Why does Physics attract crackpots?

[Vanadium 50]

Most revolutionary scientists were labeled crackpots at the time.

Care to give some examples? Since you said "most", you shouldn't have a problem coming up with 5 or 10.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Einstein, working so hard at a unified field theory, much of his work was crackpot.

In what way? Sure, he was largely unsuccessful. But he knew he was unsuccessful. The crackpot is unsuccessful but thinks he has succeeded.

 

[jreelawg]

In what way? Sure, he was largely unsuccessful. But he knew he was unsuccessful. The crackpot is unsuccessful but thinks he has succeeded.

He ignored discoveries and advancements in QM because he didn't want to believe it, it didn't fit with his views and ideas.

 

[ZapperZ]

He ignored discoveries and advancements in QM because he didn't want to believe it, it didn't fit with his views and ideas.

That isn't true! Read the EPR paper, for example.

He completely acknowledged that QM is correct. He just didn't think that it was complete and that it is missing something.

Zz.

 

[Unknot]

May I remind you of the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374":
We do not intend to give any crackpottery or their webpages any free advertising.

Zz.

Um, sorry Zz, but I didn't think linking to sites *discussing* these opinions might be wrong, because it doesn't seem so different from what we are doing here. For example, on the first site you have to click a link within that site to see the proof. For the second site, there is just people talking about the phenomenon.

 

[Focus]

May I remind you of the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374":



We do not intend to give any crackpottery or their webpages any free advertising.

Zz.

My apologies too, I didn't think unvalidated mathematical papers would be considered crackpot. I don't think that they would, as the first link is a proof of Fermat's last theorem that has a gap, second is discussion about what seems like a reasonable paper which possibly draws a bad conclusion. Apologies to Unknot as well.

 

[lubuntu]

I would define a crackpot as someone who makes scientific claims using unscientific methods to arrive at those claims. Going against popular opinion is vastly different than crackpottery.

 

[confinement]

I don't really care about elementary crackpots, what I don't like are all the books that get published and placed in the library which contain false, crackpotty claims. For example, 10 year old books containing discussions based on "recent evidence in string theory / LQG " that never panned out. A quite enjoy Penrose's "Road to Reality" by it is just on the borderline with its speculative ideas, while many other less high profile books which discuss physics at a technical but prose based level contain dangerously speculative remarks (random example: An Introduction to Realistic Quantum Physics by Giuliano Preparata).

 

[lubuntu]

Interesting point confinement, and sadly what little your average person does know about physics tends to be entirely speculative stuff not based on evidence. An awful example of this is Michio Kaku.

 

[Unknot]

That is far more dangerous, and it's even harder for the public to spot the difference. Like how majority of Japanese believe that ABO bloodtype has something to do with one's personality after one author borrowed that idea from Nazis. It's not just urban legend, but there are many books that have references and everything. Of course, they quote each other and nothing else.

 

[Dadface]

:rofl:Why is this thread attracting crackpots?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think that it is easier to spot a crackpot in science, and in physics/chemistry/math in particular...

...It is more difficult to spot crackpots in other fields, such as politics, economics, social sciences, etc...

I believe you have hit the nail on the head, here. Political crackpots are always exceptionally abundant but it is so much harder to demonstrate a given political opinion or utterance might be sheer lunacy.

 

[Focus]

:rofl:Why is this thread attracting crackpots?

I was thinking the exact same thing wow...

 

[zoobyshoe]

:rofl:Why is this thread attracting crackpots?

I was thinking the exact same thing wow...

The problem is obviously lack of a rigorous definition.

Here's one:

an electric cooking pot with a tight-fitting lid for cooking meats, casseroles, etc., for several hours at relatively low temperatures, usually around 200° F (93.3° C).

 

[Vanadium 50]

He ignored discoveries and advancements in QM because he didn't want to believe it, it didn't fit with his views and ideas.

Apart from Zz comments, Einstein was also extraordinarily active in applying quantum mechanics to new and different situations. (You might want to see what he got his Nobel prize for before dismissing his work on QM as "crackpot")

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That isn't true! Read the EPR paper, for example.

He completely acknowledged that QM is correct. He just didn't think that it was complete and that it is missing something.

Zz.

While I agree with the objections to the posts in question...

Doesn't this get into fundamental principles though? That "missing part" would be fundamental to QM. Didn't he accept all but the most essential feature of QM beyond the notion of a quanta?

God doesn't play dice with the universe

Einstein's famous quotation was not about his speculations concerning the gambling
propensities of God, but rather an expression of his dissatisfaction with the apparently
probabilistic description of nature embodied by the quantum theory.

http://inside.mines.edu/fs_home/dwu/classes/CH353/HW/Quantum Casino/Quantum Casino.pdf

I don't see how one can be said to accept QM without accepting its probabilistic nature. That seems a bit like saying "I accept Newtonian Mechanics but not the first law of motion".

 

[ZapperZ]

While I agree with the objections to the posts in question...

Doesn't this get into fundamental principles though? That "missing part" would be fundamental to QM. Didn't he accept all but the most essential feature of QM beyond the notion of a quanta?

God doesn't play dice with the universe


http://inside.mines.edu/fs_home/dwu/classes/CH353/HW/Quantum Casino/Quantum Casino.pdf

I don't see how one can be said to accept QM without accepting its probabilistic nature. That seems a bit like saying "I accept Newtonian Mechanics but not the first law of motion".

What he truly meant is up for debate (see Banesh Hoffman's biography of Einstein). But from the EPR paper, he clearly did not think QM was wrong, which is my original point.

Saying that it is incomplete means that he thought the probabilistic nature of QM has the same issue as classical probability where our ignorance of the dynamics is lumped into the probabilistic description of the system. So this is not the same as your analogy of Newton's first law.

Zz.

 

[Vanadium 50]

But from the EPR paper, he clearly did not think QM was wrong, which is my original point.

Furthermore, in the EPR paper they proposed an experiment to tell if QM behaved as thought, or differently. (Which ultimately turned into an engineering fact of life at KEK-B and PEP-II)

 

[alxm]

Crackpots, which I'll just define as 'laymen with strongly held pseudoscientific ideas', seek notoriety mostly.

Physics is supposedly all about (drum roll) the fundamental nature of matter, the history of the universe and our understanding of everything. And what could be more important than that?

It's pretty obvious, if you follow the kooks, that the number of them in any given area seems strongly correlated to the ease with which a subject can be understood by a layperson, and to its fame/notoriety.

You see a lot more people 'disproving' Special Relativity than you do General Relativity. There were many, many more people 'proving' Fermats Last Theorem rather than the Poincaré Conjecture. You practically never see any 'crackpots' with crazy ideas explaining a relatively insignificant problem where a lot of prerequisite knowledge is required to understand it.

I think part of the blame is to be put on the 'genius' idea, which IMHO, is a myth. There's a tendency to exaggerate the contributions of individuals and put them on pedestals, and also exaggerate the opposition they met with; It makes for better storytelling. The hostility of the Catholic church to Galileo is usually overstated, and the fact that Galileo could likely avoided the whole situation with a little diplomacy is often underplayed. Sometimes it goes as far as outright fabrication, such as claiming that 'people thought the Earth was flat' prior to Columbus. (a lie) And of course the idea that Einstein the Patent Clerk was somehow an 'outsider' to the physics community, when in fact he was in regular correspondence with many noted physicists of the day even at that time.

So we've created this myth of the 'outsider Hero' who independently creates his revolutionary idea, gets laughed at by the 'establishment', but ultimately Truth prevails and the Hero achieves his rightfully earned position of status and respect.

It's a great story. But sadly, for the crackpots, it's not an accurate picture of how real Science works or has ever worked. (To begin with: How many revolutionary ideas have ever been made by someone with no previous, minor, contributions?)

 

[Oerg]

I think it's because so many people are scared to death of math - especially most of your physics crackpots.

I guess Christopher Langan must be an exception since he claims that "you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."

 

[cam875]

I guess Christopher Langan must be an exception since he claims that "you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."

that, I would like to see "God = universe", ahh I am done lol. (epic fail)

 

[arildno]

Physics does NOT attract crackpots, it repels them, in the sense that a crackpottish mind is more likely to stay away from physics than dabble in it.

I'd like to refer to Zapperz's post, in that crackpots in physics are more likely to be found out than anywhere else.

In some so-called scholarly fields, like gender studies, crackpots seems to dominate academia itself.

Not that it is impossible to do sound gender studies, but loony individuals like Lucie Irigaray and Sandra Harding are actually professors!

 

[LowlyPion]

Physics does NOT attract crackpots, it repels them, in the sense that a crackpottish mind is more likely to stay away from physics than dabble in it.

I'd like to refer to Zapperz's post, in that crackpots in physics are more likely to be found out than anywhere else.

Not to put too fine a point on things, but it's not that physics is without crackpots either. No they don't likely rise to academic heights, but still there are enough people that think that they can get away with general levels of ignorance about physics.

Sometimes they do even get as far as getting a patent. For instance this US Patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...d=PTXT&s1=6,960,975&OS=6,960,975&RS=6,960,975

Edit: Also there is apparently a whole subculture of anti-gravitists out there like Podkletnov from some years back.

 

[alxm]

Physics does NOT attract crackpots, it repels them, in the sense that a crackpottish mind is more likely to stay away from physics than dabble in it.

Well it certainly attracts crackpots in the sense that the physics department is the ONLY one at our university that has a semi-permanent fixture in the form of a loony guy who hangs around the buildings in his spare time (which he seems to have in copious amounts) trying to show people his 'proof' that Einstein was wrong, and often scrawling his equations onto the margins of bulletin-board postings.
(I saw one where a student had pointed out his error, where he'd then followed up with a 'rebuttal'!)

As for crackpots among tenured staff, well that's a different matter.

 

[qspeechc]

Sometimes crack-pottery is an honest mistake. Like when someone qualified makes a silly mistake, or goes off on a wrong tangent.

I suspect this is not what we're on about. Crack-pottery is this whole idea that people want to seem smart to other people, without putting in the effort to actually learn something. The important thing is tht they want to seem smart to other people, to gain esteem etc. So it seems we will get crack-pots in every sphere of life.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What he truly meant is up for debate (see Banesh Hoffman's biography of Einstein). But from the EPR paper, he clearly did not think QM was wrong, which is my original point.

I thought they obtained the opposite result expected. That is that I thought the EPR experiment was intended to show that QM was not correct.

Saying that it is incomplete means that he thought the probabilistic nature of QM has the same issue as classical probability where our ignorance of the dynamics is lumped into the probabilistic description of the system. So this is not the same as your analogy of Newton's first law.

I don't see how your first comment leads to the next. Isn't it essential to understand that quantum probability is not the same as classical probability? His belief about this always struck me as a fundamental rejection of QM at the deepest level.

 

[ZapperZ]

I thought they obtained the opposite result expected. That is that I thought the EPR experiment was intended to show that QM was not correct.

They obtained no result. It was a theoretical paper to show that QM was "non-local" and thus, can't be complete. What we know now is that this is exactly what we are measuring experimentally, that QM IS not local. So EPR in fact pointed out to one aspect of our world described by QM that we later verified. Nowhere in that paper did they claim that QM was not correct.

I don't see how your first comment leads to the next. Isn't it essential to understand that quantum probability is not the same as classical probability? His belief about this always struck me as a fundamental rejection of QM at the deepest level.

When we describe the tossing of a coin in terms of probability, are we then saying Newton's laws to be wrong? No it doesn't. It simply means that we are ignorant of the details of the dynamics to apply the Newton's laws to, so we simply lump that ignorance into a probability. That is the analogy that I used for QM that Einstein could have used (note that I'm not saying that classical proability is the same as QM). Saying that the probability in QM could easily be construed as similar to our ignorance of the "hidden variables" that we have yet to find doesn't mean that QM is wrong, just incomplete. That is what I understood Einstein's argument to be.

Again, reading the few biographies of him, I've never heard him express the idea that QM is wrong. He is as well-aware of the experimental results as any of them that are consistent with QM.

Zz.

 

[sirzerp]

I was up at 1 am the other day, and wrote a crackpot poem that I wanted to share.

It really did make complete sense at the time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look how simple.
The quantum medium is a gas cloud of matter and antimatter virtual particles.
Charge is just virtual particles flowing from one charged particle to another.
It is the displacement winds of the quantum medium.
Magnetism is the circulation of virtual particles.
It is the twisting curl of the quantum medium.
Gravity is the paired annihilation of virtual particles.
It is the mortality rate of the quantum medium.
Light is the result of particle pair annihilation.
It is the birth rate of the quantum medium.
When the medium flows in a line, it is Charge.
When the medium flows in a circle, it is Magnetism.
When the medium disappears, it is Gravity.
When the medium appears, it is Light.
It is simple.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lots of people in physics do have a creative side.

 

[jreelawg]

You can't be so harsh on people who are only thinking, it's when they know they are that you know they are crackpots.