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

[Charles Link]

As I mentioned previously, (post #40), there are still a few topics where the standard textbook material is not completely thorough in the presentation of some of the subjects. If an improved explanation is given in one of these areas, hopefully it doesn't immediately get pushed into the category of "personal theory". Part of the adventure of physics is figuring things out, and on occasion, coming up with improved explanations. Sometimes the textbooks and even a "google" does not have all the answers to even some of the standard textbook material.

 

[OmCheeto]

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'd be very interested.
If you PM me your idea, I will send you blueprints of my warp drive engine.
There's no math, so it's really easy to understand.

 

[PeterDonis]

As I mentioned previously, (post #40), there are still a few topics where the standard textbook material is not completely thorough in the presentation of some of the subjects. If an improved explanation is given in one of these areas, hopefully it doesn't immediately get pushed into the category of "personal theory".

Even if a standard textbook doesn't treat a particular subject, there should be some acceptable source that does--a monograph, or a peer-reviewed paper, or something like that. If there is, you can just refer to it, and give your own summary of what it says. If there isn't, then how do you know your own personal version is an "improved explanation"?

It would help, btw, if you could give a specific example rather than speaking in generalities.

 

[sophiecentaur]

This thread seems to have lost it's way in an attempt to be fair to the very rare example of an untutored genius who has something of great importance to Science but can't get it published. The probability of this is, I think, less than the probability of an accepted genius in an established institution who gets knocked down by a bus on the way to the office when he / she was planning to pen an Earth shattering paper which everyone would accept with no problems. Either way, we missed out - a bit - but next year / decade / century, someone else will produce the same thing. Mostly, it will be within a very few years at worst.

 

[mfb]

This thread seems to have lost it's way in an attempt to be fair to the very rare example of an untutored genius who has something of great importance to Science but can't get it published.

We still have to find the first example of this.

 

[Isaac0427]

I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?

 

[sophiecentaur]

We still have to find the first example of this.

On PF, you mean? I don't think (s)he'd have been recognised.

 

[Charles Link]

We still have to find the first example of this.

The untutored genius is not likely to appear here, but I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the "personal theory" restriction applied. When the OP gives the response of "thank you, that helped to clarify the matter", it appears the "personal theory" might be worthy of some merit. There is always the trade-off that the Forum could become a circus of personal theories and inaccurate information, but good physics often comes with a series of iterations. Perhaps this has already been tried and it didn't work, thereby the need for the tighter control.

 

[CWatters]

I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?

Questions are generally welcome provided you show some effort has been made to find your own answer first. Otherwise the first reply you get will be...What do you think and why?

 

[OmCheeto]

I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?

I asked almost the exact same question about 8 years ago.
I got some awesome answers: What should us kooks do when we see evidence that leads to exotic speculation?

Funny thing is, I never asked the question that I was referring to.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The untutored genius is not likely to appear here, but I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the "personal theory" restriction applied. When the OP gives the response of "thank you, that helped to clarify the matter", it appears the "personal theory" might be worthy of some merit. There is always the trade-off that the Forum could become a circus of personal theories and inaccurate information, but good physics often comes with a series of iterations. Perhaps this has already been tried and it didn't work, thereby the need for the tighter control.

I don't think that the sort of person you are referring to it would ever commit a 'personal theory' offence. In fact, a small advance would be unlikely to be classed as a type B idea. They would start by having a conventional conversation and establish some cred before leaping in with the Type B Bomb. So I think the Forum is already open to them.
This would assume, of course, that their posts were of a reasonable standard of politeness and presentation and not the sort of gauche rantings that we sometimes get. A personal theory written in text speak would never get off the ground.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I asked almost the exact same question about 8 years ago.
I got some awesome answers: What should us kooks do when we see evidence that leads to exotic speculation?

Funny thing is, I never asked the question that I was referring to.

But people are very fond of your off the wall contributions and have been for the past years. You can get as kookie as you like and you get away with it.

 

[Charles Link]

I don't think that the sort of person you are referring to it would ever commit a 'personal theory' offence. In fact, a small advance would be unlikely to be classed as a type B idea. They would start by having a conventional conversation and establish some cred before leaping in with the Type B Bomb. So I think the Forum is already open to them.
This would assume, of course, that their posts were of a reasonable standard of politeness and presentation and not the sort of gauche rantings that we sometimes get. A personal theory written in text speak would never get off the ground.

I am still quite new to the website, but was scolded for it before I established any significant credibility. I still think those posts had some scientific merit, but I am more careful in introducing any subject matter that might be deemed controversial.

 

[OmCheeto]

But people are very fond of your off the wall contributions and have been for the past years. You can get as kookie as you like and you get away with it.

hmmmm... Maybe I'll run over to the High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics section, and finally ask the question.
Hopefully they don't ask why I'm asking, as it involves, gulp, warp drive...

 

[Drakkith]

I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?

You can always PM myself, another mentor, or Greg himself.

 

[mfb]

On PF, you mean? I don't think (s)he'd have been recognised.

No, in general. There is always the argument "but this group has such a hard time" where this group is simply nonexistent.

The untutored genius is not likely to appear here, but I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the "personal theory" restriction applied.

Those threads are usually fine, and not personal theories. There are publications explicitely mentioning discussion here. That is not the "what if gravity is really [random word]" style this insight article is about.

 

[PeterDonis]

I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the "personal theory" restriction applied.

Once again: is the "small advance" just explaining something that is part of accepted science, but isn't covered in textbooks? There are many, many such things. As I said before, if it's accepted science, there will be some source you can point to, and then summarize in your own words if you think that will help the questioner understand. This is all well within the PF rules, and in fact it happens regularly, particularly in the forums like Beyond the Standard Model where a lot of the science being discussed is too new to have made it into textbooks.

OTOH, if the "small advance" is something that isn't part of accepted science, but you think it ought to be, then PF is not the place to make that case. The best you could possibly do would be to get the attention of a PF member who happens to also have the ability and willingness to help you get your new idea written up in a form in which it could get proper review. But that process won't take place here on PF; that's not what PF is for.

 

[PeterDonis]

I am still quite new to the website, but was scolded for it before I established any significant credibility. I still think those posts had some scientific merit

Can you give specific examples? Feel free to PM me links to them if you would prefer not to link to them in a public discussion thread.

 

[Charles Link]

Can you give specific examples? Feel free to PM me links to them if you would prefer not to link to them in a public discussion thread.

PM is much better for this. I think I have some interesting physics which i just sent you a PM and a "link".

 

[sophiecentaur]

I'm afraid that this thread has now strayed into the 'Galileo and the Spanish Inquisition' neck of the woods. PF is perfectly tolerant of almost anything as long as it's presented in a non-loony and polite way. It's always quite possible use the 'my friend thinks XYZ and I am trying to put him right' approach, if you think you're pushing your luck. Frankly, if somebody can't present the 'new' idea in a reasonable way, it probably really is nonsense and it's no great loss for PF or the World.
I think I'm out of here.

 

[Giovanniontheweb]

Human is indeed a motivation-driven being, if I’m spending my time typing on this small keyboard is not because I care about transmitting to you any useful information but because I do care about my inner integrity.
I did appreciate few last posts about pop science that I’ve found well done, with care and relevant background, as you can share when you are around 18 with friends of yours.
I’ve been surprised lately about how many questions coming from kids I could’t answer when my clock says 50 turns, neither I feel confortable to say that courious pop science people are less knowledgeble than myself . I do understand bad engineering as it comes around and, by axtrapolation I might understand scientist’s mood. As well, I do acknowledge most of the relevant humans’ discoveries happen by mistake and the following points look clear to me
a) Detecting scientific mistakes happen in the labs where common people spend very limited time
b) The so called scientists are very much format in their own thinking path that makes them at the same time very clever and very limited
Well, nothing is lost, common to all beings, including the so called animals, looks to be curiosity, I hope I’ll be able to deal with my neibour’s kid next question, maybe we will have less pop science in the future and more real scientists..

 

[Drakkith]

As well, I do acknowledge most of the relevant humans’ discoveries happen by mistake

I'd disagree with this. While there are "accidental" discoveries, I'd say the vast majority of scientific knowledge comes from discoveries made by people who devoted years of their time to something. In other words, they were actively investigating something in an attempt to understand it.

b) The so called scientists are very much format in their own thinking path that makes them at the same time very clever and very limited

I strongly disagree with this as well and I caution people about criticizing scientists as a whole in this manner. The fact is that scientists are all individuals with a wide variety of skills, interests, ways of thinking, and attitudes. They run the entire spectrum of personalities and morality, just like the rest of the population. The only difference between a scientist and a non-scientist is the former is usually in a profession dedicated to science, while the latter is usually not. There is nothing inherently limiting about scientists that isn't present everywhere else in humanity.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

I'd disagree with this. While there are "accidental" discoveries, I'd say the vast majority of scientific knowledge comes from discoveries made by people who devoted years of their time to something. In other words, they were actively investigating something in an attempt to understand it.
I strongly disagree with this as well and I caution people about criticizing scientists as a whole in this manner. The fact is that scientists are all individuals with a wide variety of skills, interests, ways of thinking, and attitudes. They run the entire spectrum of personalities and morality, just like the rest of the population. The only difference between a scientist and a non-scientist is the former is usually in a profession dedicated to science, while the latter is usually not. There is nothing inherently limiting about scientists that isn't present everywhere else in humanity.

While incremental discoveries are made throughout scientists' lives, important theoretical breakthroughs tend to be concentrated in young scientists before they become too set in their ways. Of course there are lots of exceptions and caveats, but the period between learning and teaching seems critical to understanding new ideas.

"I don't understand why..." seems critical to breakthroughs.

 

[ebos]

I like to think that most people have a teeny bit of the "B" type inside. Just like the Rock Star scenario... or the potential Cult Hero. Yeah, I think that's me - the Cult Hero. Although shredding that Fender Strat in front of 100,000 screaming fans does run a close second. Anyways, now I can also accept the "B" Side scientist ; )

 

[nasu]

As well, I do acknowledge most of the relevant humans’ discoveries happen by mistake and the following points look clear to me

This may be true in some areas of knowledge (like America was discovered by "mistake", for example).
But this thread started as a discussion about theories in science. These are not discovered by accident. Actually they are not even "discovered". They are created by people with a purpose in mind.
Not all of human achievement is due to "discovery", accidental or purposeful.
A lot is due to creative work. And this includes not only literature, arts, music etc. but scientific theories as well.
A good theory does not require less creativity than a good novel. And usually more time, hard work and some genius too.

 

[Drakkith]

While incremental discoveries are made throughout scientists' lives, important theoretical breakthroughs tend to be concentrated in young scientists before they become too set in their ways.

Even if these breakthroughs are concentrated in young scientists, I don't agree that the main reason is because they aren't set in their ways. I think there are plenty of other possibilities. Older scientists tend to take on supervisory or managerial roles for one thing. And I don't necessarily agree that these breakthroughs are concentrated in younger scientists. But I admit I haven't delved into the details of this subject before.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Even if these breakthroughs are concentrated in young scientists, I don't agree that the main reason is because they aren't set in their ways. I think there are plenty of other possibilities. Older scientists tend to take on supervisory or managerial roles for one thing. And I don't necessarily agree that these breakthroughs are concentrated in younger scientists. But I admit I haven't delved into the details of this subject before.

Many breakthroughs by one individual (there were far more groups in breakthroughs) came from those that struggled to learn in the same way as others typically do. Some didn't have good or normal childhoods. They were deeply curious, focused, and driven. Devoted many years of their lives to asking a question.

The "prime" age has lengthened considerably with better health and longer lifespans nowadays. Much to do with why the elderly may produce less could be their belief system about aging, that they should stop playing and learning, and allowed social/familial responsibilities to take their itching away? Who knows?

Or, they may have simply lost their inner child and become set in their ways...

 

[Drakkith]

Many breakthroughs by one individual (there were far more groups in breakthroughs) came from those that struggled to learn in the same way as others typically do. Some didn't have good or normal childhoods. They were deeply curious, focused, and driven. Devoted many years of their lives to asking a question.

Perhaps. It could also be that these types of people just stand out in peoples minds more.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

I would like to reemphasize that the vast majority of science is incremental. The new theories inevitably make use of decades and centuries of other scientists' work.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I strongly disagree with this as well and I caution people about criticizing scientists as a whole in this manner.

Sounds rather a 'cross' reaction for you, Drakkith. Don't let 'em wind you up!
I really don't t think it's up to Scientists to defend themselves at all in this matter. Fact is that, without a Scientific Approach, we would still be kicking about in the pre-enlightenment dirt. The (many of them, brilliant) Engineers would not have the the use of the ideas that the Scientists have developed. But that's a daft statement because the brilliant Engineers would have put their Scientist hats on and got there anyway. So Engineering and the Science are just descriptions of Processes and not the people involved.
I promised myself not to get involved with this thread again but here I am.