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

[sophiecentaur]

The untutored genius is not likely to appear here, but I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the "personal theory" restriction applied. When the OP gives the response of "thank you, that helped to clarify the matter", it appears the "personal theory" might be worthy of some merit. There is always the trade-off that the Forum could become a circus of personal theories and inaccurate information, but good physics often comes with a series of iterations. Perhaps this has already been tried and it didn't work, thereby the need for the tighter control.

I don't think that the sort of person you are referring to it would ever commit a 'personal theory' offence. In fact, a small advance would be unlikely to be classed as a type B idea. They would start by having a conventional conversation and establish some cred before leaping in with the Type B Bomb. So I think the Forum is already open to them.
This would assume, of course, that their posts were of a reasonable standard of politeness and presentation and not the sort of gauche rantings that we sometimes get. A personal theory written in text speak would never get off the ground.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I asked almost the exact same question about 8 years ago.
I got some awesome answers: What should us kooks do when we see evidence that leads to exotic speculation?

Funny thing is, I never asked the question that I was referring to.

But people are very fond of your off the wall contributions and have been for the past years. You can get as kookie as you like and you get away with it.

 

[Charles Link]

I don't think that the sort of person you are referring to it would ever commit a 'personal theory' offence. In fact, a small advance would be unlikely to be classed as a type B idea. They would start by having a conventional conversation and establish some cred before leaping in with the Type B Bomb. So I think the Forum is already open to them.
This would assume, of course, that their posts were of a reasonable standard of politeness and presentation and not the sort of gauche rantings that we sometimes get. A personal theory written in text speak would never get off the ground.

I am still quite new to the website, but was scolded for it before I established any significant credibility. I still think those posts had some scientific merit, but I am more careful in introducing any subject matter that might be deemed controversial.

 

[OmCheeto]

But people are very fond of your off the wall contributions and have been for the past years. You can get as kookie as you like and you get away with it.

hmmmm... Maybe I'll run over to the High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics section, and finally ask the question.
Hopefully they don't ask why I'm asking, as it involves, gulp, warp drive...

 

[Drakkith]

I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?

You can always PM myself, another mentor, or Greg himself.

 

[mfb]

On PF, you mean? I don't think (s)he'd have been recognised.

No, in general. There is always the argument "but this group has such a hard time" where this group is simply nonexistent.

The untutored genius is not likely to appear here, but I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the "personal theory" restriction applied.

Those threads are usually fine, and not personal theories. There are publications explicitely mentioning discussion here. That is not the "what if gravity is really [random word]" style this insight article is about.

 

[PeterDonis]

I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the "personal theory" restriction applied.

Once again: is the "small advance" just explaining something that is part of accepted science, but isn't covered in textbooks? There are many, many such things. As I said before, if it's accepted science, there will be some source you can point to, and then summarize in your own words if you think that will help the questioner understand. This is all well within the PF rules, and in fact it happens regularly, particularly in the forums like Beyond the Standard Model where a lot of the science being discussed is too new to have made it into textbooks.

OTOH, if the "small advance" is something that isn't part of accepted science, but you think it ought to be, then PF is not the place to make that case. The best you could possibly do would be to get the attention of a PF member who happens to also have the ability and willingness to help you get your new idea written up in a form in which it could get proper review. But that process won't take place here on PF; that's not what PF is for.

 

[PeterDonis]

I am still quite new to the website, but was scolded for it before I established any significant credibility. I still think those posts had some scientific merit

Can you give specific examples? Feel free to PM me links to them if you would prefer not to link to them in a public discussion thread.

 

[Charles Link]

Can you give specific examples? Feel free to PM me links to them if you would prefer not to link to them in a public discussion thread.

PM is much better for this. I think I have some interesting physics which i just sent you a PM and a "link".

 

[sophiecentaur]

I'm afraid that this thread has now strayed into the 'Galileo and the Spanish Inquisition' neck of the woods. PF is perfectly tolerant of almost anything as long as it's presented in a non-loony and polite way. It's always quite possible use the 'my friend thinks XYZ and I am trying to put him right' approach, if you think you're pushing your luck. Frankly, if somebody can't present the 'new' idea in a reasonable way, it probably really is nonsense and it's no great loss for PF or the World.
I think I'm out of here.

 

[Giovanniontheweb]

Human is indeed a motivation-driven being, if I’m spending my time typing on this small keyboard is not because I care about transmitting to you any useful information but because I do care about my inner integrity.
I did appreciate few last posts about pop science that I’ve found well done, with care and relevant background, as you can share when you are around 18 with friends of yours.
I’ve been surprised lately about how many questions coming from kids I could’t answer when my clock says 50 turns, neither I feel confortable to say that courious pop science people are less knowledgeble than myself . I do understand bad engineering as it comes around and, by axtrapolation I might understand scientist’s mood. As well, I do acknowledge most of the relevant humans’ discoveries happen by mistake and the following points look clear to me
a) Detecting scientific mistakes happen in the labs where common people spend very limited time
b) The so called scientists are very much format in their own thinking path that makes them at the same time very clever and very limited
Well, nothing is lost, common to all beings, including the so called animals, looks to be curiosity, I hope I’ll be able to deal with my neibour’s kid next question, maybe we will have less pop science in the future and more real scientists..

 

[Drakkith]

As well, I do acknowledge most of the relevant humans’ discoveries happen by mistake

I'd disagree with this. While there are "accidental" discoveries, I'd say the vast majority of scientific knowledge comes from discoveries made by people who devoted years of their time to something. In other words, they were actively investigating something in an attempt to understand it.

b) The so called scientists are very much format in their own thinking path that makes them at the same time very clever and very limited

I strongly disagree with this as well and I caution people about criticizing scientists as a whole in this manner. The fact is that scientists are all individuals with a wide variety of skills, interests, ways of thinking, and attitudes. They run the entire spectrum of personalities and morality, just like the rest of the population. The only difference between a scientist and a non-scientist is the former is usually in a profession dedicated to science, while the latter is usually not. There is nothing inherently limiting about scientists that isn't present everywhere else in humanity.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

I'd disagree with this. While there are "accidental" discoveries, I'd say the vast majority of scientific knowledge comes from discoveries made by people who devoted years of their time to something. In other words, they were actively investigating something in an attempt to understand it.
I strongly disagree with this as well and I caution people about criticizing scientists as a whole in this manner. The fact is that scientists are all individuals with a wide variety of skills, interests, ways of thinking, and attitudes. They run the entire spectrum of personalities and morality, just like the rest of the population. The only difference between a scientist and a non-scientist is the former is usually in a profession dedicated to science, while the latter is usually not. There is nothing inherently limiting about scientists that isn't present everywhere else in humanity.

While incremental discoveries are made throughout scientists' lives, important theoretical breakthroughs tend to be concentrated in young scientists before they become too set in their ways. Of course there are lots of exceptions and caveats, but the period between learning and teaching seems critical to understanding new ideas.

"I don't understand why..." seems critical to breakthroughs.

 

[ebos]

I like to think that most people have a teeny bit of the "B" type inside. Just like the Rock Star scenario... or the potential Cult Hero. Yeah, I think that's me - the Cult Hero. Although shredding that Fender Strat in front of 100,000 screaming fans does run a close second. Anyways, now I can also accept the "B" Side scientist ; )

 

[nasu]

As well, I do acknowledge most of the relevant humans’ discoveries happen by mistake and the following points look clear to me

This may be true in some areas of knowledge (like America was discovered by "mistake", for example).
But this thread started as a discussion about theories in science. These are not discovered by accident. Actually they are not even "discovered". They are created by people with a purpose in mind.
Not all of human achievement is due to "discovery", accidental or purposeful.
A lot is due to creative work. And this includes not only literature, arts, music etc. but scientific theories as well.
A good theory does not require less creativity than a good novel. And usually more time, hard work and some genius too.

 

[Drakkith]

While incremental discoveries are made throughout scientists' lives, important theoretical breakthroughs tend to be concentrated in young scientists before they become too set in their ways.

Even if these breakthroughs are concentrated in young scientists, I don't agree that the main reason is because they aren't set in their ways. I think there are plenty of other possibilities. Older scientists tend to take on supervisory or managerial roles for one thing. And I don't necessarily agree that these breakthroughs are concentrated in younger scientists. But I admit I haven't delved into the details of this subject before.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Even if these breakthroughs are concentrated in young scientists, I don't agree that the main reason is because they aren't set in their ways. I think there are plenty of other possibilities. Older scientists tend to take on supervisory or managerial roles for one thing. And I don't necessarily agree that these breakthroughs are concentrated in younger scientists. But I admit I haven't delved into the details of this subject before.

Many breakthroughs by one individual (there were far more groups in breakthroughs) came from those that struggled to learn in the same way as others typically do. Some didn't have good or normal childhoods. They were deeply curious, focused, and driven. Devoted many years of their lives to asking a question.

The "prime" age has lengthened considerably with better health and longer lifespans nowadays. Much to do with why the elderly may produce less could be their belief system about aging, that they should stop playing and learning, and allowed social/familial responsibilities to take their itching away? Who knows?

Or, they may have simply lost their inner child and become set in their ways...

 

[Drakkith]

Many breakthroughs by one individual (there were far more groups in breakthroughs) came from those that struggled to learn in the same way as others typically do. Some didn't have good or normal childhoods. They were deeply curious, focused, and driven. Devoted many years of their lives to asking a question.

Perhaps. It could also be that these types of people just stand out in peoples minds more.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

I would like to reemphasize that the vast majority of science is incremental. The new theories inevitably make use of decades and centuries of other scientists' work.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I strongly disagree with this as well and I caution people about criticizing scientists as a whole in this manner.

Sounds rather a 'cross' reaction for you, Drakkith. Don't let 'em wind you up!
I really don't t think it's up to Scientists to defend themselves at all in this matter. Fact is that, without a Scientific Approach, we would still be kicking about in the pre-enlightenment dirt. The (many of them, brilliant) Engineers would not have the the use of the ideas that the Scientists have developed. But that's a daft statement because the brilliant Engineers would have put their Scientist hats on and got there anyway. So Engineering and the Science are just descriptions of Processes and not the people involved.
I promised myself not to get involved with this thread again but here I am.

 

[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?"