- #1
Doctordick
- 634
- 0
This morning I made a post in the thread I had started a while ago. That would be "Why you should like my perspective!" I was moved to make that post because of the rather cavalier attitude of the amateur theorists making posts on this forum. In that post, I made the following comment.
For the most part, theoretical physicists earn their bread by being experts in the current accepted theories. They spend their research time looking for specific issues which will either confirm or deny the validity of a current theory. Very rarely does a theoretical physicist actually propose a new theory. There is a very good reason for this. Even among professional physicists, the act of proposing an new theory is usually met with derision.
Actually, that derision is very justified. To be viable, a theory must agree with all the known facts! It is very rare that any scientist is familiar with "all the known facts!" I am sure that every mentor on this forum is well aware of the fact that every theory proposed on this forum is easily dismissed by the fact that it is inconsistent with things already known. The forum gets the title "crackpots are us" because of the pervading ignorance of the great majority of the posters.
All of you should stop posting theories and start learning physics and math; unless, of course, it is your goal to entertain the rest of us. If you cannot follow the mathematics I have posted here, you certainly do not have sufficient understanding of physics to even think about explaining the phenomena observed in the experimental laboratory.
Even with regard to the string theorists mentioned by Chi Meson, their accomplishments have been very limited. The only reason they have managed to penetrate that barrier of acceptability is the fact that the mechanisms they use (resonance modes of constrained systems) has been so successful at explaining other phenomena. The central issue of string theory is the additional dimensions they propose.
Now we have a lot of brilliant educated people considering the consequences of string theory and, to date, there is very little evidence that the approach is correct. Time will tell, perhaps they are right but that is no defense of not learning physics or math.
Unless I find a few people who are interested in understanding the universe and capable of following mathematics, I am afraid I will forget about trying to educate anyone.
Have fun, thinking isn't really all that great anyway -- Dick
During the day, I thought about it. Chi Meson had pointed out a fact very pertinent to the very issue I had in my mind.Doctordick said:If you are to come up with a theory which is to be seen as reasonable, then you must come up with a specific detailed procedure for deducing exactly the observed facts from that theory. It must agree with the known facts! And it must be consistent with all facts known: i.e., it must not require ignoring any specific facts. And, in addition, you better point out a flaw in the theory you are trying to replace!
This is why very few professional physicists come up with new theories! It is not a trivial endeavor.
I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics and have taught physics at several colleges and universities during my adventurous life. During that period I have had the opportunity to know a rather large number of theoretical physicists active in the field.Chi Meson said:A lot of folks avoid this sub-forum because it quickly gets nasty. This is not a forum exclusively for "crackpots," but it is nice that there is a place where anybody can say anything. If it were twenty years ago "string theory" discussions would have been found in this sub-forum, but as it has gained acceptance, it has its very own forum.
For the most part, theoretical physicists earn their bread by being experts in the current accepted theories. They spend their research time looking for specific issues which will either confirm or deny the validity of a current theory. Very rarely does a theoretical physicist actually propose a new theory. There is a very good reason for this. Even among professional physicists, the act of proposing an new theory is usually met with derision.
Actually, that derision is very justified. To be viable, a theory must agree with all the known facts! It is very rare that any scientist is familiar with "all the known facts!" I am sure that every mentor on this forum is well aware of the fact that every theory proposed on this forum is easily dismissed by the fact that it is inconsistent with things already known. The forum gets the title "crackpots are us" because of the pervading ignorance of the great majority of the posters.
All of you should stop posting theories and start learning physics and math; unless, of course, it is your goal to entertain the rest of us. If you cannot follow the mathematics I have posted here, you certainly do not have sufficient understanding of physics to even think about explaining the phenomena observed in the experimental laboratory.
Even with regard to the string theorists mentioned by Chi Meson, their accomplishments have been very limited. The only reason they have managed to penetrate that barrier of acceptability is the fact that the mechanisms they use (resonance modes of constrained systems) has been so successful at explaining other phenomena. The central issue of string theory is the additional dimensions they propose.
Now we have a lot of brilliant educated people considering the consequences of string theory and, to date, there is very little evidence that the approach is correct. Time will tell, perhaps they are right but that is no defense of not learning physics or math.
Unless I find a few people who are interested in understanding the universe and capable of following mathematics, I am afraid I will forget about trying to educate anyone.
Have fun, thinking isn't really all that great anyway -- Dick