I think popular science is ruining science

[Pengwuino]

Finally, one of my babies has grown into an adult thread :)

 

[Aether]

How does one review long-held beliefs without first understanding them? A "dreamer" is not necessarily lazy or uneducated in mainstream science. If one wishes to challenge the establishment, they should first learn how it works. That means, basically, learning things "by the book" until you have a deep enough understanding to challenge it. Trying to do so before you have this understanding is simply a waste of everyone's time...That depends on what you mean by "outside of conventional cosmology". If you mean they haven't learned anything about conventional cosmology, then they almost certainly don't have a clue. If they've learned it (and understand it) but have alternate theories about the universe, then that would seem to be exactly the kind of dreamer both myself and Einstein are supporting...In my experience, the majority of "alternate theories" come from people who don't understand the conventional ones. If someone demonstrates that they do indeed have a thorough understanding of mainstream theory, then I will lend an ear. The nice thing about going through the traditional academic route is that one doesn't have to do much convincing. By getting a degree and a good job, they've already validated themselves...I just don't like the idea of treating scientific theories as a matter of preference. If one gets the idea to challenge the establishment before they learn about it, then I would wonder about the basis of their objection. If the basis for it was a matter of preference, philosophical prejudice, or personal vendetta, then from the scientific point of view, they really would be guessing.

This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator? They may not start out with much knowledge of conventional cosmology at all, but they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis, for example. If what you mean by "challenge the establishment" is a formal and public challenge, then I agree that it is better if one comes to an understanding of what they are talking about first. Otherwise, people have to be generally free to explore in the mean time.

 

[ZapperZ]

This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator? They may not start out with much knowledge of conventional cosmology at all, but they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis, for example. If what you mean by "challenge the establishment" is a formal and public challenge, then I agree that it is better if one comes to an understanding of what they are talking about first. Otherwise, people have to be generally free to explore in the mean time.

But in my experience, when another physicist tries to make a contribution into another field other than his own expertise, it is usually done very respectfully. This means that that person already has done his/her homework in that area, and that the area that he is doing research in already has a built in overlap. Cosmology IS already done in particle collider experiments and theory. Lisa Randall, for example, does cosmology, particle physics, and string theory. And Bob Laughlin has published papers regarding emergent phenomena of elementary particles and cosmology. No one would walk up to either of them and say "Hey look, you only read pop-science books on cosmology. Why don't you do your homework first before sticking your noses into this?"

That, to me, is the major difference between professionals in this field making incursions into another area, versus that done by amateurs. We respect the field and each other areas way to much to do things out of ignorance, and we also spent almost a lifetime building our own reputation to be taken seriously by our peers. It doesn't take much to ruin that.

Zz.

 

[Aether]

Cosmology IS already done in particle collider experiments and theory.

Yes, and the folks at Argonne National Lab (ANL) just happen to be the ones who generated the "standard code" for primordial nucleosythesis; way to go ANL!

No one would walk up to either of them and say "Hey look, you only read pop-science books on cosmology. Why don't you do your homework first before sticking your noses into this?"...That, to me, is the major difference between professionals in this field making incursions into another area, versus that done by amateurs.

I'm not defending anyone who is armed only with pop-science books on cosmology.

We respect the field and each other areas way to much to do things out of ignorance...

Do what "things" out of ignorance? Think? Motivated exploration?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

how do you levitate?

http://www.free-card-tricks.net/blainelev1.html

 

[turbo]

Not learning what the books have to say would seem to be the definition of "uneducated".

Not true. The ability to read the books and spout the contents of such on demand does not demonstrate an understanding of the material. Such a student may be "educated" by your standards, but memorization and obedient acceptance is rather antithetical to the goals of science.

That depends on what you mean by "outside of conventional cosmology". If you mean they haven't learned anything about conventional cosmology, then they almost certainly don't have a clue.

Right now, conventional cosmology requires you to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day (thanks to L.C.). If you think that one must become an expert in that arcane puzzle factory before questioning its validity, you are missing the point of epistemology entirely. When a theory becomes very complex, highly constrained, and requires lots of fine-tuning, that should be a sign that there are some problems. When the problems stretch back for decades (like DM), that is a sign that flaws in the theory predate the discovery of the problem, and that the resolution of the problem requires re-examination of earlier assumptions.

In my experience, the majority of "alternate theories" come from people who don't understand the conventional ones. If someone demonstrates that they do indeed have a thorough understanding of mainstream theory, then I will lend an ear. The nice thing about going through the traditional academic route is that one doesn't have to do much convincing. By getting a degree and a good job, they've already validated themselves.

Ah, yes - pay your dues, learn the secret handshake, cross Pons Asinorum, and then you are qualified to have an original thought. Have you reviewed the history of the sciences? If you have, you know that breakthroughs have come from all quarters, and from people with a wide variety of backgrounds. It is probably convenient to dismiss out-of-hand any ideas that come from someone out of the mainstream, but you might miss some good opportunities to learn something that way. Even proving an idea wrong can give you a better understanding of what is likely to be right.

 

[tribdog]

Finally, one of my babies has grown into an adult thread :)

Ahh, the cockroach approach. Lay a billion eggs and hopefully one of them will actually survive

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, and the folks at Argonne National Lab (ANL) just happen to be the ones who generated the "standard code" for primordial nucleosythesis; way to go ANL!

I don't see what is the relevance of this thing to the thread.

I'm not defending anyone who is armed only with pop-science books on cosmology.

No, but your question on some particle physicist doing cosmology and starting out not having "... much knowledge on conventional cosmology..." seems to make comparison with everyone else who also do not have such knowledge - that, after all, is the original premise of the OP, no? I make a distinction between those two camps and say that there IS a difference in approach and respect, even if that particle physicsts didn't start off being a cosmologist. And we're ignoring the fact here that many aspect of physics are interrelated and have explicit connection.

Do what "things" out of ignorance? Think? Motivated exploration?

No, doing work in another field of study.

Zz.

 

[tribdog]

Popular science books are not ruining anything. They give enjoyment to everyday people and they let people get a better understanding of the world around them. So what if they don't have the math, Joe Blow isn't going to be working on a unification theory in his spare time anyway. Most pop sci books are at least giving a true version of theory even if they don't give the entire story. My grade school science classes didn't stimulate me into learning more nearly as much as Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps.

 

[Moonbear]

Not true. The ability to read the books and spout the contents of such on demand does not demonstrate an understanding of the material. Such a student may be "educated" by your standards, but memorization and obedient acceptance is rather antithetical to the goals of science.

SpaceTiger said someone needs to learn the material. That's quite different from rote memorization and regurgitation of material. He has also stated already that understanding is NOT the same thing as acceptance. As others have pointed out, if you do not know what the current theory really says, and understand it fully, how do you know where the problems are in it to challenge it?

Right now, conventional cosmology requires you to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day (thanks to L.C.). If you think that one must become an expert in that arcane puzzle factory before questioning its validity, you are missing the point of epistemology entirely. When a theory becomes very complex, highly constrained, and requires lots of fine-tuning, that should be a sign that there are some problems. When the problems stretch back for decades (like DM), that is a sign that flaws in the theory predate the discovery of the problem, and that the resolution of the problem requires re-examination of earlier assumptions.

Well, I know nothing of cosmology, but if what you say is true, then understanding those assumptions is what gives you the power to question them. If you don't understand them, how do you know to go back and re-examine them?

Ah, yes - pay your dues, learn the secret handshake, cross Pons Asinorum, and then you are qualified to have an original thought. Have you reviewed the history of the sciences? If you have, you know that breakthroughs have come from all quarters, and from people with a wide variety of backgrounds. It is probably convenient to dismiss out-of-hand any ideas that come from someone out of the mainstream, but you might miss some good opportunities to learn something that way. Even proving an idea wrong can give you a better understanding of what is likely to be right.

Why are you so bitter here? SpaceTiger didn't say anything to indicate formal education was the ONLY way to reach that goal, just that it makes it easier to gain acceptance because you've already gone through a documented process to show you really have learned what you needed to learn. If you haven't taken that route, then you're going to need to put more effort into proving yourself. It doesn't mean you can't learn a theory well enough to challenge it, it just means you're probably going to take a lot more time to do it and will have to spend more time convincing others you have the necessary background to propose what you do.

 

[Aether]

I don't see what is the relevance of this thing to the thread.

It is only relevant because I gave an example of "cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator", and "they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis", and then you (an employee of ANL) said "Cosmology IS already done in particle collider experiments and theory". That was simply meant as a pat on the back to the good folks at ANL, but I'll have to take it back anyway (sorry)...I just checked and it was Fermilab not ANL.

No, but your question on some particle physicist doing cosmology and starting out not having "... much knowledge on conventional cosmology..." seems to make comparison with everyone else who also do not have such knowledge - that, after all, is the original premise of the OP, no?

Cosmology probably intersects every other discipline at some point, and it's OK if someone having skills in a different area approaches cosmology from such an intersection.

I make a distinction between those two camps and say that there IS a difference in approach and respect, even if that particle physicsts didn't start off being a cosmologist. And we're ignoring the fact here that many aspect of physics are interrelated and have explicit connection.

"Those two camps" being: 1) those skilled in something/anything which intersects cosmology, and 2) those skilled in nothing (yet)?

No, doing work in another field of study.

Do you mean trying to publish something in another field of study? If/when your work/skills intersect another field of study, then surely you're entitled to pursue that wherever it might lead.

 

[Astronuc]

Before anyone posts anything else - please reflect on what Evo and Moonbear have mentioned.

Also, I think Integral put it succinctly

In Pop Sci books you learn ABOUT physics. This is not the same as learning Physics, which must be done in a real physics text.

I wouldn't say that Pop Sci books/literature has 'ruined' science, because science and the scientific method are what they are, regardless of what anyone 'believes'.

In my profession, having gone through the basics, and having done loads of calculations and analyses, I know where the holes are - and there are a lot. But people inside and outside the nuclear industry have either lofty ideas about nuclear energy, or quite the opposite, skepticism and even deep cynicism. I find that somewhat frustrating - but I don't let that ruin it for me.
I love what I do!

 

[ZapperZ]

It is only relevant because I gave an example of "cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator", and "they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis", and then you (an employee of ANL) said "Cosmology IS already done in particle collider experiments and theory". That was simply meant as a pat on the back to the good folks at ANL, but I'll have to take it back anyway (sorry)...I just checked and it was Fermilab not ANL.

1. ANL is a multi-displinary laboratory. It has a particle accelerator, but no particle collider. So someone from here involving in astrophysics and cosmology is not unusual. In fact, we have frequent seminars on cosmology in just my division alone.

2. It has a large portion of the high-energy physics division member that do work at Fermilab

3. It is run by U. of Chicago, and many of its scientists having adjunct position as faculty members there. And I'm you know that U of C is THE top school in astrophysics and cosmology - the legacy of David Schram.

4. And this is my pet peeve, particle accelerator is not equal to particle collider. I work at a particle accelerator, but we get no where near anything resembling cosmology. Particle collider are what high energy physicists use.

Cosmology probably intersects every other discipline at some point, and it's OK if someone having skills in a different area approaches cosmology from such an intersection.
"Those two camps" being: 1) those skilled in something/anything which intersects cosmology, and 2) those skilled in nothing (yet)?
Do you mean trying to publish something in another field of study? If/when your work/skills intersect another field of study, then surely you're entitled to pursue that wherever it might lead.

I don't think I've said anything to the contrary. However, if I am trying to contribute something that I think is "new", then I must first go look at the literature on the subject matter and verify that (i) no one has done it already (ii) it is something silly (iii) it isn't something "important" (remember, just because something is interesting, doesn't mean it is important) and (iv) it hasn't been falsified.

In other words, *I* have to do my own homework! I will have to scour through the literature, talk to people who are expert in the field, etc... etc. I don't just read pop-science books, or even intro textbooks to accomplish this!

I come from a condensed matter background, and about 3 years ago, I was hired but in a different field of study - accelerator physics. I spend almost 2 years catching up on it, studying stuff that I need to know in this new field, and even attending a couple of accelerator physics schools that is offered all over the place periodically. So *I* am living through the very thing most people simply describe via analogy or speculation. I know what it takes for someone from a different background to make a meaningful contribution in another field. This isn't a theory for me. It is real life. And I will state without hesitation that if someone wish to not look silly, it is imperative to put in the effort to understand the subject matter first before trying to sell something.

Zz.

 

[Aether]

However, if I am trying to contribute something that I think is "new", then I must first go look at the literature on the subject matter and verify that (i) no one has done it already (ii) it is something silly (iii) it isn't something "important" (remember, just because something is interesting, doesn't mean it is important) and (iv) it hasn't been falsified.
In other words, *I* have to do my own homework! I will have to scour through the literature, talk to people who are expert in the field, etc... etc. I don't just read pop-science books, or even intro textbooks to accomplish this!

Yes, but even before you would ever get to steps (i-iv) there would have to be some incubation period within your own mind during which you would try to gather together every conceivably relevant notion (to be sorted through in due time). Nevertheless, I'm only talking about science, not pop-science.

I know what it takes for someone from a different background to make a meaningful contribution in another field. This isn't a theory for me. It is real life. And I will state without hesitation that if someone wish to not look silly, it is imperative to put in the effort to understand the subject matter first before trying to sell something.

OK, but you seem to be only talking about the "back-end" of the scientific process where someone steps up to a microphone to tell everyone like it is. I'm thinking of the entire process from start to finish.

 

[turbo]

Popular science books are not ruining anything. They give enjoyment to everyday people and they let people get a better understanding of the world around them. So what if they don't have the math, Joe Blow isn't going to be working on a unification theory in his spare time anyway. Most pop sci books are at least giving a true version of theory even if they don't give the entire story. My grade school science classes didn't stimulate me into learning more nearly as much as Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps.

True, and books by Paul Davies, James Gleick, and other talented authors may inspire people to dig much deeper once they appreciate the sense of wonder that the authors have regarding their subjects.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, but even before you would ever get to steps (i-iv) there would have to be some incubation period within your own mind during which you would try to gather together every conceivably relevant notion (to be sorted through in due time). Nevertheless, I'm only talking about science, not pop-science.

OK, but you seem to be only talking about the "back-end" of the scientific process where someone steps up to a microphone to tell everyone like it is. I'm thinking of the entire process from start to finish.

Did you just make a switch? You never stated this before. All you did was to make an assertion about someone in another physics of physics intruding into cosmology (see the first post that I responded to you). So where is the initial "incubation" here? That person is similar to me.

You can falsify this by showing me another physicist who made another contribution in another field of physics without going through point i-iv.

Zz.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Moonbear addressed the other parts of your post pretty well, let me just comment on the cosmological aspects (though debates about cosmology probably belong in the astro forum).

Right now, conventional cosmology requires you to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day (thanks to L.C.).

This is complete nonsense. There is nothing in standard cosmology that runs against standard physical theory -- in fact, we think it's one of the very few working cosmological model that uses known physics. Most of the others have to modify GR.

If you think that one must become an expert in that arcane puzzle factory before questioning its validity, you are missing the point of epistemology entirely. When a theory becomes very complex, highly constrained, and requires lots of fine-tuning, that should be a sign that there are some problems.

Standard cosmology is not nearly as complex as you say. With the appropriate background in math and physics, LCDM is a very natural and straightforward extension. This is yet another reason why it's important to study the foundations of the theory before trying to denounce or challenge it. Until you've gotten your hands dirty, you just won't have any perspective.

When the problems stretch back for decades (like DM), that is a sign that flaws in the theory predate the discovery of the problem, and that the resolution of the problem requires re-examination of earlier assumptions.

There are groups of professional astronomers working on alternatives to dark matter theory (like MOND), but they just can't fit the data as well. Dark matter is not just a "fix" anymore, it's a well-developed theory with specific predictions. We've questioned our assumptions and questioned our theories, but so far, they've held strong. At the moment, I don't really see it as a problem.

 

[Aether]

Did you just make a switch?

I don't think so.

You never stated this before. All you did was to make an assertion about someone in another physics of physics intruding into cosmology (see the first post that I responded to you). So where is the initial "incubation" here? That person is similar to me.

Here is the initial "incubation" period:

"...a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator? They may not start out with much knowledge of conventional cosmology at all, but they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis, for example..."

You can falsify this by showing me another physicist who made another contribution in another field of physics without going through point i-iv.

I didn't say that steps i-iv aren't important, only that an incubation period typically comes first.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't think so.
Here is the initial "incubation" period:

"...a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator? They may not start out with much knowledge of conventional cosmology at all, but they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis, for example..."

I didn't say that steps i-iv aren't important, only that an incubation period typically comes first.

I disagree. This is just speculation without proof that such a thing actually occurs. I can easily speculate that such a thing doesn't occur, and how are you going to prove that I'm wrong? I can prove my point by pointing out that I haven't seen such a case, and you haven't proven your point.

My point, which you have missed, is that for that "someone" who is working at a particle collider to make a "new cosmological theory" would have to know what is already established. If not, how else does one know it is new?

It has always been my assertion that if one is ignorant of the state of a field of study, one will never know what is "new" even if it comes up and bites one's rear end. Particle physicists are keenly aware of cosmology. The MINOS project is one such example. This clearly proves my point that anything "new" has to be accompanied by knowledge. You'll never know that what you do or discover can be meaningful to cosmology if you have no clue what cosmology is.

Zz.

 

[SpaceTiger]

This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator? They may not start out with much knowledge of conventional cosmology at all, but they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis, for example.

People need to understand whatever it is they're trying to challenge. Measuring the cross section of a particle (for example) is not itself a direct challenge of standard cosmology until it is put within a proper context. If the particle physicist wanted to go and apply it to cosmology, they would have to learn a few things about primordial nucleosynthesis, crunch the numbers, and give us a new helium abundance (again, for example). If it turned out that this new number was inconsistent with measurements, then we might require fundamental modifications to cosmology. If the same experimenter wanted to do this, they would have to continue studying, developing a more complete picture of standard cosmology. Then maybe they could write a paper with a new theory of the origin of the universe.

All along the way, it is important that those things which are being changed are understood by the person changing them. If they fail to do so, it's likely they will, at best, make a lot of errors. At worst, their theory could be completely wrong.

If what you mean by "challenge the establishment" is a formal and public challenge, then I agree that it is better if one comes to an understanding of what they are talking about first. Otherwise, people have to be generally free to explore in the mean time.

I certainly never suggested that people within a certain sub-field are the only ones allowed to contribute to it.

 

[Aether]

My point, which you have missed, is that for that "someone" who is working at a particle collider to make a "new cosmological theory" would have to know what is already established. If not, how else does one know it is new?

If someone who is "working" at a particle collider learns something new about particle collisions, then that person may wonder how this extrapolates to cosmology; assuming that this person is not completely ignorant of the world around them. Then that person may take this as motivation to study cosmology to resolve a specific question in their own mind. They have no need (starting out) to know everything that is already established, and may in fact benefit greatly from their initial ignorance of such knowledge.

It has always been my assertion that if one is ignorant of the state of a field of study, one will never know what is "new" even if it comes up and bites one's rear end.

Take Penzias & Wilson for example, they discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) having not a clue (at first) what it was that they were looking at.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp65co.html

Particle physicists are keenly aware of cosmology. The MINOS project is one such example. This clearly proves my point that anything "new" has to be accompanied by knowledge. You'll never know that what you do or discover can be meaningful to cosmology if you have no clue what cosmology is.

Tell that to Penzias & Wilson!

 

[ZapperZ]

If someone who is "working" at a particle collider learns something new about particle collisions, then that person may wonder how this extrapolates to cosmology; assuming that this person is not completely ignorant of the world around them. Then that person may take this as motivation to study cosmology to resolve a specific question in their own mind. They have no need (starting out) to know everything that is already established, and may in fact benefit greatly from their initial ignorance of such knowledge.
Take Penzias & Wilson for example, they discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) having not a clue (at first) what it was that they were looking at.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp65co.html
Tell that to Penzias & Wilson!

But YOU are the one extrapolating, not them! They discovered CMB! Period. They did not go on to use them at that time to extrapolate the whole of the origin of our cosmology. Do you see the difference?

It took many years before the significance of the CMB, even after repeated measurement, is understood. Someone who discover something should report it as that, and NOT make this as some cosmological theory. You might as well argue that the persons who discovered the electrons are doing Cosmology! This is absurd!

Besides, look at all the argument on here being done by so many other people who are refusing to study the field they want to stick their noses in. How many of you are experimentalists? How many? I can't hear you!

This means that a lot of you are theorists, or think you are theorists. Now tell me how you are going to discover a "new anything" in cosmology without understanding cosmology. I am an experimentalist. I can discover something new if I'm lucky, and that may be relevant in another field, even if I don't understand that field. A valid observation is a valid observation, no matter where. But show me where some theorist who discovered something new in another field without putting any effort in that field.

Zz.

 

[Aether]

People need to understand whatever it is they're trying to challenge.

At some point they need to come to an understanding of this, but this doesn't necessaily have to be a starting point. Penzias & Wilson had data, and then figured out what to make of it.

Measuring the cross section of a particle (for example) is not itself a direct challenge of standard cosmology until it is put within a proper context. If the particle physicist wanted to go and apply it to cosmology, they would have to learn a few things about primordial nucleosynthesis, crunch the numbers, and give us a new helium abundance (again, for example). If it turned out that this new number was inconsistent with measurements, then we might require fundamental modifications to cosmology. If the same experimenter wanted to do this, they would have to continue studying, developing a more complete picture of standard cosmology. Then maybe they could write a paper with a new theory of the origin of the universe.

I agree.

All along the way, it is important that those things which are being changed are understood by the person changing them. If they fail to do so, it's likely they will, at best, make a lot of errors. At worst, their theory could be completely wrong.

Those "things which are being changed" need to be understood eventually, but all along the way? When will you be prepared to say "Now I am ready, and understand everything that I need to know"?

 

[Aether]

But YOU are the one extrapolating, not them! They discovered CMB! Period. They did not go on to use them at that time to extrapolate the whole of the origin of our cosmology. Do you see the difference?

The point is that they came upon an important clue without having any uncommon advance knowledge of cosmology. If anyone else comes upon such a clue in the couse of their work, then why shouldn't they pursue it if they so desire?

It took many years before the significance of the CMB, even after repeated measurement, is understood. Someone who discover something should report it as that, and NOT make this as some cosmological theory.

It is their choice how to pursue it. If they want to report it, that's fine. If they want to study it and try to make a theory out of it then that is fine too.

Besides, look at all the argument on here being done by so many other people who are refusing to study the field they want to stick their noses in.

There is no excuse for that.

How many of you are experimentalists? How many? I can't hear you!

I am an experimentalist.

This means that a lot of you are theorists, or think you are theorists.

What is wrong with that?

Now tell me how you are going to discover a "new anything" in cosmology without understanding cosmology.

Tell that to Penzias & Wilson! If you mean to limit this to "pure theorists" who are not guided by some more-or-less tangible motivation, then I agree.

I am an experimentalist. I can discover something new if I'm lucky, and that may be relevant in another field, even if I don't understand that field. A valid observation is a valid observation, no matter where. But show me where some theorist who discovered something new in another field without putting any effort in that field.

A pure theorist, or wannabe theorist, probably does need to formally study a subject from the ground up. An experimentalist, or specialist in any field, may be motivated from something that they have learned to explore applications of their knowledge within any other field.

 

[ZapperZ]

The point is that they came upon an important clue without having any uncommon advance knowledge of cosmology. If anyone else comes upon such a clue in the couse of their work, then why shouldn't they pursue it if they so desire?

Oh great. Then you're saying everyone on the Nobel Prize list in Physics are cosmologist, because, y'know, all of those, even electron microscopes, have made discoveries that adds to our undertanding of cosmology.

Oh hey, then I'm doing cosmology too! Fancy that!

I am an experimentalist.
What is wrong with that?
Tell that to Penzias & Wilson!
A pure theorist, or wannabe theorist, probably does need to formally study a subject from the ground up. An experimentalist, or specialist in any field, may be motivated from something that they have learned to explore applications of their knowledge within any other field.

Experimentalists produces reproducible facts. Unless you are psychic, you have little idea of the significance of that fact in OTHER fields. Do you think Penzias and Wilson were formulating the origin of the universe? No! They discovered a non-terrestrial signal! Done! It took cosmologists and astrophysicists to put that discovery into perspective - to give it a MEANINGFUL place. We had to do several other mapping of the CMB to really gain enough data to actually gain useful knowledge of it.

You might as well say that everyone is working in everyone's field. So now let me referee your paper and we'll see how much you appreciate my expertise in your field.

Zz.

 

[Aether]

Oh great. Then you're saying everyone on the Nobel Prize list in Physics are cosmologist, because, y'know, all of those, even electron microscopes, have made discoveries that adds to our undertanding of cosmology. Oh hey, then I'm doing cosmology too! Fancy that!

I didn't say that. if you had Penzias & Wilson's data in-hand before it was released, wouldn't you make an effort to search out the implications to the best of your ability prior to reporting the discovery?

Experimentalists produces reproducible facts. Unless you are psychic, you have little idea of the significance of that fact in OTHER fields.

Sometimes when one is holding a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

Do you think Penzias and Wilson were formulating the origin of the universe? No! They discovered a non-terrestrial signal! Done! It took cosmologists and astrophysicists to put that discovery into perspective - to give it a MEANINGFUL place.

Perhaps.

We had to do several other mapping of the CMB to really gain enough data to actually gain useful knowledge of it.

Wasn't the monopole temperature immediately useful?

So now let me referee your paper and we'll see how much you appreciate my expertise in your field.

Now that you are a moderator of "Independent Research", this might really happen one day.

 

[ZapperZ]

I didn't say that. if you had Penzias & Wilson's data in-hand before it was released, wouldn't you make an effort to search out the implications to the best of your ability prior to reporting the discovery?

Not if I have no clue of what the data MEANS and if I have no idea what cosmology is. But I've already said this. Someone can take a data, a discovery, a technique, etc. and use it in an area in which he or she is an expert of. I know photoemission. The accelerator physics people here want me to use my expertise and apply it to photoinjectors. But before I can do that, I have to learn what is a photoinjector, how it works, what are the needs of accelerator physics community, what physics are they trying to study, etc.. etc. so that I can make MEANINGFUL contribution. Just photoemission alone is worthless to them! A set of data or even knowledge without being adopted into a proper context is useless! To be able to adopt it into useful form, now THAT requires the knowledge of a particular field.

Now that you are a moderator of "Independent Research", this might really happen one day.

Exactly. So if I give you a negative review, don't ever use the argument that I know nothing about your field. I, on the other hand, would never recommend you to review my papers.

Zz.

 

[Aether]

A set of data or even knowledge without being adopted into a proper context is useless! To be able to adopt it into useful form, now THAT requires the knowledge of a particular field.

Such knowledge can be acquired, one doesn't necessarily need to have it all to begin with.

Exactly. So if I give you a negative review, don't ever use the argument that I know nothing about your field.

Why not?

I, on the other hand, would never recommend you to review my papers.

I haven't claimed to be a particle accelerator expert, so what are you implying?

 

[ZapperZ]

Such knowledge can be acquired, one doesn't necessarily need to have it all to begin with.

Then go acquire it and we'll talk.

I haven't claimed to be a particle accelerator expert, so what are you implying?

I implied nothing. You seem to think everyone that produced something that eventually gets used in a particular field, are people who should be considered to be experts in that field. Just because someone discovered the CMB somehow meant that they're doing astrophysics and cosmology and are already equipped to deal with that field. This is what I earlier said to be absurd. Just because I work with electron sources and how they behave in vacuum does not make me a cosmologist.

Bottom line: for someone to call him or herself to be a cosmologist and make MEANINGFUL contribution, he/she must acquire the knowledge of that field. If you disagree, say so and tell me why. If not, this conversation is over because I refuse to continue going around in circles.

Zz.

 

[Aether]

I implied nothing.

OK.

You seem to think everyone that produced something that eventually gets used in a particular field, are people who should be considered to be experts in that field. Just because someone discovered the CMB somehow meant that they're doing astrophysics and cosmology and are already equipped to deal with that field. This is what I earlier said to be absurd. Just because I work with electron sources and how they behave in vacuum does not make me a cosmologist.

Not at all. I'm saying that it isn't unusual for a line of inquiry to lead into unknown territory, and that people can cope with that situation by learning a subset of another field (as opposed to dropping everything to go run out and get another PhD).

Bottom line: for someone to call him or herself to be a cosmologist and make MEANINGFUL contribution, he/she must acquire the knowledge of that field. If you disagree, say so and tell me why.

I disagree, but only because "he/she must acquire the knowledge of that field" is not properly limited so as to be a practical expectation. I would agree that "for someone to call him or herself to be a cosmologist and make MEANINGFUL contribution, he/she must acquire some knowledge of that field." How much "knowledge of that field" is sufficient depends on the circumstances. If a person isn't motivated by something tangible from another field that they already do know something about, and they are interested in making an incremental advance to the field, then yes this person probably needs to acquire a more thorough knowledge of the field.

If not, this conversation is over because I refuse to continue going around in circles.

 

[SpaceTiger]

some examples...

This is not the place to discuss the ins and outs of cosmology. None of the things you listed are impossible in modern physics. If you would like an explanation, please feel free to start a thread in the A&C forum. I will be happy to elaborate, as I'm sure will be the other resident experts.

 

[SpaceTiger]

At some point they need to come to an understanding of this, but this doesn't necessaily have to be a starting point. Penzias & Wilson had data, and then figured out what to make of it.

Penzias & Wilson were not responsible for the theoretical prediction or explanation of the microwave background, they just described the observations:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...xt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1"

As they say in the abstract, the theoretical explanation was provided by:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...pe=HTML&format=&high=424800249007954"

If I dig up some rare dinosaur bones while weeding my garden, does that make me a "dreamer"? Penzias & Wilson had no aspirations to change cosmology when they made their observations, so it would seem to be irrelevant to what turbo and I were talking about.

 

[Aether]

Penzias & Wilson were not responsible for the theoretical prediction or explanation of the microwave background, they just described the observations: As they say in the abstract, the theoretical explanation was provided by: Dicke, Peebles, Roll, & Wilson 1965

OK, that is correct.

If I dig up some rare dinosaur bones while weeding my garden, does that make me a "dreamer"?

That depends on you, doesn't it?

Penzias & Wilson had no aspirations to change cosmology when they made their observations, so it would seem to be irrelevant to what turbo and I were talking about.

I said: "This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator?"

Then we agreed on this:

Measuring the cross section of a particle (for example) is not itself a direct challenge of standard cosmology until it is put within a proper context. If the particle physicist wanted to go and apply it to cosmology, they would have to learn a few things about primordial nucleosynthesis, crunch the numbers, and give us a new helium abundance (again, for example). If it turned out that this new number was inconsistent with measurements, then we might require fundamental modifications to cosmology. If the same experimenter wanted to do this, they would have to continue studying, developing a more complete picture of standard cosmology. Then maybe they could write a paper with a new theory of the origin of the universe.

Penzias & Wilson are just an example of how someone can be led to a frontier of cosmology by questions arising within their own seemingly unrelated field. Had they not hooked-up with Dicke, Peebles, Roll, & Wilson, they might just as easily have gone to a research library and inquired into cosmology for themselves. A cursory literature search should have turned up Dicke, Beringer, Kyhl, and Vane, Phys. Rev., 70, 340, 1946. I don't have that paper, but (Dicke et al., 1965) seems to suggest that everything may have been laid out in there if Penzias & Wilson had simply bothered to look.

 

[turbo]

This is not the place to discuss the ins and outs of cosmology. None of the things you listed are impossible in modern physics. If you would like an explanation, please feel free to start a thread in the A&C forum. I will be happy to elaborate, as I'm sure will be the other resident experts.

I pointed out above that this would be OT, and I have started a new thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105433

 

[tribdog]

I think this is all a bunch of "white, dielectric material" and I wouldn't have known what that was without pop sci.