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

[PeterDonis]

PeterDonis submitted a new PF Insights post

Why Won't You Look at My New Theory?

Continue reading the Original PF Insights Post.

 

[Borg]

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.

 

[Dale]

Excellent Insight!

I don't know if it would fit in with this Insight, but I have always found it interesting how scientists and nonscientists view the status of a theory in the light of contradictory evidence. The example of Mercury is relevant.

Nonscientists tend to categorize theories as "right" or "wrong". So regardless of how many experiments confirm a theory, a single counterexample (of type B) makes it "wrong". In this sense confirmatory evidence is considered much weaker than contradictory evidence.

Scientists tend to think in terms of domains of applicability. A counterexample (of type B) does not destroy all of the supporting evidence, it simply places a limit on the domain where we believe that the theory applies. Newtonian gravity is not "wrong" but it only applies in a certain region of experimental conditions and can be inaccurate outside that domain.

A couple of nice features of the scientific "domain of applicability" view are that it places value on both confirmatory and contradictory evidence. It also applies well to the type A contradictions. Since we never know the entire state of the whole universe, whenever we attempt to apply a theory to a scenario we always use some simplifying assumptions. A type A contradiction tells us that our simplifications have some limited domain of applicability. Even if the theory still applies, some previously neglected term is no longer negligible in this new domain.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Nonscientists tend to categorize theories as "right" or "wrong". So regardless of how many experiments confirm a theory, a single counterexample (of type B) makes it "wrong".

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.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

btw, great Insight Peter!

 

[sophiecentaur]

A good bit of writing there, Peter! I enjoyed it a lot.
I know I can be a grumpy old devil but my 'explanation' of the attraction of the type B theory for the non-Scientist is that it takes away the guilt about not having the basics. If the next successful theory that comes along, turns the existing stuff upside down then the (implied) lazy non-Scientist can feel that it would have been a waste of time to get to grips with the 'old stuff' because it no longer applies. This is, of course, a ridiculous attitude in the case of nearly all Physics and Chemistry and all but a very few theories in Biology. As mentioned previously, all the brilliant workers who broke new ground, had been through the mill and knew all the basics well enough to make a valid extra step which allowed them to come up with something radical.
But there is no pleasing the Public. They all love what they know about Edison and his many inventions but a lot of his success come from very long winded and painstaking series of measurements. Likewise they are highly appreciative about the Pharmaceutical Industry, in which many valuable products are the result of a vast amount of precise trial and error.

 

[PeterDonis]

A type A contradiction tells us that our simplifications have some limited domain of applicability. Even if the theory still applies, some previously neglected term is no longer negligible in this new domain.

Actually, in my terminology, this would be an example of a type B situation. As you say, one could view the discrepancy in the orbit of Mercury this way: Newtonian gravity was almost right for the Solar System, but there happened to be an extra term (the perihelion precession that GR puts there) that became non-negligible when Mercury's orbit was measured accurately enough.

A type A contradiction, as I am using that term, is a situation in which there is no new term at all--nothing needs to be changed in the current theory. The discrepancy is due to either a problem with the data, or a problem with the calculations based on the current theory.

 

[ogg]

I'm not sure I agree with the OP. Could you confirm that Newtonian Gravitation (with instantaneous interactions) is consistent (with classical physics ca 1890-1900)? 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? Anyway, I think that the OP confuses theory with model predictions using that theory. Epicycles comes to mind as an example where a theory's inconsistency with observation were "swept under the rug" by "just" adding more circles to the model. We need to be humble enough to always be aware that NONE of our theories have universal domain of applicability - with the corallary that we are ALWAYS considering a specific (sub)domain when considering any theory. So, the idea of consistency is nebulous at best. BTW, how many (and which) of our theories are confirmed at an accuracy of 99.9999% ? (as opposed to a few predictions being confirmed at that level, with most not). Finally, could you provide a citation for Einstein's "poor" grades? (and the reason why this thread isn't philosophy? LOL:)

 

[ZapperZ]

And just in case people missed it, I will highlight it once again of Helen Quinn's wonderful article in Physics Today back in 2007 that addressed the same issue with regards to the difference in the language used in physics/science and in everyday terms:

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March07/Quinn/Quinn.html

This essay, to me, is a must-read for everyone.

Zz.

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

It seems to me that the mentors are gushing over this article because they have to deal with crackpots first hand all the time

Anyway, this was a great article. I’m probably going to print it out and share it with my physics class (I’m thinking of very specific classmates, btw).

 

[Dale]

or a problem with the calculations based on the current theory

This is what I meant by a previously neglected term. One where the existing theory already includes a term that we just neglected in our analysis because we incorrectly assumed that it was too small to matter. Such as the additional terms due to other planets in the moon example. Those terms are small but not always negligible.

Perhaps a different word than "term" would be better, but one isn't coming to mind.

 

[klotza]

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?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

So where should non-crazy people turn to, to get help?

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?

 

[PeterDonis]

It seems to me that the mentors are gushing over this article because they have to deal with crackpots first hand all the time

Of course. What do you think prompted me to write it in the first place?

Seriously, although this issue does come up on PF, and Mentors are exposed to it more than other members, I don't think it's confined to PF. I encounter similar misconceptions in other discussion forums, and I'm sure others do too.

 

[PeterDonis]

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?

Are we to also suppose that this person has the same level of understanding of current physical theories as, for example, Einstein had when he submitted his historic papers for publication in 1905? If the answer is "yes", then in the course of gaining that understanding, that person is virtually certain to have gotten the attention of someone who can validate that their idea is worth publishing, and help to get it approved for publication. (Einstein, even though he had been out of academia for several years in 1905, had plenty of contacts that were disposed to take him seriously.)

If the answer is "no", then the obvious advice is to fix that problem first. That will do two things: (1) it will help them to evaluate whether the idea they think is new and worth considering, really is (the vast majority of the time, it won't be); and (2) it will, as above, give them the contacts they need to get their idea seriously considered.

 

[Dale]

So where should non-crazy people turn to, to get help?

Maybe Brian Greene?

But seriously, people need to form and rely on their own personal networks.

If I had produced a piece of music that I thought should be "mainstream" then I would talk with my professional musician friends. They are professionals and could give me substantive feedback and information, but they are also friends so they will be willing to at least hear it.

I think that it is unreasonable to expect strangers to be willing to spend a substantial amount of professional effort for a 0% likelihood of personal benefit. One of the reasons that PF exists is because we minimize exactly that kind of expectation.

 

[ZapperZ]

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 also seriously question the odds that these people will actually produce anything worthwhile. I haven't seen it for as long as I can remember. So then are we trying to find a solution to a non-existing problem? Or is this a solution waiting for a problem?

Zz.

 

[john baez]

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?

 

[sophiecentaur]

(Einstein, even though he had been out of academia for several years in 1905, had plenty of contacts that were disposed to take him seriously.)

If you have something worth saying then it will not be just out of the blue. Einstein had a track record and so does anyone who can break new ground. If they haven't done the established stuff to a reasonable level then anything that they come up with is little better than monkeys and typewriters. If they introduce a 'glimmer' of something worth while then how will it ever be spotted amongst all the rubbish that they compete with? We just have to wait a bit for someone else to have the idea. It will happen.

 

[twiz_]

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?

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

 

[rumborak]

Regarding lay people entering a field out of the blue, I think it's actually not *all* that difficult to make your name known, provided you did your homework. That is, if you submit a paper that shows you've done your homework, I.e. read the state of the art in the field, and reject those papers on valid reasons (Einstein for example was picking up on well known discrepancies), people will listen to you.

This is coming from a person who tried to submit a paper without doing said homework, and I was shredded by the reviewers deservedly.

 

[PeterDonis]

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?

It's wrong. See John Baez' post and the link he gave. Also see this post of mine from a recent thread on the same subject:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/Newtonian-vs-relativistic-mechanics.864896/#post-5429752

I think that the OP confuses theory with model predictions using that theory.

I'm not sure what would lead you to think that, since I explicitly draw a distinction in the article between the theory itself being wrong, and predictions being calculated incorrectly even though the theory itself is correct.

Epicycles comes to mind as an example where a theory's inconsistency with observation were "swept under the rug" by "just" adding more circles to the model.

That would be changing the theory.

the idea of consistency is nebulous at best.

Huh? Consistency with experiment might be difficult to test in a particular case, but I don't think as a concept it's "nebulous". The theory makes a prediction; experiments give a result; you compare the two.

how many (and which) of our theories are confirmed at an accuracy of 99.9999% ?

A theory in itself doesn't get confirmed. Particular predictions of a theory get confirmed (or falsified). Note that in the article I talk about comparing predictions of a theory with observations.

Both GR and quantum field theory make predictions that have been confirmed to this level of accuracy--in fact both make predictions that have been confirmed to a considerably higher level of accuracy. For GR, I recommend Clifford Will's excellent article on the Living Reviews website:

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/

I'm not aware of any similar article for QFT, but if anyone else is, please post a link!

could you provide a citation for Einstein's "poor" grades?

On checking up, I find that that reference is not valid. Einstein's grades were fine; but because of poor relationships with his professors, he was unable to get an academic position upon completing his degree. I have revised the article accordingly.

 

[PeterDonis]

the reason why this thread isn't philosophy? LOL:)

Because the subject is how the predictions made by scientific theories get compared with experiment. That is well within the domain of science.

 

[Chestermiller]

I think the article is wonderful! Very perceptive!

So, if I travel at 4.2 times the speed of light, will I fall through a wormhole and end up at alpha centauri, or will I pass through the event horizon of the Milky Way super-massive black hole?

 

[rootone]

No, you will just fall through your chair and end up in the centre of the Earth.

 

[nasu]

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?

There is also the question: is there a need for a new theory in a specific area of research?
I suppose it will be more likely to have your theory considered if at least claims to solve some contradiction or problem with the existing theory.
My feeling (from following discussions on various forums) is that many times the person proposing new theories fail to explain what problem they claim to solve, even when specifically asked about it. Many times is just the fact that they dislike the current theory for personal reasons and they propose another one that (claims) to give the same results, but based on more "pleasing" models.
Or maybe just, as someone mentioned, rather than struggling to understand the details of the current theories, propose their own.

I think that the answer to "Why nobody look at my new theory" should at least partially contain "because there is no need for it".

 

[jim mcnamara]

@ZapperZ -thanks much for the Helen Quinn link! Been looking too long for it.
@PeterDonis -great article. But I'd bet too much of the type-B passes through untouched in the Biology forums. I have about 10 active PF'ers on my ignore list.

 

[Charles Link]

I found the article very good reading. There certainly is a need to ensure that sufficient academic effort is put into the postings, or the Physics Forums could easily become like some other physics websites where in a couple of cases the nonsense posts outnumber the intelligent ones. On occasion, I would find it beneficial to get feedback about a "personal theory", but I can understand the need for such restrictions. I commend the staff for keeping the Forum manageable.

 

[PeterDonis]

There is also the question: is there a need for a new theory in a specific area of research?

If there is an apparent discrepancy between the current theory's predictions and actual observations, then that at least raises the possibility that there is a need for a new theory. That's why I focused on that scenario in the article. But, as I note, in the vast majority of such cases, the apparent discrepancy turns out not to require a new theory to resolve.

many times the person proposing new theories fail to explain what problem they claim to solve, even when specifically asked about it.

Yes, I think this is a common problem. And one good way to resolve it (or at least find out whether the person proposing the new theory is willing to try to resolve it) is to ask: what apparent discrepancy between the current theory and observation does your new theory claim to solve? If the person can't answer that question, that's a huge red flag that they don't know enough about the subject.

I think that the answer to "Why nobody look at my new theory" should at least partially contain "because there is no need for it".

The article kind of suggests this by pointing out that the vast majority of situations are type A situations (in the article's terminology), not type B. But you're right that we could also define a "type 0" situation (unfortunately there isn't a letter before A ), where there is no discrepancy between the current theory and observation, at least not in the regime where someone is proposing a new personal theory.

 

[mfb]

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?

There is a huge difference between "think they have come up with something new" and actually coming up with something new and useful. We have the first type here frequently, but can you name any big discovery/theory coming from someone without a proper education or contact to scientists?

And there is still a way: ask a friend who has a closer connection to scientists. If you can convince them, let them convince someone with an even closer connection to the right experts, and so on. If the theory is actually useful. all those steps can work.

 

[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