Insights Why Won't You Look at My New Theory? - Comments

[sophiecentaur]

This is a ridiculous question. There are so many reasons not to, all specific to different people.

Maybe. But no one can expect to get to a good stage of understanding by superficial 'reading round' on the Internet and then submitting whacky ideas on discussion forums. There are alternatives to 'Institutions' but a Science Forum is certainly not sufficient.
I would change your description of "different people" to "exceptional and unusually gifted people". Would you expect to become a World Class Footballer from kicking a ball around on your own?

 

[sophiecentaur]

can you name any big discovery/theory coming from someone without a proper education or contact to scientists?

Exactly. I have frequently made this point. Anyone who thinks that you can go it alone with Physics is probably just not aware of just how difficult and complex Physics is.

 

[Orodruin]

Would you expect to become a World Class Footballer from kicking a ball around on your own?

I think this is a spot on comparison. Yes, you can kick a ball around on your own, but would you expect the pro leagues to return your calls?

 

[eltodesukane]

"resistance, even to theories that ultimately win out, is rational"
--As many have said:
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." (Marcello Truzzi)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (Carl Sagan)
"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." (Pierre-Simon Laplace)

 

[eltodesukane]

Could you confirm that Newtonian Gravitation (with instantaneous interactions) is consistent (with classical physics ca 1890-1900).

Yes. Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism are not consistent with pre-special-relativity ideas about how things should look in a moving frame of reference, but that's a separate matter. Newtonian gravitation is perfectly consistent with these ideas. In fact it's the best theory that uses these ideas.

My impression is that "neo"Newtonian Gravity (finite speed of c & force) is quite consistent with the Solar System's orbital mechanics – is this right or wrong?

If you say the gravitational force moves at the speed of light and obeys a "delayed" force law, conservation of angular momentum breaks down. In other words, suppose each a particle is attracted to where it would see each other particle was, feeling an inverse square force. Then the particles are not attracted toward their current center of mass! This means angular momentum is not conserved. Orbits would spiral down.

This effect is big enough that we can be sure by now that's not how things work. Interestingly, in general relativity this effect does not occur, even though nothing can move faster than light!

For details see the physics FAQ:

• Does gravity travel at the speed of light?

interesting reference:
Aberration and the Speed of Gravity (1999 dec) (S. Carlip)
(Apparent instant action at a distance in GR. The observed absence of gravitational aberration requires that "Newtonian" gravity propagate at a speed >2×10^10 c. Aberration in general relativity is almost exactly canceled by velocity-dependent interactions. This cancellation is dictated by conservation laws and the quadrupole nature of gravitational radiation.)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087

 

[PeterDonis]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I would add to this: Our current fundamental theories--GR and QM--make extraordinary claims. We believe those claims because we have extraordinary evidence for them. So when someone asks what extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims would look like, we can just point them at those theories and the evidence we have for them. That's the very high bar you have to clear to get a theory accepted the way those theories are accepted.

 

[mfb]

Most of the people making up useless "theories" are not aware of all the evidence for existing theories - and all the precise predictions every new theory has to make.

 

[anorlunda]

Great Insight Peter. I have no doubts that your insights about scientist/non-scientist ways of viewing are correct. Ditto for the B bias of the public. Ditto for theories that attempt to "short cut" actual learning as a prerequisite to expressing ideas on a subject.

But I do believe that scientists have B bias also. Nobody gets a Nobel prize, for reducing the discrepancy in The Moon's orbit by 1%. It is also easier to earn tenure, or get published in Nature, or to get funding from NSF, with hopes of B advances than A tedium. Imagine a team of scientists spending a lifetime improving the conventional calculations of the Lunar orbit. How much respect do they get from fellow scientists compared to someone who claims a cancer cure?

I often think of the great service to science that is given when scientists repeat other's reported experiments to validate or refute the claims. That's great stuff, but how much fame and respect can you earn if you spend your whole life doing that?

I think also of theoretical physicists such as Hawking and Susskind. As Peter says, the chances of a B breakthrough are very slim, so by definition, only a tiny fraction of theoretical physicists will ever achieve one. But we don't treat them as fools. We (scientist we and public we) accord them great respect and honor for their efforts. I think we all have the B bias.

If I substitute the word "idea" for "theory", it is plain that Peter's points apply to almost all human relations, not just science. While it is true that human civilization is built upon ideas, it is also true that almost all ideas are bad ideas. In everyday life, just as on PF, it is considered boorish to impose your raw ideas on others. Think of the time-honored saying, "Ideas are a dime a dozen." In today's world with more than 7 billion people, I also believe that it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to have an idea that is truly original. It is a sign of ignorance and hubris to jump to the conclusion that your own fresh idea is original. A person needs to put more effort into an idea to validate and develop it before presenting it to others in search of "clever boy" praise.

It is also true in ordinary life that people often think their own ideas are good, only because they are ignorant of why things are the way they are, and ignorance about what ideas others have considered and rejected. We are all guilty of that. I confess to more than once scrambling for a piece of paper to write a patent disclosure document in the emotional rush after conceiving an idea that IMO was especially clever.

So scientists get annoyed by naive scientific theories. Everyone get annoyed by non-scientific naive ideas.

On the other hand, we must guard against elitism. More so in the USA than Europe, trying to silence others based on one's authority and superiority is
considered boorish. Just yesterday I heard an advertising spot on NPR that said, "I speak with the authority of someone who actually has a uterus." In the USA, such a comment is highly offensive. Whether it is true or justified makes no difference; it is still offensive.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

I don't have to worry about this happening. I ain't smart enough to theorize.

 

[Charles Link]

One additional comment I have on this, (I previously added a comment in post #28), is that there are, even in this day and age, at least a couple of topics that are very much standard textbook material that are not covered as thoroughly as they could be in the textbooks. I think it could be good for Physics Forums to recognize when such is the case, and not immediately put it in the category of "personal theory". There is, of course, a trade-off between easing restrictions and being flooded with all kinds of "personal theories".

 

[sophiecentaur]

But I do believe that scientists have B bias also.

You are right BUT a good Scientist will check things out before inflicting the B idea on the world. 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration, as they say.

 

[sophiecentaur]

at least a couple of topics that are very much standard textbook material that are not covered as thoroughly as they could be in the textbooks.

That's a consequence of the fact that Physics has been growing for many decades. My A level Physics in the 1960s was full of topics that they just don[t have time for now. Perhaps we should accept that Physics needs to be divided up earlier than at University.

 

[Charles Link]

That's a consequence of the fact that Physics has been growing for many decades. My A level Physics in the 1960s was full of topics that they just don[t have time for now. Perhaps we should accept that Physics needs to be divided up earlier than at University.

These days there are so many specialized areas that the physics student can easily get overwhelmed with a lot of details in trying to learn the specialized topics. It is my advice to undergraduate physics students to especially concentrate on the fundamentals including mechanics, E&M along with diffraction and interference theory, and linear response theory along with Fourier transforms (basically emphasizing the 3 R's.) The specialized topics might be where the research money is at, but if they miss the fundamentals, they are likely to struggle needlessly with the more specialized topics. All too often, it seems the fundamentals are getting deemphasized in the curriculum and replaced by more specialized topics.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

There is a strong economic motive for professors to discount work from outside academia. Their time is valuable, and much of its value comes from the respect for current science.

So checking some crackpot's idea is a two fold hit to their income.

First, it's time that could be more profitably spent on learning more science, grading papers, doing their own research, watching a movie, bowling, etc.

Second, if the crackpot turns out to be right, (Rare, but it happens. Ex. Tesla.) he undermines the value of the professor's work. (Ex. "War of the currents.")

One of the big reasons for universities to be open and publicly supported is to limit this economic disincentive to explore new ideas. Most professors I've known love finding smart students and hunt them out. I don't think it's a coincidence the War of the Currents was promoted by the first commercial research lab, and not by a public university.

Business and science don't always play well together.

 

[Isaac0427]

Great article! I admit that a year ago I was guilty of this (but being 12-13 and all, I think I get a little slack, right?) but I don't do it anymore.

Speaking of that, I've got this great new theory that completely undermines General Relativity because the Brian Greene book I am reading says that there are problems with GR. Anyone interested in hearing it?

 

[Drakkith]

Second, if the crackpot turns out to be right, (Rare, but it happens. Ex. Tesla.) he undermines the value of the professor's work. (Ex. "War of the currents.")

Tesla wasn't a crackpot (well, not a common-type crackpot at least). He was well trained in science and engineering and made many, many real-life contributions before the War of the Currents ever started.

I don't think it's a coincidence the War of the Currents was promoted by the first commercial research lab, and not by a public university.

Indeed. That "war" was purely a commercial affair. It had little to nothing to do with the scientific community as far as I know. It would be like a cable company and a DSL company competing over internet customers.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

Great article! I admit that a year ago I was guilty of this (but being 12-13 and all, I think I get a little slack, right?) but I don't do it anymore.

Speaking of that, I've got this great new theory that completely undermines General Relativity because the Brian Greene book I am reading says that there are problems with GR. Anyone interested in hearing it?

I still do this all the time. I just try to avoid doing it here. (I have lots of crazy, crackpottery that no one wants to hear.)

Intelligence, training, and even being right occasionally are no protection against crackpot ideas. Schitzotypal disorder demands crackpottery.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Second, if the crackpot turns out to be right, (Rare, but it happens. Ex. Tesla.)

OMG, you had to go a long way back for your example, didn't you?
Nicola was surely more of an inventor than a Scientist, I think, having read some of the wording he used in the stuff of his that I have read (no refs I'm afraid). His championing of AC was no fundamental Science. It was a very good practical choice.

 

[sophiecentaur]

These days there are so many specialized areas that the physics student can easily get overwhelmed with a lot of details in trying to learn the specialized topics. It is my advice to undergraduate physics students to especially concentrate on the fundamentals including mechanics, E&M along with diffraction and interference theory, and linear response theory along with Fourier transforms (basically emphasizing the 3 R's.) The specialized topics might be where the research money is at, but if they miss the fundamentals, they are likely to struggle needlessly with the more specialized topics. All too often, it seems the fundamentals are getting deemphasized in the curriculum and replaced by more specialized topics.

I agree with you but the Colleges want bums on seats and they couldn't sell courses on the promise that graduates wold be leaving with the ability to start doing any of the sexy Science that might appeal to them. Very young students want to get on with the clever stuff and not the basics. (Evidence of this is in many of the posts we get on PF) and that's what the courses all offer.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

OMG, you had to go a long way back for your example, didn't you?
Nicola was surely more of an inventor than a Scientist, I think, having read some of the wording he used in the stuff of his that I have read (no refs I'm afraid). His championing of AC was no fundamental Science. It was a very good practical choice.

His view of the universe was fundamentally different than most people's. He was a loon. He used to polish his silver spoons, then use each one for one bite. He was a crackpot, and a genius. Some of his ideas about how electricity works are still taught. Most of it is rubbish though. (Not wrong, just not worth teaching.) Still, if you think Electrical Engineering shouldn't have a Forum here, lobby the powers that be.

Crackpots overthrowing science are rare. Still there are a few in every field. (Einstein wasn't the most stable individual, BTW.) A lot seem to end up as inventors. Savage (radial tire), Tesla, Hughes, Christie (auto suspension), Madelbrot (Chaos theory, but few liked him, even those who thought him brilliant.), Perelman (Solved Poincaré conjecture, turned down $1 million to live in mother's basement). Still there are few compared to the hundreds of thousands of scientists with more normal lives.

For current science, some guy (Sheldrake, PhD from Cambridge) got banned from TED Talks for his crackpottery and claims about how bad science is. (I don't think his theories lead any revolutions, but there's plenty of crackpottery there.)

 

[russ_watters]

His view of the universe was fundamentally different than most people's. He was a loon. He used to polish his silver spoons, then use each one for one bite. He was a crackpot, and a genius.

Being crazy is nowhere close to the same thing as being a crackpot. The scary thing is that many crackpots seem otherwise to be perfectly normal!

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

Being crazy is nowhere close to the same thing as being a crackpot. The scary thing is that many crackpots seem otherwise to be perfectly normal!

If you define crackpottery as being wrong, then of course no crackpots ever overthrew science. They were wrong after all.

I would define it as holding a non-standard idea without sufficient evidence.

Even a broken watch is right twice a day. People who see the world differently (I hold myself in this group, BTW) are usually wrong. But only usually. The ones who are right often change the world.

 

[houlahound]

Context based teaching is a fad with no evidence it works.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

So what is the correct nomenclature?

We are discussing those on the fringes of standard science. What is a good word to group them (us?, I'm not always the sharpest tool... ).

I certainly don't want to demean anyone. The people I listed are people I deeply admire. They achieved greatness often despite long suffering. There are thousands more who suffer and burn out without accomplishment so a few can change the world for the better.

This site is dedicated to teaching and promoting standard science, and that's a good thing. For how can anyone make advances without knowing what went before. Incremental knowledge is critically important. But change comes from those who dare to be different.

 

[russ_watters]

If you define crackpottery as being wrong, then of course no crackpots ever overthrew science. They were wrong after all.

I would define it as holding a non-standard idea without sufficient evidence.

I would define it the same way you do (though more strongly than that) -- which has nothing to do with being "crazy". So that was a strange that you equated crazy with crackpottery and in any case, it means your example of Tesla isn't correct.

 

[Drakkith]

I would define it as holding a non-standard idea without sufficient evidence.

Wikipedia's article on crank (crackpot is a common synonym): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.

Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook. A crank differs from a fanatic in that the subject of the fanatic's obsession is either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a "fringe" belief. Similarly, the word quack is reserved for someone who promotes a medical remedy or practice that is widely considered to be ineffective; this term, however, does not imply any deep belief in the idea or product they are attempting to sell. Crank may also refer to an ill-tempered individual or one who is in a bad mood, but that usage is not the subject of this article.

Note that the basic idea here is that a person holds an unshakable belief in something and there is essentially nothing can convince them otherwise. Having a non-standard idea does not necessarily make your a crackpot, even if you have no evidence for your idea. The key is that you ignore or dismiss evidence against your idea and you cannot have a rational discussion about it. You can read the article for more details. Just see the "common characteristics of cranks" section.

 

[Isaac0427]

I still do this all the time. I just try to avoid doing it here. (I have lots of crazy, crackpottery that no one wants to hear.)

Oh, I do too.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Still, if you think Electrical Engineering shouldn't have a Forum here,

I don't like spending too much time on Classification because it is often wasted effort and many things just don't fit. But Tesla's usefulness was not in his loopy theories; it was from essentially practical things like AC Power transmission. The way he described how his things 'worked' was so outside our mainstream appreciation that it often reads like BS. I'd say he was a successful EE but, as a Scientist, he was just not reliable.

The Scientific Community can be very hard on people, though. Laithwaite was a successful Engineer and Professor and a legend for his development of the Linear Motor. He then started looking into gyroscopes and thought he'd found reactionless drive. He (genuinely, I think) asked for help with the Maths of the subject but it was so type B that everyone took a step backwards and left him outside in the cold. They just didn't want to be associated with 'that sort of thing' when there were many who could have painlessly put the subject to bed by doing the right Maths. A sad case.

 

[mfb]

Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

Now add a GPS function and weather forecast, and see how often it will be right. Still more often than crackpots with no education.

 

[Dale]

Personally, I have nothing against Tesla. Unfortunately mental illness affects individuals in all walks of life and communities, including the scientific community.

However, when a person today references Tesla as a source, it is almost always a bad sign.