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

[votingmachine]

One thing I've wondered: suppose somebody is not crazy, but is also not in the physics community, but has read a lot and think they have come up with something new. How do they get people to read it, to help them figure out whether their idea is right or wrong? Pretty much every serious online physics community has rules against this. They can write up a paper and submit it to a journal, but the role of peer review isn't really to be a first-pass vet of peoples' ideas, and a person not in the field will likely have papers rejected pretty quickly. So where should non-crazy people turn to, to get help?

I would say that is laziness on the part of the idea generator. How does one distinguish the monkey that typed Shakespeare, if one is obliged to read millions of pages of gibberish? If a new idea has merit, then it should be possible for the individual generating it to show that it is right or wrong. If the generator of the idea cannot do that, then why is it an idea at all?

We all have ideas. Why should a physicist stop working on his, to help you with yours? What I found in graduate school in biochemistry was that everyone was willing to give you ideas to work on. And I freely suggested things for everyone else. But time and money are limited. I worked on my stuff and everyone else worked on their stuff.

I have never submitted a physics article, but I would have thought that an article which is clearly written and mathematically right would have a chance at getting accepted into some journal. Journals do have "big name" bias, but I think they also do an acceptable job of reviewing submissions.

There may be only one path for an individual with a legitimate contribution ... do the work. Do the math. Learn the stuff that applies and apply it. It does suck that we live in an age when it takes so much to merely be proficient, and often much more time and money to actually show an idea is right or wrong. But it is what it is. You have to turn to yourself.

 

[votingmachine]

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.

I will read the link later, but my intuition is boggled. I would think things would spiral away from each other. The time delay seems to spread the center of mass continuously (again, just intuition, not yet looking at the math).

 

[votingmachine]

One thing I've wondered: suppose somebody is not crazy, but is also not in the physics community, but has read a lot and think they have come up with something new. How do they get people to read it, to help them figure out whether their idea is right or wrong? Pretty much every serious online physics community has rules against this. They can write up a paper and submit it to a journal, but the role of peer review isn't really to be a first-pass vet of peoples' ideas, and a person not in the field will likely have papers rejected pretty quickly. So where should non-crazy people turn to, to get help?

I would say that is laziness on the part of the idea generator. How does one distinguish the monkey that typed Shakespeare, if one is obliged to read millions of pages of gibberish? If a new idea has merit, then it should be possible for the individual generating it to show that it is right or wrong. If the generator of the idea cannot do that, then why is it an idea at all?

We all have ideas. Why should a physicist stop working on his, to help you with yours? What I found in graduate school in biochemistry was that everyone was willing to give you ideas to work on. And I freely suggested things for everyone else. But time and money are limited. I worked on my stuff and everyone else worked on their stuff.

I have never submitted a physics article, but I would have thought that an article which is clearly written and mathematically right would have a chance at getting accepted into some journal. Journals do have "big name" bias, but I think they also do an acceptable job of reviewing submissions.

There may be only one path for an individual with a legitimate contribution ... do the work. Do the math. Learn the stuff that applies and apply it. It does suck that we live in an age when it takes so much to merely be proficient, and often much more time and money to actually show an idea is right or wrong. But it is what it is. You have to turn to yourself.

I would add that in biochemistry labs, good ideas are plentiful, and most often wrong. Often with difficult lab experiments to reach the end result that the idea is wrong.

There are still problems. Barbara McClintock had a PhD in botany, and absolutely stunning evidence of non-hereditary genetics, in her transposon work. Increasing skepticism led to her ceasing to publish in 1953. She won her Nobel in 1983. She was basically FIRED from the University of Missouri, where her work had only one important supporter (and he retired).

But she did the work herself. She developed a theory of mobile gene elements, and did the work, ad published the data and conclusions. Mobile genetic elements just was an unaccepted idea for a long time.

 

[DianaHerberg]

Enjoyed the article... one further comment... there are those of us who were (at least somewhat) trained as scientists but moved to other fields, and when inspiration strikes, we make posts on forums like these in the hopes that a scientist will see potential and develop it somehow. I have no idea what percentage of those who post we are, but I'm included in that count.

 

[PeterDonis]

when inspiration strikes, we make posts on forums like these in the hopes that a scientist will see potential and develop it somehow

Whether or not this is likely to be a fruitful strategy in general (I don't think it is), it isn't here. PF's purpose is to discuss already established science, not to try to discover new science.

 

[DianaHerberg]

I see. My apologies... I will exit stage left.

 

[DianaHerberg]

Is it wrong to say, if you are this interested in a subject, why are you not studying at an education institution which would have the resources you'd need?

Can't let this go - there are endless reasons, but they can all be simply summed up as follows: obligations considered to be a higher priority, or of equal (or greater) value.

 

[Wee-Lamm]

Is it wrong to say, if you are this interested in a subject, why are you not studying at an education institution which would have the resources you'd need?

Not entirely wrong, but it does seem restrictive to limit the allowance of creative thought to only those who have proven themselves scholastically. Vetting out crackpot ideas, due to the lack of academic standing of the poser, may be preferred in the majority of cases but it should not be the only reason a notion is dismissed.

 

[PeterDonis]

it does seem restrictive to limit the allowance of creative thought to only those who have proven themselves scholastically.

I sympathize with the sentiment underlying this: the idea that everybody deserves a fair hearing, and arbitrary credentials shouldn't be allowed to prevent that.

However, at least with regard to science, the sentiment is unjusfied, however attractive it might be. Here's the brutal truth: until you've done the work to understand what we currently know, your new idea does not deserve a fair hearing. It doesn't deserve a hearing at all. There simply isn't world enough and time to consider everybody's idea. That's why we put the burden on you, the person with the idea, to do the work to understand what we currently know, before allowing you to propose the idea to anyone else.

In fact, I can even justify that position by using the same fairness idea. By asking experts to pay attention to you when you aren't knowledgeable yourself in the field, you are asking them to put in the time and effort for your idea that you aren't willing to put in yourself. That is not fair.

 

[eltodesukane]

This is absolutely true. The scientific definition and use of a theory is vastly different than what a layman thinks. To many layman, theory means a "guess" which could have conceivably come by way of day dreaming. It's immensely frustrating.

There is also much confusion over the difference of a theory and a law.

How many times someone told me "evolution is just a theory" ..

 

[Borg]

How many times someone told me "evolution is just a theory" ..

As is their intelligence.

 

[Giovanniontheweb]

it does seem restrictive to limit the allowance of creative thought to only those who have proven themselves scholastically.

I sympathize with the sentiment underlying this: the idea that everybody deserves a fair hearing, and arbitrary credentials shouldn't be allowed to prevent that.

However, at least with regard to science, the sentiment is unjusfied, however attractive it might be. Here's the brutal truth: until you've done the work to understand what we currently know, your new idea does not deserve a fair hearing. It doesn't deserve a hearing at all. There simply isn't world enough and time to consider everybody's idea. That's why we put the burden on you, the person with the idea, to do the work to understand what we currently know, before allowing you to propose the idea to anyone else.

In fact, I can even justify that position by using the same fairness idea. By asking experts to pay attention to you when you aren't knowledgeable yourself in the field, you are asking them to put in the time and effort for your idea that you aren't willing to put in yourself. That is not fair.

can you fly as an eagle in the skyes, I guess you can't unless sitting in 1st on a boeing. The eagle can feel what you cannot and it can use it. Being able to intuitevely understand differs from being able to use the lernt books to explain it, we can keep mixing it up if you like. I can be very good in repeating books yet it took me a while to feel the first page.

 

[votingmachine]

it does seem restrictive to limit the allowance of creative thought to only those who have proven themselves scholastically.

I sympathize with the sentiment underlying this: the idea that everybody deserves a fair hearing, and arbitrary credentials shouldn't be allowed to prevent that.

However, at least with regard to science, the sentiment is unjusfied, however attractive it might be. Here's the brutal truth: until you've done the work to understand what we currently know, your new idea does not deserve a fair hearing. It doesn't deserve a hearing at all. There simply isn't world enough and time to consider everybody's idea. That's why we put the burden on you, the person with the idea, to do the work to understand what we currently know, before allowing you to propose the idea to anyone else.

In fact, I can even justify that position by using the same fairness idea. By asking experts to pay attention to you when you aren't knowledgeable yourself in the field, you are asking them to put in the time and effort for your idea that you aren't willing to put in yourself. That is not fair.

No one is actually limiting anyone from thinking creatively. But there is no requirement for anyone to pay attention. As the thread title asks: "Why won't you look at my new theory" ... the answer is because no one HAS to ... there needs to be a compelling argument or else it is likely a waste of time. The burden is on the individual to create a compelling argument, not on the audience to decipher a non-compelling argument.

 

[russ_watters]

I sympathize with the sentiment underlying this: the idea that everybody deserves a fair hearing, and arbitrary credentials shouldn't be allowed to prevent that.

However, at least with regard to science, the sentiment is unjusfied, however attractive it might be. Here's the brutal truth: until you've done the work to understand what we currently know, your new idea does not deserve a fair hearing. It doesn't deserve a hearing at all.

Just science? Hey, I've never worked on a car before, but I have an idea of how to improve their performance. Mind if I try it out on your car?

Zz always uses the example of surgery.

Maybe perpetual motion machine "inventions" should insult me more as an engineer, but I would think scientists would be offended by the idea that "everyone deserves a fair hearing." Getting a PhD isn't just an excuse to spend 5 more years going to frat parties; it's how you earn the privilege of that "hearing".

I don't get it, really: most people are unusually good at at least one thing, aren't they? Wouldn't anyone be offended by the idea that a novice could be better at it than them? Doesn't everyone recognize that it is very unlikely to be possible?

 

[mfb]

How many times someone told me "evolution is just a theory" ..

My usual answer is something like "so is gravity. Do you expect us all to fall upwards tomorrow?"

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

My usual answer is something like "so is gravity. Do you expect us all to fall upwards tomorrow?"

The response usually given to me is that gravity is a law. Thus the confusion of what scientific theory and law are.

 

[mfb]

Never got that reply. Anyway, the "law" is a prediction of the theory.

 

[PeterDonis]

The eagle can feel what you cannot and it can use it.

In other words, the eagle can do something that has an objective criterion of success: it can stay up in the air, rather than crash into the ground, which is what would happen if you or I tried to fly by flapping our arms. And if the eagle could understand our language, I don't think he would be impressed by us insisting that we deserve a fair chance to fly even though we haven't done anything to figure out how.

The objective criterion of success in science is that your theory's predictions match experiments. Can you, without doing all the work of learning what we currently know, come up with a new theory that does that in some branch of science where we don't currently have a good theory? If you can, you will be the first person ever in human history to do it. Good luck.

 

[rjbeery]

I think there's a romantic element in rooting for the underdog; it certainly empowers anyone who identifies with being one. Similarly there is a feeling of superiority if you choose to advocate something that the majority does not, which I believe is the motivation behind conspiracy theories, for example.

 

[Charles Carter]

Peter's post, and Dale's response, are reasonable and on the money. A couple of other issues come to mind, though.
A hobbyist only, I've been curious about STR for a while. Though rusty with calculus and linear algebra, I dug a little deeper than the strictly lay descriptions and have found works I can understand. But some conceptual matters I still find difficult. Turns out I'm not the only one and I get the feeling mentors and others here are pretty tired of answering such questions, which is fine. But the pat formulaic and dismissive answers have led me to realize PF is not a place to gain the better understanding I seek.
Secondly for a variety of reasons I believe Science to be suffering real credibility issues around reproducibility. This seems to involve softer sciences most, where statistical significance is relied on heavily , but I've seen comments that such issues involve physics as well. Yet news, whether USA Today or Scientific American, are not terribly discerning.

 

[PeterDonis]

I get the feeling mentors and others here are pretty tired of answering such questions,

More specifically, we can get tired of answering questions that have already been answered, either in FAQs here on PF or on other sites that we've linked to already numerous times. We do this in our free time, so we can't provide the same level of pedagogy that a school or a textbook does.

for a variety of reasons I believe Science to be suffering real credibility issues around reproducibility.

I would say the fundamental issue here is not reproducibility per se, but calling something "science" when it hasn't been reproduced (or more generally, when it hasn't been given the quality control checks that should be done before anything gets to be called "science").

Yet news, whether USA Today or Scientific American, are not terribly discerning.

Most definitely. And scientists themselves are often at fault, for not being up front and explicit about the level of confidence in various results, so that the lay public sees only two categories, "science" and "not science", instead of a spectrum of varying levels of confidence. So when something the public thought was "science" turns out to be wrong, the public's reaction is to assume that other stuff that was categorized as "science" must really be "not science" as well, instead of to recognize that the original claim didn't have very high confidence to begin with.

 

[houlahound]

what do you guys think of my new cosmological model;

in the 11'th dimension when dimensions 0 thru 11 were still potentialities the giant ostrich laid a cosmic egg, the egg smashed and there was a rapid release of energy followed by a period of rapid expansion, the cosmic egg smash I predict would have caused gravitational waves. the cries of the ostrich can still be heard in the cosmic microwave background radiation.

I need some help with the maths, thoughts/opinions...

 

[PeterDonis]

what do you guys think of my new cosmological model

I dunno, it sounds just like string theory to me. Except for the ostrich part...

 

[A N Madhavan]

Nice article PeterDonis. I liked the reasons why nonscientists choose B over A. From the crackpot threads that I've seen, it often seems that the basic motivation for them is wanting to be famous for coming up with a new theory - regardless of how little sense their theory makes. Some of them do go to great lengths to 'prove' themselves but they really don't know even the basics.

I do agree. Intentions definitely have influence on our understandings.

 

[Drakkith]

I dunno, it sounds just like string theory to me. Except for the ostrich part...

My model predicts the ostrich and predicts its mass to fall within a narrow range of 10⁶ to 10⁹ kg. But I need a large machine to collide the smaller birds necessary to produce the ostrich.

 

[ComplexVar89]

Is it wrong to say, if you are this interested in a subject, why are you not studying at an education institution which would have the resources you'd need?

Not that I have any designs on coming up with an Earth-shattering theory--I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm that brilliant, no matter how much study I ever do. Science generally doesn't work like that, anyway. Still this comment gives me pause. Sometimes, it's simply not possible for one to attend an institution that serves one's needs in that respect--ever. Some limitations can never be surmounted, but must be worked around. Mine aren't intellectual, but social and emotional, combined with just enough impulsive shooting myself in the foot when I was younger, (while not even knowing what was wrong with me.)

The self-imposed fear one may learn the material incorrectly or have critical holes in their knowledge can be crippling in that case, especially if they know no one that matters will ever take them seriously, no matter that their mindset is the antithesis of a crackpot's. They'd be happy to toil away in relative obscurity the rest of their life just to have the chance to see things at the "bleeding edge" of things and maybe contribute a little back.

Should we be cast aside? After all, isolation is one of the surest paths to the echo-chamber effect, where one can't even see that they're wrong, because there's no one qualified around to tell them so.

I'd go so far as to say that the implicit stipulation one has to follow the traditional path just to get in the door is just a tiny bit (unintentionally, of course) discriminatory. You never know--there might be some people out there with one (or more) of the "invisible disabilities" who could contribute under the right circumstances.

I don't know, maybe what I'm saying is that maybe the scientific community could prop the door open a little for those of us who are passionate about science and are willing to work to get in but must take a different route to get there.

 

[russ_watters]

Should we be cast aside? After all, isolation is one of the surest paths to the echo-chamber effect, where one can't even see that they're wrong, because there's no one qualified around to tell them so.

I'd go so far as to say that the implicit stipulation one has to follow the traditional path just to get in the door is just a tiny bit (unintentionally, of course) discriminatory.

A tiny bit? No, it is pretty discriminatory -- and on purpose. Engineering is even more so. In certain disciplines/job types in most states you are required by law to have a 4-year degree in engineering and a state issued license to even call yourself an "engineer" (there are no such formal rules in research sciences as far as I know). Engineering used to be a trade and until fairly recently anyone could work for an engineer as an apprentice and then take the professional engineer exam. Not anymore.

The stakes are higher with engineering. If a scientific paper turns out to be wrong, it is't generally that big of a deal, whereas mistakes in certain engineering disciplines can kill people. As you might expect, doctors also have licensing requirements...

 

[Charles Carter]

More specifically, we can get tired of answering questions that have already been answered, either in FAQs here on PF or on other sites that we've linked to already numerous times. We do this in our free time, so we can't provide the same level of pedagogy that a school or a textbook does.
I would say the fundamental issue here is not reproducibility per se, but calling something "science" when it hasn't been reproduced (or more generally, when it hasn't been given the quality control checks that should be done before anything gets to be called "science").
Most definitely. And scientists themselves are often at fault, for not being up front and explicit about the level of confidence in various results, so that the lay public sees only two categories, "science" and "not science", instead of a spectrum of varying levels of confidence. So when something the public thought was "science" turns out to be wrong, the public's reaction is to assume that other stuff that was categorized as "science" must really be "not science" as well, instead of to recognize that the original claim didn't have very high confidence to begin with.

Re: 1st point- Trust me I understand. And it's obvious many such as yourself devote a good deal of time to PF to promote interest in and understanding of physics. I have noted posts where, even to me, the OP seems , almost willfully, to not understand.
Re- Second- Absolutely. The overwhelming majority of science advances over time and only by consensus. Unfortunately most of the lay public fails to understand this.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I believe a lot of money goes into the LHC by people looking to get a financial return from spin off's, IMO. The science is secondary.

Things have always been that way. Throughout history, Scientists have relied on patrons - private or state. Some organisations run research departments which do 'blue skies' work and which produce nothing useful from some projects. Universities exist because of income from commercial firms. When it comes to getting funding, there can be as much skill in spinning the right tale as in carrying out the experiments.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'd go so far as to say that the implicit stipulation one has to follow the traditional path just to get in the door is just a tiny bit (unintentionally, of course) discriminatory.

The "traditional path" is to learn about the field, and that includes what has gone before, and it includes what people are working on now. If people don't want to go down this path, shouldn't the field be discriminatory?