Where can new ideas be discussed

[Adrian07]

I have been reading Feynmans lectures on QED. He basically states that we can describe how nature works but no-one knows why or how to fit gravity in, I understand we are still looking for a theory of quantum gravity.
I am interested in the why, the how seems to have been reasonably worked out, and have an idea of where gravity may fit in.
This forum does not seem to allow the discussion of new ideas and I want to avoid infringing the rules, I have no direct access to expert help and was wondering if anyone knows where I can discuss or get help with my ideas hopefully finding the link between Quantum and relativity if it exists.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The most productive place to discuss new ideas is in peer-reviewed publications. I don't presume to know anything about your level of expertise but if you're not educated to a high degree in these fields and are not working within them it is very unlikely that your ideas will be worth anything of merit.

 

[Adrian07]

Not trying to be funny but thanks for assuming I am some sort of idiot, as far as I can see science has not come up with anything radically new for some time and some think a new direction may be needed, the fact that my education does not match yours means that I have not been taught pre-concieved ideas that may be wrong.

 

[Borek]

Sigh. We are through exactly the same discussion about once every month at least.

You can't think outside of the box not knowing where the box is. That's why it is important to learn about the subject before trying to propose anything new. Otherwise you will be just tricking yourself into thinking your ideas are new and/or novel, when they will be not even incorrect, they will simply make no sense.

 

[russ_watters]

Not trying to be funny but thanks for assuming I am some sort of idiot, as far as I can see science has not come up with anything radically new for some time and some think a new direction may be needed, the fact that my education does not match yours means that I have not been taught pre-concieved ideas that may be wrong.

I'm a degreed engineer and certainly not an idiot, but I wouldn't dream of going so far out of my depth. Just because you have watched baseball on TV and think you see the hitters making mistakes doesn't mean the Yankees should give you a tryout.

That isn't being an idiot but it is being spectacularly arrogant and ignorant about your ability.

Also, just to explain the motivation behind our policy: the fact that no such effort has ever produced a meaningful contribution to science (and produced very little learning as a consolation prize) is a good reason for not having such a forum, but it isn't the main reason we don't. The main reason we don't is that it is a waste of our time to moderate/maintain such a forum and detracts from our primary mission of helping people learn science.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Not trying to be funny but thanks for assuming I am some sort of idiot

I've had no dealings with you outside of one biology thread which is why I was careful to stress that I'm making no presumptions about your intelligence, my advice was simply for non-experts.

as far as I can see science has not come up with anything radically new for some time

I'm not really sure what you mean here, even if there haven't been any paradigm shifts there have been a great number of improvements you are not acknowledging or aware of.

and some think a new direction may be needed, the fact that my education does not match yours means that I have not been taught pre-concieved ideas that may be wrong.

I'm always surprised by this notion that education makes one blind to other answers. Especially in the sciences. What's also interesting is that it seems to only ever be applied to the sciences. Tell me: what would you think if someone with no formal training in medicine approached a sick person and said "medical science hasn't had any radical changes in a long time. My training may not match a doctors but that means I'm not bogged down with pre-conceived ideas that may be wrong. Let me treat you, I have some theories."

You can do that thought exercise with any profession you like to see how strange it actually is as a proposal.

 

[Adrian07]

Thanks for comments and I suppose if I was in your position I might feel the same, but saying that who taught Einstein relativity.
My comment about education is just that many people do not question what they are taught so if what is being taught is incorrect then it remains incorrect until someone questions it re Newton and einstein and gravity, also someone with a good memory can pass exams but it does not make them intelligent.
I am good at what is normally called lateral thinking something that cannot be taught.
I ask one last simple question and would be interested in the answers -
Where is the edge of the universe?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Thanks for comments and I suppose if I was in your position I might feel the same, but saying that who taught Einstein relativity.

To develop something new you have to first know the field being built upon.

My comment about education is just that many people do not question what they are taught

Many more do, pretty much everyone that then goes on to work in the field does. They have to! Also your understanding of science education seems limited, it certainly isn't just learning facts unquestionably. It's the entire method of discovery that is taught.

so if what is being taught is incorrect then it remains incorrect until someone questions it re Newton and einstein and gravity,

Newton and Einstein new the fields they were revolutionising extensively. Can you find an example of a layman revolutionising an advanced scientific field in the same way? Especially in modern times when all the low hanging fruit of discoveries are gone.

also someone with a good memory can pass exams but it does not make them intelligent.

Pass exams yes but when we say expert in a field we don't meant college grads. That's entry level to any field. We mean people who have worked, studied and published for years.

I am good at what is normally called lateral thinking something that cannot be taught.

Lateral thinking can be taught and it doesn't help if you have insufficient knowledge to feed into get conclusions out,

I ask one last simple question and would be interested in the answers -
Where is the edge of the universe?

Please don't take this the wrong way but this question is a good example of your ignorance of the fields you wish to contribute to. Just do a forum search for threads regarding the edge of the universe, it comes up often.

 

[ZapperZ]

This and many other common "complaints" about science and how it is done have been addressed here:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

There is a certain level of unbelievable arrogance that just one reading of "... Feynmans lectures on QED.. " that one somehow thinks that one has the ability to address "... the link between Quantum and relativity..."

Zz.

 

[arildno]

Thanks for comments and I suppose if I was in your position I might feel the same, but saying that who taught Einstein relativity.
My comment about education is just that many people do not question what they are taught so if what is being taught is incorrect then it remains incorrect until someone questions it re Newton and einstein and gravity, also someone with a good memory can pass exams but it does not make them intelligent.
I am good at what is normally called lateral thinking something that cannot be taught.
I ask one last simple question and would be interested in the answers -
Where is the edge of the universe?

Yawn. It was precisely because Einstein fully mastered contemporary physics, through his education, that he was able to reformulate physics along a constructive path that he certainly not was the only one working at (you didn't know that, did you?), but where he was the one getting the best approach to.

Education, and mastery of standard science is the prerequisite for new thinking, not a blindfold.

To give another example from 19th century physics:
It was known in the 1860s or so, that the actual spectrum for blackbody radiation could not be deduced by classical thermodynamics. I.e., one had a conundrum, that was only cracked by Max Planck in the 1890s by a quantized model for energy.

Max Planck was certainly not an uneducated farm-hand, but, as has practically always been the case, a fully educated physicist. And, I may add, a brilliant one as well.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't mean to pile on and Adrian I hope you don't feel too upset by all this but one more link that I really think you could benefit from is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

[Ben Niehoff]

You want to make a contribution to science, that's great. Here's what you should think about:

1. Are you a regular reader of the relevant body of literature? I.e. journals, arXiv, etc.

2. Can you give your ideas a precise mathematical statement?

3. Are you aware of whether your ideas are actually novel?

4. Are you aware of whether your ideas are consistent with existing experiment and known physics?

If you can answer positively to all of these, then write up your ideas in article format and submit them to the relevant body of literature. Physics Forums is not read by the majority of working scientists; you will have a much better chance of your ideas being noticed if you publish them properly.

Edit: I should add, since you seem to think that established scientists are somehow blinded by their education, that not a single working physicist believes the Standard Model is correct. In fact, major research projects are underway at LHC and elsewhere specifically to find a flaw in it. Scientists are so open-minded about established theories being wrong that they convinced the governments of Europe to spend millions of Euro on it!

 

[arildno]

also someone with a good memory can pass exams but it does not make them intelligent.

How about this alternative, Adrian:
Those who can't pass exams are by definition unintelligent, and therefore, it is only among those passing exams it is worth looking for the intelligent ones.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

How about this alternative, Adrian:
Those who can't pass exams are by definition unintelligent, and therefore, it is only among those passing exams it is worth looking for the intelligent ones.

I don't agree with this as its formulated. Exams aren't are brilliant way of assessing capability and there are many reasons why people's exam scores don't accurately reflect them. Change this to "acquire an advanced degree and experience in the field" and it would be more useful.

 

[arildno]

You could try to count up those brilliant physicists, Ryan_m_b, who actually didn't do well at exams.
I doubt their existence. That many pass exams who aren't going to be brilliant is a non-issue, the question is rather the existence of the consistent flunkers at exams who ended up as brilliant, anyway. Those high-flyers I know of are the ones who hardly needed to work, but ended on top of their class anyways. At, precisely, the exams...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm not sure about physicists but I have personally known many successful biologists who struggled with exams but excelled at all else. It's not absolutely true that being bad at exams means one is less intelligent (exam anxiety for one example) but it is unlikely that being good at exams isn't a mark of intelligence as you say.

 

[Adrian07]

Unfortunately this has turned into a discussion about the merits of education which is of no real interest.
The simple question I asked has been ignored for some reason, I have tried searching the site but found nothing of any use. Should I perhaps start a new thread in cosmology. As I said I am interested in the why, you are, presumably, all experts in your chosen fields which I do not dispute, but you still cannot answer questions like why is quantum theory so weird, why does gravity have the value it has etc I have my reasons for asking where the edge of the universe is and they are linked to answering those questions. Perhaps you think it is a trick question which is why no-one has offered an answer or think at the back of your mind I may have stumbled onto something that puts conventional thought into doubt.
The so called paradoxs show that our understanding is limited and those in relativity have been around for a long time without resolution and we have the still unresolved black hole information paradox.
Regarding new ideas I assume you have all heard of brainstorming.
Ben - I have not seen my ideas anywhere so must assume they are new, are they consistent with what is known well they are basically re-evaluating accepted theory from different angles, but producing what would be regarded as unconventional answers.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Unfortunately this has turned into a discussion about the merits of education which is of no real interest.

Ignoring the last few posts the information you have received is quite relevant to your original question. In short unless you have been educated in these things there is no reason to think that your idea will be worth any merit and you can try to get it published (perhaps choosing from one of the journals you have read from to research your idea) but it will most likely be a waste of time and be better for you to learn first.

The simple question I asked has been ignored for some reason, I have tried searching the site but found nothing of any use. Should I perhaps start a new thread in cosmology.

I'm surprised you haven't found any, I found many from just typing in "edge of universe" into the search bar. tl;dr there is no edge to the universe.

As I said I am interested in the why, you are, presumably, all experts in your chosen fields which I do not dispute, but you still cannot answer questions like why is quantum theory so weird, why does gravity have the value it has etc I have my reasons for asking where the edge of the universe is and they are linked to answering those questions.

Just because a question cannot be answered now does not mean that people are not interested in it. I'll reiterate that it would really be best for you to seek help educating yourself in these subjects before trying to solve them.

Perhaps you think it is a trick question which is why no-one has offered an answer or think at the back of your mind I may have stumbled onto something that puts conventional thought into doubt.

I can't speak for anyone else but I highly doubt people haven't responded because they have some niggling worry that you're about to overturn physics.

The so called paradoxs show that our understanding is limited and those in relativity have been around for a long time without resolution and we have the still unresolved black hole information paradox.

Yes there are unanswered questions...so?

Regarding new ideas I assume you have all heard of brainstorming.

Useful if you know what you're talking about, otherwise a waste of time when time should be spent seeking education. Consider my doctor analogy above, how would you feel if someone started brainstorming a diagnosis with no medical training? Would that seem sensible to you?

Ben - I have not seen my ideas anywhere so must assume they are new, are they consistent with what is known well they are basically re-evaluating accepted theory from different angles, but producing what would be regarded as unconventional answers.

This does not sound like they can also explain existing theories at all. Your last sentence sounds like fantastic doubletalk.

Feel free to start threads on the topics you are interested in starting with simple questions like "is there an edge to the universe". It would probably do you some good.

 

[TurtleMeister]

The simple question I asked has been ignored for some reason, I have tried searching the site but found nothing of any use.

Why are you searching this site when you know that what you want to discuss is against the rules? It's time to look elsewhere. Try this one:

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?17-Against-the-Mainstream

Of course you can get quality help from the experts at this forum by just asking a specific question that is related to your idea. You just cannot present or discuss the idea itself with other members.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps you think it is a trick question which is why no-one has offered an answer or think at the back of your mind I may have stumbled onto something that puts conventional thought into doubt.

No, you are quite mistaken. The response you got is due to boredom mixed with irritation at your attitude. You asked an easy question with a straightforward answer and the fact that you don't know it shows how little you understand of what you think you are discovering.

The so called paradoxs show that our understanding is limited and those in relativity have been around for a long time without resolution...

Despite starting a thread on the Twins Paradox you still seem to not understand that it is not a real paradox, it is only an apparent paradox caused by not understanding Relativity. It is a teaching aid, nothing more. There is nothing wrong with the theory, only your understanding of the theory.

Ben - I have not seen my ideas anywhere so must assume they are new...

Where, exactly, have you looked? How many thousands of hours have you spent reading actual scientific literature on the subjects? The fact that you asked such an easy question implies you really have no idea what the theories say or what the current state of the art is. Your assumption that you must be onto something new because you aren't aware of the ideas is a spectacular level of ignorance/arrogance. You really need to fix this attitude if you are going to get anywhere on this forum and in science (and life in general!).

Let me be succinct: Until you earn your PhD in a scientific field, you should assume any idea you have on it is NOT new.

It gets worse though: based on your threads on Relativity it seems you are looking for alternatives to existing theories because you just don't like them. That's an awful way to approach science!

Yikes!

 

[Evo]

One explanation for not "finding" your new ideas anywhere is that they are not worthy of consideration.

You've been given accurate answers and good advice, there is really nothing more to add.

 

[Astronuc]

I have been reading Feynmans lectures on QED. He basically states that we can describe how nature works but no-one knows why or how to fit gravity in, I understand we are still looking for a theory of quantum gravity.
I am interested in the why, the how seems to have been reasonably worked out, and have an idea of where gravity may fit in.
This forum does not seem to allow the discussion of new ideas and I want to avoid infringing the rules, I have no direct access to expert help and was wondering if anyone knows where I can discuss or get help with my ideas hopefully finding the link between Quantum and relativity if it exists.

Not trying to be funny but thanks for assuming I am some sort of idiot, as far as I can see science has not come up with anything radically new for some time and some think a new direction may be needed, the fact that my education does not match yours means that I have not been taught pre-concieved ideas that may be wrong.

Thanks for comments and I suppose if I was in your position I might feel the same, but saying that who taught Einstein relativity.
My comment about education is just that many people do not question what they are taught so if what is being taught is incorrect then it remains incorrect until someone questions it re Newton and einstein and gravity, also someone with a good memory can pass exams but it does not make them intelligent.
I am good at what is normally called lateral thinking something that cannot be taught.
I ask one last simple question and would be interested in the answers -
Where is the edge of the universe?

Hmmm - one is mighty presumptuous. It would appear that one's shortcomings and inexperience leads one to misjudgement and misprepresentation.

Those who undertake and accomplish the study of science, including physics, aren't 'taught pre-concieved ideas that may be wrong'. Most of us who study or have studied physics study the theory and perform experiments, which test the theory. Physicists make observations or perform experiments, develop theories, and then test the theories against the evidence from observations/experiments. Theories which fail the test are discarded. Theories with which one can make predictions that are supported by observation/experiment and stand the tests of time survive.

The edge of the universe is where it is. It's way out there. We can see an 'observable' universe, but where the boundary is and what it is is unknown. It's billions of ly out there, but we have been observing for a relatively short time.

Others have brought up the matter of education, which is a process of developing both knowledge and skill, related to the formality of collecting evidence and deducing the underlying processes and structure of nature.

To be a laymen, who has not gone through the rigorous process of learning the science, yet claims a new revolutionary idea, invites skepticism from the practioners who have succeeded in learning and practicing the science. As far as I know, physicists are never satsified with the current knowledge, but are always questioning.