment absolutely fascinated me. I knew there had to be an answer.

 

[ZapperZ]

How "good" one is at anything is comes down to how well they can analyze and interpret something. I admit I am not formally educated in quantum physics and only have a good year 10 education but I do understand very well the nature of quantum physics and all it's associated weirdness and have studied this for many years. I had this concept I speak of 30 years ago but could not fully resolve it due to my lack of education. Once the Internet came along I studied hard to fully understand the state of where physics was at and got to know more about the fundamentals of QM especially wave/particle duality. I was more interested in gravity in my studies but this double-slit experiment absolutely fascinated me. I knew there had to be an answer.

Once again, you have not addressed my question. All you have told me is how "good" you are. You have not given ANY proof that you have made a "genuine, ground-breaking discovery", and that is was based on "sound, scientific principles".

Treat this as a scientific question. How would you address this as a "citizen scientist"? We are several posts in, and you are still stuck at First Base to show this.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

This is what many responsible "citizen scientist" and "citizen engineers" and "citizen inventors" do!

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.

 

[fresh_42]

I had this concept I speak of 30 years ago but could not fully resolve it due to my lack of education...

So 35-30 leaves us with 5 years to study calculus (real, complex, multivariate) and functional analysis to at least be able to read a textbook on quantum physics. I do not say this is impossible, but rather unlikely, as there are still open all physical studies.

... Once the Internet came along I studied hard to fully understand the state of where physics was at ...

Internet or not. It's practically impossible to keep track on all publications in a single field, let alone more than one, and the fact that not everything is published (for free) on the internet.

... and got to know more about the fundamentals of QM especially wave/particle duality.

Easy: there is none.

 

[bugs007]

To clarify further I am talking about a very simple hypothesis which has the results of the double-slit experiment as proof. This is far from some crackpot theory as I would not chase publication if I remotely thought it as such. This also has some extremely far reaching consequences in QM but it is what it is. And the solution to the double-slit experiment also solves the 200 plus years long riddle of what wave/particle duality really is. This truly is hard to ignore and I need the most professional advice possible for this. I shall also add this solution has been sitting under everyone's nose.

 

[ZapperZ]

To clarify further I am talking about a very simple hypothesis which has the results of the double-slit experiment as proof. This is far from some crackpot theory as I would not chase publication if I remotely thought it as such. This also has some extremely far reaching consequences in QM but it is what it is. And the solution to the double-slit experiment also solves the 200 plus years long riddle of what wave/particle duality really is. This truly is hard to ignore and I need the most professional advice possible for this. I shall also add this solution has been sitting under everyone's nose.

We ONLY have your word on this. This is neither sufficient nor convincing. Just to burst your bubble even more, we get this type of claim rather often on this forum. You are neither unique nor special.

Thus, to go back to the FIRST question, you are not able to established clearly that you have made such discovery based on sound scientific method.

The other parts of trying to get it published now becomes moot.

Zz.

 

[PeroK]

To clarify further I am talking about a very simple hypothesis which has the results of the double-slit experiment as proof. This is far from some crackpot theory as I would not chase publication if I remotely thought it as such. This also has some extremely far reaching consequences in QM but it is what it is. And the solution to the double-slit experiment also solves the 200 plus years long riddle of what wave/particle duality really is. This truly is hard to ignore and I need the most professional advice possible for this. I shall also add this solution has been sitting under everyone's nose.

What makes you think that the double-slit experiment is unexplained by QM?

 

[Evo]

To clarify further I am talking about a very simple hypothesis which has the results of the double-slit experiment as proof. This is far from some crackpot theory as I would not chase publication if I remotely thought it as such. This also has some extremely far reaching consequences in QM but it is what it is. And the solution to the double-slit experiment also solves the 200 plus years long riddle of what wave/particle duality really is. This truly is hard to ignore and I need the most professional advice possible for this. I shall also add this solution has been sitting under everyone's nose.

Something to consider as a layman is all of the research that you do not have access to, all of the discussions, tests and theories that have been discarded because they have already been found wrong. Your hypothesis could have been discarded long ago, never got published, so you aren't aware that it was already thought of.

But, if you truly think you have found something, publish it online, perhaps seek out someone at a local university to speak with after you've posted it. Take Russ's recommendations, and good luck to you.

Edit: oops, I see Russ added to his post with the same thought in my second paragraph.

 

[bugs007]

So 35-30 leaves us with 5 years to study calculus (real, complex, multivariate) and functional analysis to at least be able to read a textbook on quantum physics. I do not say this is impossible, but rather unlikely, as there are still open all physical studies.Internet or not. It's practically impossible to keep track on all publications in a single field, let alone more than one, and the fact that not everything is published (for free) on the internet.Easy: there is none.

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.

 

[bugs007]

What makes you think that the double-slit experiment is unexplained by QM?

Because wave/particle duality is not explained by QM

 

[bugs007]

Something to consider as a layman is all of the research that you do not have access to, all of the discussions, tests and theories that have been discarded because they have already been found wrong. Your hypothesis could have been discarded long ago, never got published, so you aren't aware that it was already thought of.

But, if you truly think you have found something, publish it online, perhaps seek out someone at a local university to speak with after you've posted it. Take Russ's recommendations, and good luck to you.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

Because wave/particle duality is not explained by QM

Yeah, so per @fresh_42's point, there is no such thing as "wave particle duality" anymore in physics except as a colloquialism to point out that some behaviors are wavelike and some particle-like. This was fully resolved and incorporated into QM 75 years ago.

From an old thread:

One caution here: "Wave-particle duality" as a scientific concept was discarded seventy-five years ago, when Dirac and others came up with the basics of modern quantum mechanics.

It is true that all quantum things will display wave-like behavior in some measurements and particle-like behavior in others, but that doesn't mean that they are both waves and particles. They are neither. A sheep has four legs like a table and a sheep is fuzzy like a pillow, but you wouldn't try to understand the behavior of sheep in terms of "table-pillow duality" - so don't think in terms of "wave-particle duality" when it comes to quantum objects.

 

[PeroK]

Because wave/particle duality is not explained by QM

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.

 

[BWV]

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.

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)

This forum is a very good place to minimize this function BTW

 

[bugs007]

Yeah, so per @fresh_42's point, there is no such thing as "wave particle duality" anymore in physics except as a colloquialism to point out that some behaviors are wavelike and some particle-like. This was fully resolved and incorporated into QM 75 years ago.

From an old thread:

Pointing out that some behaviours are wave or particle like is obviously far from a complete answer to this and is woefully inadequate. My solution says there is actual wave and particle behaviour and fully explains why and when these behaviours are wave like and particle like.

 

[russ_watters]

Pointing out that some behaviours are wave or particle like is obviously far from a complete answer to this and is woefully inadequate.

It was certainly not intended to be a full explanation. I'm not even a physicist and even if I was there is no room to copy and paste a whole textbook into one post! As some like to say here, my post wasn't physics it was merely about physics.

Anyway, did you see my post about hiring someone? Since you can't share your idea here this can't be resolved here, so all this discussion will do is sour mutual opinions, which is something I pointed out that you are better off avoiding.

 

[PeroK]

Pointing out that some behaviours are wave or particle like is obviously far from a complete answer to this and is woefully inadequate. My solution says there is actual wave and particle behaviour and fully explains why and when these behaviours are wave like and particle like.

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.

 

[bugs007]

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

Agreed in that my understanding of some things is limited. This may improve in time if I so choose. And I do not consider myself an expert by any stretch, just a private researcher driven by curiosity who has managed to figure out why something happens the way it does and would like to tell the world about it and let them decide. And this is why I am here to seek assistance in how to best deal with this properly.

 

[bugs007]

It was certainly not intended to be a full explanation. I'm not even a physicist and even if I was there is no room to copy and paste a whole textbook into one post! As some like to say here, my post wasn't physics it was merely about physics.

Anyway, did you see my post about hiring someone? Since you can't share your idea here this can't be resolved here, so all this discussion will do is sour mutual opinions, which is something I pointed out that you are better off avoiding.

Yes thanks russ I did see that, just getting hard to keep up been up all night now 5.13am here in Sydney Australia. Yes I have been considering what you suggested also. This is why I am here to proceed with caution.

 

[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.