Where to find nonprofessional collaborators/science friends?

[Jeredin]

I've been studying cosmology and physics for nearly 20 years as a nonprofessional, as a hobbyist. I've found forums fantastic for general public discussion but sometimes shallow as it depends on activity and a bit of luck on who chooses to comment. As I'm new and exploring this forum, have I missed a good thread for trying to make science friends or collaborators on ideas? I have no interest in disrupting the mainstream forum with prohibited personal pet-theory developments and the like, so I'm desperately seeking a means of meeting others while following rules here. I've tried discord science channels for this but activity is very random. I'm severally intellectually lonely and just want a deeper science friend/collaborator than what public discussions allow.

Thanks for any advice, guidance or insight.

 

[WWGD]

Have you considered science meetups in your area
https://www.meetup.com/
?

 

[berkeman]

Do you have any universities nearby where you live? If so, check out their Physics department to see if they have any meetings or colloquia coming up. If you can attend, you might start to find some folks that you can have informal discussions with.

Do you have a community college near you? If so, you could take some part-time Physics classes to see if you enjoy that, as well as start to meet others with an interest in Physics.

 

[WWGD]

Just make sure, if you look online, Google doesn't switch ' Cosmology', to ' Cosmetology', as happened with my friend.

 

[jrmichler]

I've been studying cosmology and physics for nearly 20 years as a nonprofessional

I see the incompleteness and conservatism in physics/cosmology.

Then you should be able to start discussions at a level that engages the experts on this site. Give it a try. Just be careful to work on filling gaps in your knowledge, and stay away from proposing personal theories.

 

[WWGD]

Then you should be able to start discussions at a level that engages the experts on this site. Give it a try. Just be careful to work on filling gaps in your knowledge, and stay away from proposing personal theories.

I understood he's looking for ways to engage in personal contact, rather than (only?) online.

 

[berkeman]

Just make sure, if you look online, Google doesn't switch ' Cosmology', to ' Cosmetology', as happened with my friend.

Or Psychic Cosmetology. Don't even get me started!

 

[Jeredin]

Then you should be able to start discussions at a level that engages the experts on this site. Give it a try. Just be careful to work on filling gaps in your knowledge, and stay away from proposing personal theories

Then you should be able to start discussions at a level that engages the experts on this site. Give it a try. Just be careful to work on filling gaps in your knowledge, and stay away from proposing personal theories.

I suppose that's my main issue: my personal theories - and interest in other's. I'm one of those MOND guys, who has a lot of issues with "mainstream" proposals for just about anything with "black," or "dark," in their names. I dislike meta/crackpot science too, so I understand prohibiting all personal theories on the forum, and that's why I've been looking for somewhere to find like-minded non-professionals - "there's dozens of us!" (sorry, it was too temping)

 

[Jeredin]

I understood he's looking for ways to engage in personal contact, rather than (only?) online.

Online is actually best, but even online there's a lot of understandable barriers and difficulties finding another non-professional who's like-minded and, for lack of better wording, is looking for a science pen-pal.

 

[dlgoff]

Then you should be able to start discussions at a level that engages the experts on this site.

Yes indeed.

 

[PeroK]

I suppose that's my main issue: my personal theories - and interest in other's. I'm one of those MOND guys, who has a lot of issues with "mainstream" proposals for just about anything with "black," or "dark," in their names.

Here's the thing. Physics isn't like music or literature or art, where you can like or dislike things based on personal preference. You don't pick and choose theories like you choose pizza toppings. Maybe you don't like anchovies - that's fine. But, it's unscientific to dislike mainstream proposals.

I dislike meta/crackpot science too, so I understand prohibiting all personal theories on the forum, and that's why I've been looking for somewhere to find like-minded non-professionals

Most amateurs, like myself, who are interesting in studying science are drawn to the mainstream. There's no choice in mathematics, as challenges to established mathematics are generally crackpottery. There's one here at the moment.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/criticism-of-the-doctrine-of-infinity.1059025/

And in physics, unless you delve very deeply into one area, you are not in a position to take sides - although you can watch the debate with interest.

Given your anti-mainsteam criteria, your pen-pals are most likely to be crackpots, I'm sorry to say.

 

[robphy]

Off the main topic ....

Just make sure, if you look online, Google doesn't switch ' Cosmology', to ' Cosmetology', as happened with my friend.

From an old thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/most-commonly-misspelled-science-and-math-words.1046830/page-2

Astrology and cosmetology.

That actually happened to Lise Meitner:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/collection-of-science-jokes-p2.847743/page-8#post-5717287

It also happened to Lisa Randall when she visited my grad school to give a talk.

More detail... the student paper announced her talk in the physics department
and described her as a cosmetologist from Harvard.

 

[robphy]

On topic....

look for one of these
http://cafescientifique.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Café_Scientifique

 

[WWGD]

Off the main topic ....
From an old thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/most-commonly-misspelled-science-and-math-words.1046830/page-2More detail... the student paper announced her talk in the physics department
and described her as a cosmetologist from Harvard.

There was a related situation where this person signed up for a Real Analysis class, thinking it was about Real Estate. Hey, it's unusual, but understandable. The weird thing is it took him like 2 months to figure out he was in the wrong class.

 

[Hill]

it took him like 2 months to figure out he was in the wrong class

and then he changed his major.

 

[Vanadium 50]

A word of warning. While universities are generally pleased when people from outside come and hear talks and colloquia and such, most professors have little patience for such people knocking on their doors. It's a natural reaction - there are already uninformed people who bang on professors' doors saying "You knucklehead! You're doing it all wrong!". The are called Deans.

 

[weirdoguy]

I'm one of those MOND guys, who has a lot of issues with "mainstream" proposals for just about anything with "black," or "dark," in their names.

I assume those issues are based on reading proper textbooks and scientific papers, aren't they?

 

[gleem]

I've been studying cosmology and physics for nearly 20 years as a nonprofessional, as a hobbyist. I've found forums fantastic for general public discussion but sometimes shallow as it depends on activity and a bit of luck on who chooses to comment.

This begs the question of what is your background and education and studying how?

I'm one of those MOND guys, who has a lot of issues with "mainstream" proposals for just about anything with "black," or "dark," in their names.

So you have questions about current physics and cosmology studies which you find a bit off track as far as you are concerned. Trying to connect with "like-minded" non-professionals to discuss your issues may result in a case of the blind leading the blind. If you want answers, go to those who know.

 

[Jeredin]

This begs the question of what is your background and education and studying how?So you have questions about current physics and cosmology studies which you find a bit off track as far as you are concerned. Trying to connect with "like-minded" non-professionals to discuss your issues may result in a case of the blind leading the blind. If you want answers, go to those who know.

Again, non-professional and study science in my spare time. The bulk of my studying early on was reading text books that did little better than decent Wiki articles, on any subject from electromagnetism, general/special reactivity, basics of quantum mechanics (and all therein) and then trying to force the math into an understanding - that did not work well for me.

I'd say the last ~5 years have been insanely fun as old subjects have been given new light. At that time I started casually watching some PBS or similar caliber (no personal youtube channels) science videos and when the presenters gave some interesting examples or visuals, considerations and/or context, I was able to rush back to the math and almost restudy everything again with a new perspective. In the last ~5 years, I've been able to read research papers more intuitively. I always hated quantum mechanics because almost every public speaker focused on how "weird," the quantum level is - I now know that's just not true. But I also took time to restudy the uncertainy princple and interferances from "observations" and so on, discovering better intuitive perspectives on their mechanics; there's some really good sciencehistorians on Youtube too.

Before my recent resurgence I was so confused with chromodynamics, strong force and particle zoo/quark sea, and now I have a stronger, deeper understanding. Moreover, studying quantum mechanics has been a force multiplier for cosmology; the subject which got me started some 20 years ago. All I was taught as a teen was classical physics. Now I feel far more confident reading papers about galaxy fillaments, super novae mechanics, element/particle production (neutrinos are my favorite), neutron/quark stars (I'm also one of those guys) and the list goes on.

All that said, I've tried to avoid string theory, although I think initially it's a fun and intriguing. I have studied some classic theories, like aether (depending on who's spelling you prefer) and out of all the "unpopular" science, I'd say MOND (a few developing models interest me) is the only one that's stuck. We'd be better off deverting some dark matter research funds and put it into inproving studies of 0.Energy (the quantum aether, if you will) or MOND. The stanard model (for particle physics) is not fully satifying, for far too many reasons to write here, but I study the condensed matter field and thankfully quantum mechanics seems far more understood there; more degrees of freedom Vs particle accelarators - which at least inform me more in regards to cosmology. The last "unpopular" view I have is in regards to black holes: I think too many theoretical scentists have taken too many mathamatical liberties in their discriptions at and beyond the eventhorizon, as well as their interpitations of observations - which JWST is improving, mind you. I think Roy Kerr is not only on the right track (I still love you Penrose) but his most recent paper is the best theoritical research I've come across since piecing together MOND - understanding that, it is still a work in progress. In short, and I don't think Kerr is implying this, but I think if one studies neuton stars and magnetars enough, then extends that study into theoretcal quark stars (fun stuff), it's not difficult to explore the thought that black holes are just extreme quark stars - perhaps celetial hadrons with mainly, if only, quantum mechanical discriptions. I think Kerr's right to believe that, "when Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are melded it will be shown that there are no singularities anywhere." (singularities from non-rotating, physics smashing, popular images that are protrayed publically). I'll stop there.

Even writing all this has been intelectually cathartic, but I'm not really interested in debating randoms online about science - I feel too old for that. There's most certainly a lot left for me to learn and just about any decent forum is fine for those questions. What I really want now is to collaborate, if only for fun, to develope some physical discriptions as we've researched them (obviously siting proper science), because I don't have the time or money to pursue what a younger me passed up. Even if I can't or shouldn't publish, I'd still enjoy roleplaying as if I could or should.

 

[Vanadium 50]

that black holes are just extreme quark stars

Is this published? While there are papers that suggest some smaller BH's are actually quark stars, as far as I know, there are none that suggest the larger ones - all but one that have been identified thus far, for example - are.

And that's a problem - when you detach your conclusions from what has gone before (mostly data) you are no longer doing science but instead picking which pizza toppings you like. Which is why we don't do that here, and why we require published sources and not "it seems to me".

 

[Astronuc]

that black holes are just extreme quark stars

Perhaps some black holes.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/400/3/1632/962273

It would be more appropriate to ask 'what do we expect the conditions of a black hole to be a quark star," which apparently is still hypothetical, although someone (RK Thakur) suggests at least two 'putative' neutron stars "show evidence of being quark stars." Ok, then, what evidence?

R.K.Thakur - Do Black Holes End up as Quark Stars ?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702671 - while the manuscript was apparently submitted to A&A, it does not appear to have been accepted.

On the other hand, Thakur's work has been cited af PF before, with concerns expressed.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/big-bang-inflation-r-k-thakur-general-physics.483001/

This is why peer-reviewed articles are required for discussion, and why personal theories are prohibited - unless they are cited in an acceptable peer-reviewed article - and even then, PF may find a personal theory unacceptable.

One can certainly post questions here at PF regarding the literature in order to see if one's understanding of the literature is correct.

 

[Jeredin]

Is this published? While there are papers that suggest some smaller BH's are actually quark stars, as far as I know, there are none that suggest the larger ones - all but one that have been identified thus far, for example - are.

And that's a problem - when you detach your conclusions from what has gone before (mostly data) you are no longer doing science but instead picking which pizza toppings you like. Which is why we don't do that here, and why we require published sources and not "it seems to me".

I feel a little more context of what I wrote is needed: "study into theoretical quark stars (fun stuff), it's not difficult to explore the thought that black holes are just extreme quark stars - perhaps celestial hadrons with mainly, if only, quantum mechanical descriptions."

I put in bold what seems misinterpreted; I was dumping a stream of thought at the time but tried to stress the theoretical and musings at the possibilities. In hind sight I think I might have wrote some things differently - or not at all; I was excited at the time. I do feel that I've received some decent leads and allowed me to consider some other options for trying to find someone to get to know close in regards to discussing science and perhaps collaborate.

Respectfully, I thank you and the others here for advice. Now, I think I'll be off to make some okonomiyaki...not the same as a personal pizza, but still fits the observable description of what delicious umami should be.