Believe me, I sympathize. You are in possession of a truly incredible breakthrough that offers the prospect of changing the very face of science as we know it, if not more. The only problem is, you’re coming at things from an unorthodox perspective. Maybe your findings don’t fit comfortably with people’s preconceived notions, or maybe you don’t have the elaborate academic credentials that established scientists take for granted. Perhaps you have been able to construct a machine that produces more energy than it consumes, using only common household implements; or maybe you’ve discovered a hidden pattern within the Fibonacci sequence that accurately predicts the weight that a top quark would experience on Ganymede, expressed in femtonewtons; or it might be that you’ve elaborated upon an alternative explanation for the evolution of life on Earth that augments natural selection by unspecified interventions from a vaguely-defined higher power. Whatever the specifics, the point is that certain kinds of breakthroughs just aren’t going to come from a hide-bound scholastic establishment; they require the fresh perspective and beginner’s mind that only an outsider genius (such as yourself) can bring to the table.
Yet, even though science is supposed to be about being open-minded, and there’s so much that we don’t understand about how the universe works, it’s still hard for outsiders to be taken seriously. Instead, you run up against stuffy attitudes like this:
If there are any new Einsteins out there with a correct theory of everything all LaTeXed up, they should feel quite willing to ask me for an endorsement for the arxiv; I’d be happy to bask in the reflected glory and earn a footnote in their triumphant autobiography. More likely, however, they will just send their paper to Physical Review, where it will be accepted and published, and they will become famous without my help.
If, on the other hand, there is anyone out there who thinks they are the next Einstein, but really they are just a crackpot, don’t bother; I get things like that all the time. Sadly, the real next-Einsteins only come along once per century, whereas the crackpots are far too common.
And that last part is sadly true. There is a numbers game that is working against you. You are not the only person from an alternative perspective who purports to have a dramatic new finding, and here you are asking established scientists to take time out from conventional research to sit down and examine your claims in detail. Of course, we know that you really do have a breakthrough in your hands, while those people are just crackpots. But how do you convince everyone else? All you want is a fair hearing.
Scientists can’t possibly pay equal attention to every conceivable hypothesis, they would literally never do anything else. Whether explicitly or not, they typically apply a Bayesian prior to the claims that are put before them. Purported breakthroughs are not all treated equally; if something runs up against their pre-existing notions of how the universe works, they are much less likely to pay it any attention. So what does it take for the truly important discoveries to get taken seriously?
Happily, we are here to help. It would be a shame if the correct theory to explain away dark matter or account for the origin of life were developed by someone without a conventional academic position, who didn’t really take a lot of science classes in college and didn’t have a great math background but was always interested in the big questions, only for that theory to be neglected because of some churlish prejudice. So we would like to present a simple checklist of things that alternative scientists should do in order to get taken seriously by the Man. And the good news is, it’s only three items! How hard can that be, really? True, each of the items might require a nontrivial amount of work to overcome. Hey, nobody ever said that being a lonely genius was easy.
So let’s begin at the beginning:
1. Acquire basic competency in whatever field of science your discovery belongs to.
In other words, “get to know what is already known.” If you have a new theory that unites all the forces, make sure you have mastered elementary physics, and grasp the basics of quantum field theory and particle physics. If you’ve built a perpetual-motion machine, make sure you possess a thorough grounding in mechanical and electrical engineering, and are pretty familiar with the First Law of Thermodynamics. If you can explain the cosmological redshift without invoking an expanding universe, make sure you know general relativity and have mastered the basics of modern cosmology and astrophysics.
Just as an example, if fundamental physics is your bailiwick, Gerard ‘t Hooft has put together a list of subjects you should get under your belt, complete with bibliography! Many of them are online lecture notes; some of them are by me. So start reading! It may seem like a daunting collection at first; but keep in mind, this kind of curriculum is completed by hundreds of graduate students every year. Most of whom are not singular geniuses who will transform the very face of science.
Now, you may object that steering clear of such pre-existing knowledge has played a crucial role in your unique brand of breakthrough research, and you would never have been able to make those dazzling conceptual leaps had you been weighed down by all of that established art. Let me break it down for you: no. There may have been a time, in the halcyon days of Archimedes or maybe even Galileo and Newton, when anyone with a can-do attitude and a passing interest in the fundamental mysteries could make an important contribution to our understanding of nature. Those days are long past. (And Galileo and Newton, let us note, understood the science of their time better than anybody.) We’ve learned a tremendous amount about how the universe works, most of which is “right” at least in some well-defined regime of applicability. If you haven’t mastered what we’ve already learned, you’re not going to be able to see beyond it.
Put it this way: it’s a matter of respect. By asking scientists to take your work seriously, you are asking them to respect you enough to spend their time investigating your claims. The absolute least you can do is respect them enough to catch up on the stuff they’ve all made a great effort to master. There are a lot of smart people working as scientists these days; if a basic feature of your purported breakthrough (”the derivation of the Friedmann equation is wrong”; “length contraction is a logical contradiction”) is that it requires that a huge number of such people have been making the same elementary mistake over and over again for years, the fault is more likely to lie within yourself than in the stars. Do your homework, first, then get back to me.
2. Understand, and make a good-faith effort to confront, the fundamental objections to your claims within established science.
Someone comes along and says “I’ve discovered that there’s no need for dark matter.” A brief glance at the abstract reveals that the model violates our understanding of perturbation theory. Well, perhaps there is something subtle going on here, and our conventional understanding of perturbation theory doesn’t apply in this case. So here’s what any working theoretical cosmologist would do (even if they aren’t consciously aware that they’re doing it): they would glance at the introduction to the paper, looking for a paragraph that says “Look, we know this isn’t what you would expect from elementary perturbation theory, but here’s why that doesn’t apply in this case.” Upon not finding that paragraph, they would toss the paper away.
Scientific claims — whether theoretical insights or experimental breakthroughs — don’t exist all by their lonesome. They are situated within a framework of pre-existing knowledge and expectations. If the claim you are making seems manifestly inconsistent with that framework, it’s your job to explain why anyone should nevertheless take you seriously. Whenever someone claims to build a perpetual-motion device, scientist solemnly reiterate that the law of conservation of energy is not to be trifled with lightly. Of course one must admit that it could be wrong — it’s only one law, after all. But when you actually build some machine that purportedly puts out more ergs than it consumes (in perpetuity), it does a lot more than violate the law of conservation of energy. That machine is made of atoms and electromagnetic fields, which obey the laws of atomic physics and Maxwell’s equations. And conservation of energy can be derived from those laws — so you’re violating those as well. If you claim that the position of Venus within the Zodiac affects your love life, you’re not only positing some spooky correlation between celestial bodies and human affairs; your theory also requires some sort of long-range force that acts between you and Venus, and there aren’t any such forces strong enough to be relevant. If you try to brush those issues under the rug, rather than confronting them straightforwardly, your credibility suffers greatly.
For example, imagine you say, “I have a method of brewing a magical healing potion that bypasses the ossified practices of your so-called `medicine,’ and I’ve personally known several people who were miraculously cured by it, and also there was a study once in some journal that didn’t conclusively rule out the possibility of an effect, and besides you don’t know everything.” No non-crackpot person is going to pay a whit of attention to you, except perhaps to poke fun in between doing serious work. But now imagine you say “It’s true that my claimed magical healing potion appears to violate this famous law of chemistry and that well-established principle of medicine, which have been painstakingly developed and stringently tested against experimental data over the course of many decades, and it’s natural that you would be skeptical of such a claim — but here is the empirical evidence that is dramatic enough to overcome that skepticism, and this is the reason why there might be a loophole in those laws in this particular circumstance.” People will be much more likely to take you seriously.
3. Present your discovery in a way that is complete, transparent, and unambiguous.
What we’re getting at here is that scientific discoveries, unlike sonnets or declarations of love, are universal rather than personal. They belong to everyone, and once they are presented to the world, they can be explored equally well by anybody. By almost any standard, I understand general relativity better than Einstein ever did. (Most parts of it, anyway.) Not because I’m anywhere nearly as smart as Einstein, but because we’ve learned a lot about GR since Einstein died. Once the theory was invented, he didn’t have a monopoly on it; it was out there for anyone to understand and move forward with. Even if he had repudiated his own theory, it would have had no effect on whether or not it was correct.
Your discovery should be the same way. If it’s a revolutionary new theory, it should be a theory that anyone can use. That means it needs to be clearly expressed and unambiguous. I’ve had more than one long and fruitless discussion with alternative scientists who would say “You tell me the experimental result, and I will explain it with my theory.” That’s not the way it works. Your theory should have a life of its own; it should be a machine that I (or anyone) could use to make predictions. And if it’s a physics theory, let’s face it, it’s going to involve math. In this day and age, nobody is going to be moved by a model of elementary particles that comes expressed as a set of three-dimensional sculptures constructed from pipe cleaners.
Likewise, if your breakthrough is an experiment, it had better be a dramatically obvious one — and the more you are violating cherished scientific beliefs, the more dramatic the effect had better be. If what you’re claiming requires a re-arrangement of the energy levels in organic molecules, in flagrant disregard of the Schrodinger equation, you are going to need much more than a two- or three-sigma effect. And, equally importantly, you have to be up front about what the apparatus is, so that anyone can reproduce the experiment. No fair saying “Well, if you come into my lab, I’ll turn it on and show you how it works.” And “This experiment was done in the ’70’s in a secret underground lab in Gdansk, and the KGB has suppressed the lab notebooks” isn’t any better. If you’re actually playing the role of a scientist, share your procedure with everyone, so that they can become true believers themselves. If, on the other hand, you just want to make money, then by all means don’t tell anyone; just start producing the free energy (or amazing stretchy widgets, or whatever) and sell it on the open market. The millions of dollars that will doubtless flow your way will be very comforting as you rail against the establishment for failing to appreciate your genius.
So there you go! Modesty aside, this post might be the single greatest favor that has ever been done for the loose-knit community of non-traditional scientists. We’ve been very explicit about what is expected, if you want to get the recognition you believe is your due. Three simple items, start checking them off!
Also, one last thing. Don’t compare yourself to Galileo. You are not Galileo. Honestly, you’re not. Dude, seriously.
Here is my answer to the dark sector problem
The activation of the inner lever of an astrophysical body by the radial spreading of infrared luminosity
Sometimes such people come to my office and say that
they have discovered that the special relativity is wrong.
I put forward PDG (the full review) and I say your theory should satisfy all the bounds here. When they see the book, they just go away and do not return!
if anyone has a general solution to the Einstein field equations, plz. let me know. Until then, I’ll stick to Zwicky’s tired light hypotheses.
BTW: does anyone know what the equivalent of a spherical bastard is in 10 or 11 dimensions ? Thank you.
But I have built a moto-perpetum machine! I really have!
I just can’t show it to you, otherwise my idea will be stolen…
And yet your contribution to their well-being is already being flagrantly ignored by a couple of your commenters. It’s almost as if they don’t want to hear it. I can’t believe your revolutionary new theory of how crackpots should proceed is being ignored by the mainstream crackpot establishment.
If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you (1) shed your qualifications and (2) wear a tin-foil hat. This second one is particularly useful, should you need an extra piece of experimental apparatus with which to establish your obvious, but overlooked breakthrough.
does nobody, but really nobody, understand irony these days ?
Or were you being ironic ?
Ah, it was clearly a little too early in the morning for me solipsist. Thanks! Still, I’m guessing comment 1 isn’t ironic. Cheers.
“Still, I’m guessing comment 1 isn’t ironic.”
oh well, shame on me. I hadn’t followed through the link in comment 1. (I really did think ‘Peter Fred’ was joking)
Assuming Peter Fred *isn’t* joking (and it would have to be rather an elaborate joke), could he come back and confirm that he has read this post?
There is no hope to be heard also when an outsider publish on respectable journals as Physical Review. Some obstacles are generally put by highest ranked journals as Physical Review Letters, Science and Nature where belonging to a recognized institution is more relevant than whatever idea one may have. Finally, the peer-review system as applied in physics is generally biased and ideas today count less than when physics was managed by germans before WWII. No Einstein is possible today and particles physics, from a theoretical point of view, has been substantially inert for thirty years. Fashions make the rule, lobbies dominate particle physics.
Nicely put. This deserves larger publicity. Would Sean permit me to quote his entire post in my college magazine? (And advertise for “Cosmic Variance” in the process ^_^,)
boreds wrote:
I have not read this post very thoroughly. But what I feel is more important that those on this post read what I have written and linked to.
At least I have gotten some attention about this thing I call an “inner lever residing in every astrophysical body”. Then maybe there is a possibility I can get someone to take a moment to think about the formula for the pressure at the center of an astrophysical body:
Pressure at center = g*rho*r
g =surface gravity
rho= volume density of the body
r= radius of body
Notice that a slight change in the surface gravity (delta g) is going to have a 6 to 8 order of magnitude change of pressure at the center of an astrophysical body depending on the body’s radius i.e.
delta pressure = (delta g)* rho*r.
Then think about the effect of a slight difference in surface gravity between the night-side and day side hemisphere of an astrophysical body.
If the night side surface gravity of a body is slightly less than the day side surface gravity, then there will be a
(delta g)*pi*rho*r^3
net force that would be able to propel the astrophysical body through space in the direction of hemisphere with the side with the weaker surface gravity!
Of course my experiments indicating that spreading sunlight is attractive could not be valid because the text book says that a laser of a collimated beam is repulsive.
Interesting
As is usually the case with matters such as this, the people who are most in need of the advice are the least likely to take it, or even pay it much attention.
I’m particularly fond of Sean’s advice to claimants for revolutionary (read: unlimited) energy sources who seem interested in the commercial possibilities. Let them deal with potential investors…and their lawyers. (”You’re sure that your human-powered flying apparatus will work, regardless of what I say? Well then, fine, go ahead and jump off that 300 foot cliff.”)
First of all you weren’t supposed to talk about my Fibonacci/Top Quark hypothesis without asking. And secondly it was Io not Ganymede. That’s why I call it “The FibIOnacci Revelation”.
e.
“a correct theory of everything all LaTeXed up”.
Your cranks use LaTeX? You obviously attract a higher-class of crank than I do!
Peter Fred, you have clearly ignored point 1, and thus seem to have utterly missed point 2. From what you have just stated, you theory predicts runaway accelerations. Your failure to address this issue demonstrates quite succinctly that you have not made a good faith effort to learn the science.
On at least one occasion, there was an academic physicist, who had repeated run-ins with a non-traditional physicist, and whose son was also a filmmaker. The son made a short film about the non-traditional physicist. Regrettably, it isn’t terribly in-depth, but as far as I know, it’s the only such film of its kind.
I love it - Peter Fred’s site even includes apparatus based on the tin foil hat that Mark recommends!
Couldn’t John Baez’s Crackpot Index serve as a pretty good self-analytical tool as well? You see a lot of these online diagnostics to tell you if you’re right- or left-brained or whatever. Maybe, as a service, someone could develop an “Am I a Crackpot?” questionaire. Perhaps as an adjuct to Sean’s system, any scholar of Outsider Science, who approaches Da Man with their Solution to All Your Problems must honestly complete the test and yield the score, or their correspondances for peer review are summarily directed to the recycle bin.
The *next* Einstein?… Hell, I’d be happy if you’d just take the old one seriously.
I cannot now, nor will I ever be able to write down the basis of wave functions in this background, including an expansion of the field in corresponding creation and annihilation operators. I also can’t compute the stress-energy tensor in that background - quantitatively describe the vacua - and then work out the matrix elements of the stress-energy tensor between the vacuum and the one-particle states.
But then again… I never wanted any credit for it, and so I always expected that the physicists that I’ve talked to, who CAN NOT refute Einstein… would jump on this new information for their own benefit, which would benefit us all… and then I could go back to being normal. What a joke that turned out to be.
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-02/msg0073320.html
Wow. That line exists in a quatum superposition of “worst nerd joke ever” and “best nerd joke ever”. I wish I could figure out whether or not to laugh.
Traums, you are welcome to publicize it. As we’ve seen, the intended audience seems to miss the point, but perhaps there is a deeper purpose being served.
Hi Sean - I think you should publish a version of this post somewhere for the general public.
Aww, now I need a new thesis topic.
[quote]the intended audience seems to miss the point[/quote]
Of course! If they where truly interested in furthering science they would be studying textbooks. Obviously, theirs is some sort of need for recognition combined with delusions of grandure….or some such “I needed more hugs” disfunction. If your subconsious goal is something other than correct science you will always act in this way.
[quote]perhaps there is a deeper purpose being served.[/quote]
Of course! we are entertaining ourselves.
So, there will be no more breakthroughs, ever?
i would be interested in hearing or seeing some sort of evidence to go against peter fred’s idea.
i am at work here (im in the military) and out computers wont let me check out his link. but instead of calling him a moron, if you think he is one, show him why.
some people use the negative feed back to go back and try to “fix” thier theories and in doing so learn about the science.
just a thought
Aaron
Thanks, Sean. Now I have a reference to point folks at when they send me their latest theories.
Yasaman (#2): GREAT to hear from you!! Hope all is well and hope to see you somewhere sometime.
Yasaman, what is PDG?
Re: Aaron S.
Experience seems to indicate otherwise. This is largely because most of the pseudo-scientists out there really don’t recognize that easily 95+% of peoples’ ideas, even those coming from the most brilliant of minds, are simply incorrect. Thus, by large, the ideas these people are promoting need to be thrown out entirely, not merely modified. But they’re not willing to hear this, so despite the criticism they simply plod forward making the same claims over and over again. It gets tiring rather rapidly, and scientists quickly lose interest in dealing with such people.
PK,
PDG = particle data group?
http://pdg.lbl.gov/
Ok, I’ll bite.
The runaway acceleration in Peter Fred’s theory is a major problem. Then again, an object falling in a gravitation field also experiences runaway acceleration; e.g. the earth orbiting the sun.
I would like to complain about another aspect. PF’s proposal, as far as I can tell, is that:
(1) The sun is hot, and so emits “infrared luminosity” (light) in all directions; the strength of this light falls off as inverse-square, which makes us happy.
(2) Through some magic, when this light hits the earth, it provides an attractive force, rather than a repulsive force like it ought to. (If the light is carried by photons on mass shell, then I believe it must be repulsive?)
(3) By dimensional analysis, this still isn’t enough. But never fear! All we ever need to do to apply very large forces to very large objects is to apply some small force, because that will create an imbalance in the pressure on the center of the planet. (This, of course, in every way violates Newtonian mechanics.)
So, I would like to test the reasonableness of this proposal with another dimensional-analysis argument. To wit: if gravity is caused by luminosity, then brighter objects should create stronger gravitational fields — the acceleration felt by the earth should vary with the temperature of the sun. You’ll need some careful fine-tuning to get the appropriate force for our solar system, and it won’t work anywhere else. Of course, perhaps the laws of physics vary from place to place. But that would make it awfully hard to do science, so, like Intelligent Design, that’s a bit of a discussion-ender.
No, the point is that there’s this miracle in gravity as we’ve observed it: the force of gravity scales linearly with the product of the masses of the two interacting bodies. And, other than their relative distance, that’s the only thing that goes into it. But PF is proposing gravity that depends on temperature, too. Many experiments have confirmed that, to first order, force of gravity scales only with mM/r^2.
Why must gravity scale as mM? Newton explained that “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”, which in modern times is understood as “conservation of momentum” which in turn is derived from “the laws of physics are symmetric under spacial translations”. But Gallileo, et al., showed that objects fall at the same rate, in the absence of other forces (this is the principle behind Einstein’s famous gravitational breakthroughs). Since acceleration scales as 1/m, the force of gravity must scale as m, thus by symmetry as mM. Since acceleration depends on nothing else (except for location) of the object, gravity must depend on nothing else (except relative location).
Anything else would violate these basic experiments. In particular, if PF is correct, then hot things must fall faster than cold things.
Thanks, JC!
The problem about “basic competency” in particle physics is that model building never reached the textbooks. So a lot of current crackpotty models around the net happen to be already tried alternatives, published in the late seventies. For instance if a guy enters in your room claiming to pursue the idea “the up quark is dx^dy, the antiup is dt^dz, the electron is dx^dy^dz, the positron is dt”… would you put him aside as a crackpot, or would you redirect him to Casalbuoni and Gatto Phys Lett 88B, page 306? Most times the first option will happen, and the author of the theory will keep shouting and dressing it until eventually he becomes a real crackpot.
Especially if you’re not wearing oven mitts.
It’s a funny article, but there’s some “dark energy” in this model.
A substantial number of the ‘unrecognized Einsteins’ have quite recognizable thought disorders. Thought disorders (schizophrenia being one poorly named clob) are usually described as extremely unpleasant by those who have them, so some sympathy is indicated. They are also associated with fundamental deficiencies of introspection; these are minds that cannot know their own states. (Or know even less of their internal states than the average person.)
You can’t reason with a thought disorder. (Ok, there are exceptions. Some very high IQ persons seem to be able to recognize and reason about their own thought disorders, but they are very exceptional.)
So it’s a funny article for most of us, but do be gentle (redirect then ignore) those who write with a new theory of dark energy. Their loved ones will thank you, even if the afflicted cannot.
Re: thought disorders. How can anyone know the state of their mind in real time? It seems to me that there should be some sort of information theory argument somewhere that results in something like: it is not possible for any finite computer to simulate (in its software) itself (the full state of the hardware) in real time. If there’s not, then someone please let me know, cause that’s at least worth a BlackGriffen’s principle or somesuch.
Point being, nobody is really aware of the full state of their mind at any given time. Some people are just more capable of introspection than others.
If someone comes up with a Theory of Everything, then the chances are that this one person would change mankind forever, right up to the point of being a race that can control space-time. That person would have to be very brave or very foolish; it does not take much thinking about, to realise that he would put him self in a very dangerous position, taking the glory for everything is not a good idea. The next Einstein will have to be smart enough to give mankind everything without us knowing how we got it. So that number 3 would be(in this case);
3. Present your discovery in a way that is complete, transparent, and ambiguous.
Number 2 would not be necessary.
Number 1 would be down to chance because there is no field of everything and it quite literally could blow you away! So that’s not necessary either.
Qubit
BlackGriffen, check out the “halting problem” and Goedel’s theorem on wikipedia. They seem intimately related to BlackGriffen’s principle.
This post is a hilarious read, but far to condescending to actually convince a crackpot. You should write up another version with the same ideas, but less arrogance. You might actually get an email from a crackpot saying he sees your point of view–that would be rewarding, wouldn’t it?
Theo
But never fear! All we ever need to do to apply very large forces to very large objects is to apply some small force, because that will create an imbalance in the pressure on the center of the planet. (This, of course, in every way violates Newtonian mechanics.paper. Please tell me without “dimensional analysis” how small change of the surface gravity of the earth will not effect the pressure at the center of the earth given that:
Pressure center =g*rho*r.
Say the surface gravity changes by 0.006m/s^2 and that rho=10^3 and r= 10^6. This a six orders of magnitude change of pressure at the center of the earth.
If you read my paper you will see an equation indicating that with an increase of the surface gravity for earth’s night side hemisphere of 0.006 m/s^2 over earth’s day side hemisphere there is a 10^11 net force produced between the night side and day side hemispheres that is a factor or 4/3 shy of the Newtonian force emanating from the sun.
This Newtonian force is somehow able to use some yet-to-be specified property of the mass of the sun that is somehow capable of warping space and attracting large astrophysical bodies but incapable of accounting for the higher than expected rotation curves of galaxies and acceleration of the universe.
Good to hear from you Yasaman(#2) !!!!
Matt
Thanks/Not Thanks
e.
Peter Fred,
I gather that you attribute the sun’s gravitional force on the Earth as somehow being due to the radiation pressure from the sun on the Earth. Assuming this would work, how do you account for the the gravitional attraction between the Earth and the Moon?
Peter Fred:
I have not read this post very thoroughly. But what I feel is more important that those on this post read what I have written and linked to.
I don’t see how anything that follows those rules could be considered alternative-science…
Peter Fred:
I have not read this post very thoroughly. But what I feel is more important that those on this post read what I have written and linked to.
I think that’s the crucial point, isn’t it? At the very least it’s simply rude, as an alternative scientist, posting an alternative scientific theory under a posting about alternative science, to, er, not read the post itself.
Peter Fred, do you not agree it’s a little rude of you?
Last month, my construction projects lead me to derrive the equation for the curve of a cable with weights hanging from it. Last week, without even meaning to, I built a water clock while trying to make something that would automaticaly change the water for my fish. And just the other day, I was playing with the pulleys on the machines at the gym, and my workout buddy called me Galileo.
Aw, shucks.
This is a most excellent post Sean! I am constantly amazed at the shear effort that people put in to what they think are revolutionary theories- beautifully typed in Latex with equations and references. It is not hard to find whole treatises on why GR or QM is wrong on in the internet. Who are these people that have so much time on their hands?
I think that some of these people can be described as having just enough information to be dangerous.
Forgot to add: just saw Copenhagen recently. Wonderful play, and it seems to at least tangentially address the issue of knowing one’s own mind.
An interesting follow-up to this post would be to give some examples of researchers who have done significant work and garnered recognition and respect in the relevant field(s) without conventional academic affiliations, at least at the early stages of the work in question. One example that comes to mind is Julian Barbour. (Note that Barbour did earn what would be considered the minimally required academic credentials for a serious researcher in physics or the history and philosophy of science—a Ph.D., from the University of Cologne.)
Van wrote
Thank you very much for your question.
I do not use the concept of radiation pressure in my theory. I promote or advocate a concept which might be called “radiation attraction” which as far as I know only my experiments have been able demonstrate. They show that radiation, more particularly spreading infrared radiation is attractive.
When a new moon is facing us, it is very difficult to see the dark side. Nevertheless, this dark side is emitting infrared radiation which, as I have said, my experiments seem to demonstrate a slight (gravitational) attractive force.
This infrared radiation varies inversely as the square of the distance from most large astrophysical bodies that have a temperature. As I have tried to get across in my paper the amount of the attractive force produced by the spreading infrared luminosity from an astrophysical body that has a temperature does not have to be much. The attractive force from this radiation needs only to be enough to sufficiently activate the “powerful inner lever” that resides in most large astrophysical bodies.
If strong>Seanis so interested thwarting crackpots or promoting physics outreach to us poor amateurs who are possessed with such limited vision why does not he use his fine education and skills in communicating to demonstrate that the obvious faulty logic of my one or two equations which indicate quite clearly to me that there is a powerful inner lever inside every astrophysical body. After all my main equation only involves three variables multiplied together with none of them raised to a power. And this one main equation employs well understood physics that has been adequately confirmed by observations.
Peter Fred,
Does the side of the moon facing the Earth not also emit infrared radiation? How do you account for the gravitational attraction of humans and other small objects towards the Earth? What about man-made satellites? I think you need to do a little more thinking….
a friend of mine told me to read cosmicvariance. this post, in particular, the first i have read, is quite interesting. but how does a newbie with a legitimate alternative theory protect himself against mainstream scientists who are “theory-thieves”, if i may use the term? i don’t think anybody would get published, anyway, without the requisite degrees when the paper passes through the hands of the peer-reviewers.
that’s just my two-cents worth. i may be wrong, but i would really appreciate being enlightened.
I find this tremendously insulting.
This brings back memories of reading certain unmoderated physics Usenet groups, e.g., sci.physics.particle and sci.physics.relativity. Because of the lack of moderation in such forums, there is nothing to inhibit someone from putting out alternative ideas of their own for discussion. Sometimes the person is genuinely interested in criticism that inevitably comes when someone with limited physics background (e.g., at the level an electrical engineer receives, or less) proposes a highly speculative or nonstandard idea, and so the exchange is productive — the person comes away with an appreciation that developing a new theory is a highly nontrivial task, one that takes a lot of knowledge that only comes with serious study as Sean has pointed out. Sometimes it seemed their interest in physics is deep enough to persist and study it at the university level.
Unfortunately, these sincere questioners often seemed to be in a minority on free-for-all forums like Usenet. The most visible people are those who loudly proclaim that they have things figured out, and that Establishment Physics has been too blind to see, or too stubborn to believe, what is very clear to them. They are on a mission. They confidently meet every objection to their ideas with a hand-waving explanation, often vague, and will often give a uninformed explanation of why experiments that disagree with their ideas are incorrectly designed or are interpreted incorrectly. They show definite signs of believing that conventional scientists are gullible or even idiots. Usually they show no visible evidence that they actually understand the objections in any depth. If they encounter a serious objection, one they cannot readily explain away, they usually simply refuse to answer the objection and pretend it doesn’t exist. If pressed hard enough, they can become verbally abusive, or simply disappear from sight for awhile. When they eventually resurface (and they usually do) they say most of the same things they said before, showing no evidence of having learned anything at all from previous exchanges. Check out crank.netfor a good summary of many of these guys.
One can view all of this as a study in human nature. On the one hand you have the Missionary, the Man With A Purpose, who is sure he has figured out something very important that a lot of very smart people have somehow missed. (The missionary always seems to be a guy.) On the other hand you also have some very sincere people trying to reason with the Missionary who, frustratingly, doesn’t seem to be fully understanding the real objections. They continue trying to reason with him, hoping that maybe if they can phrase their objections in the right way then the Missionary will see his mistake. This can go on for some time, with others joining in for the pure sport of it, relishing the chance to heap ridicule on a missionary. The Missionary seems to relish all this attention, apparently believing that he is succeeding in getting people to seriously consider his non-mainstream ideas, that others are actually listening to what he has to say. He feels like he is Making A Difference. The ones who offer only ridicule seem to feed the Missionary too since, after all, great minds have always encountered serious opposition from mediocre minds. One might even conclude that getting all this attention is the real goal of the Missionary, although he is probably sure that this is not his deeper motivation.
What is really fun to watch is when two “alternative theorists” get into an argument. They both are sure they are right, but they disagree and neither one is willing to budge in his position. They may even call each other crackpots. Alas, crackpots of a feather rarely seem argue together, so one has to be lucky to see it happen.
At a different level, the whole spectacle is truly sad. The damage the Man On A Mission does goes well beyond obnoxious spamming of Usenet groups or blogs. The visibility of these people, and their unwillingness to respond reasonably to reasoned argument can cast a dark shadow over the genuine, sincere attempts to arrive at alternative ideas, even ones that are developed while playing by the rules of science. For example, it can be scary for a physics grad student to propose an idea that is somewhat unconventional because most professors have already heard way too many nonsensical, alternative ideas from people they don’t even know that they are bound to have less patience for nonstandard ideas that haven’t already been thoroughly thought out. And yet the whole point of bringing up a nonstandard idea with a professor or other expert is to get early feedback before wasting a lot of time on a dead-end idea. No grad student wants to be thought of as a crackpot; it would be the death of their future in science.
“For example, imagine you say, “I have a method of brewing a magical healing potion that bypasses the ossified practices of your so-called `medicine,’ and I’ve personally known several people who were miraculously cured by it, and also there was a study once in some journal that didn’t conclusively rule out the possibility of an effect, and besides you don’t know everything.†No non-crackpot person is going to pay a whit of attention to you, except perhaps to poke fun in between doing serious work.”
False. No non-crackpot *doctor* is going to pay a whit of attention to you. You still might become a bestselling author, convince millions of people, and earn scads upon scads of money. (See, eg, Kevin Trudeau).
Van,
All sides of the moon, all sides of the earth and all sides of the sun emit infrared radiation. I dare say even in a Cavendish type experiment where G is determined both the small and big mass emit infrared radiation on all sides.
Some of my experiment show that if you have an infrared heat source at the “center” of hollow hemisphere there will be a gravitational force of attraction towards that source. 10^17 joules of sunlight are received and re-radiated as infrared radiation from the earth every second. My experiments indicate this re-radiated infrared radiation is going to place a gravitational force on the surface of the earth which points toward its center.
I also hypothesize with some support from observations that the heat which radially conducts itself from the center of the earth outwards enhances or energizes the vibratory modes of the molecules of the earth. I further hypothesize that these vibratory modes become aligned so that they all vibrate collinear with the radii of the earth. This action produces the inward or center directed force. See my paper for more details.
I at least have a way to account for how the gravitational force becomes manifest in a large spherical astrophysical body at the molecular level.
With Newton’s or Einstein’s gravity theory we do not have any clue just how mass is able to attract other mass. As I point out in my paper Newton was worried about this problem.
He wrote
“Gravity must be caused by an agent…but whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers”
With my theory we have something palpable and measureable that transmits from one body to another i.e.infrared radiation.
Tell me, from a mass point of view, what transmits itself from the sun to the planets, besides this operational definition called the field, that “causes” a 10^24 kilogram body such as the earth to revolve regularly around the sun?
How does this yet-to-be defined, inherent property of the mass of the sun go about the process so that its force of attraction acts as though all the mass of the earth were concentrated at its center? What every it is, it going to have to go through solid mass to accomplish this “as though all the mass were concentrated at the center” feat.
Peter, your response in comment #52 suggests that the strength of “radiation attraction” depends on the luminosity of a body. Why, then, is the Moon’s orbit around the Earth so stable and circular? I would think, if the force attracting it to the Earth depends on moon phase, its orbit would be different - it would drift farther away from the Earth at new moon, and closer in at full moon.
Also, why do you make a distinction between infrared and other wavelengths of light? Is there a threshold wavelength below which the “radiation attraction” effect does not work? What about radio waves?
Tell me, from a mass point of view, what transmits itself from the sun to the planets, besides this operational definition called the field, that “causes†a 10^24 kilogram body such as the earth to revolve regularly around the sun?
Read this and report back. Be prepared: there may be a quiz.
The Aether Wave Theory is the quintessence of crackpotism. You can discuss about it here.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8535
Hi Sean:
Thanks for that post! Sometimes I am really suprised by the incredible arrogance that I’ve repeatedly experienced. People who’ve read a book by Einstein and then explain they have just found the TOE (and it’s SO obvious!), yet don’t even know what a fermion is. People who’ve just explained dark matter (and nobody else understands it!) but don’t know what a metric is. And if you tell them, that’s not a theory that’s whishful thinking they get pissed off (I only want to help you!), and accuse me of having an elitary attidute and I only dismiss their ingenious insight because they don’t have a PhD (ivory tower!). I wish they would at least consider that we actually learn something during our education, and that reading a single book (that, btw was published one century ago) maybe isn’t sufficient to understand what’s going on in research today.
I would add a point though, that is if your ‘theory’ predicts exactly the same as some other theory, then it’s probably the same - no matter how you derived it, and whether it looks the same. (I keep getting ‘better’ versions of Special Relativity that upon closer inspection turn out to be exactly the same as Special Relativity).
Oh, and don’t miss Siegel’s Quacks
Best,
B.
Repy to hrm in his comment #59
To answer your questions and have confidence in the answers, a lot of experiments would have to be performed. I have a limited budget and a limited means to perform experiments.
It has been my experience, however, that a powerful source of infrared radiation works best. I have used somewhere around ten 250 watt infrared heating lamps that put out a good deal of visible light and a have gotten a 1-2% decrease in weight with a convex down ~3 foot hollow aluminum hemisphere. It beyond my budget to see if a powerful source of radio waves can produce a gravitational force.
As with phases of the moon question–the distance between the earth and the moon is not that constant over time. Then there is the question of how much more infrared light is there in the reflected light from the moon as opposed to the reradiated infrared radiation that comes from darker parts or phases of the moon.
Just got a email from someone from a physics department who said that my 11% change of force resulting from radiation was a huge change. He thought someone should have noticed this before. An 11% increase in weight is a little difficult to get. But a 1-7% increase or a 1-2 % decrease in weight is not that difficult.
Instead of going on an on about how intransigent crack pots are, I would think there would more people like my emailer the from physics department and would either question my experiments or actually take an interest to try to replicate them.
After all most heavenly bodies ( i.e. suns) emit copious amounts of radiation, and if this radiation is attractive and if there is some semblance to the validity of this inner lever idea of mine–then these two points have quite an implication about our 300 year old beliefs on how gravity actually works.
At my home page you can see this cone with a hot plate heating element under it. With the heat element turned on, I can get a 1% increase in weight. The cone is solid and made of crumpled up aluminum foil. The weight change is made with a $100 dollar force sensor and a computer. A lot of high school and undergraduate physics labs have the equipment to do this easy to execute experiment.
i need some help with my Lorentz transforms…..
KundryVolare, see here
Oh wait, I thought you said “low-rent transformer”.
Peter,
I notice in your paper that all of your experiments involve heating the sample from below, with the observation that an increase in weight is measured. Have you tried heating the sample from above? According to your hypothesis, this should result in a decrease in weight.
Also, check if the decrease in weight in this second round of experiments is equal in magnitude to the increase in weight observed in your first results when using the same heating elements in the same arrangement (aside from being reversed vertically).
Re Qubit #38: I think you made the point that the person who develops a theory of everything (ToE) would receive high visibility and pay the price of celebrity for their efforts (this seems obvious). Supposing that they really do have a valid ToE, or at least a partial ToE, and have the means to get it taken seriously (two big hurdles), would there be any method for them to be rewarded for their efforts while being able to remain relatively anonymous? Or would it be better for them to simply donate their theory to humanity via some means and live in the knowledge of a job well done, even if it is a job for which they individually are unappreciated (anonymity), but their theory is revered? I think this was what you thought was the best way to do it but I want to throw these questions out there for clarification.
Hi Peter,
Have you considered that the heat from the heating element may affect your force sensor? Is it possible that you are simply heating the air in your hollow foil hemisphere making it less dense, leading to a small bouyant force (like a hot-air ballon)?
The comments on this thread, taken in totality, are comical.
Thank you all!
Although in a much more primitive form, Peter Fred’s theory reminded me of Le Sage’s theory of gravitation , so similar criticisms apply. It’s an ingenious model of gravitation, but full of bugs.
Hi Mark H
As regards to your comments in #66. I have just placed a picture and graph at my home page that I label Figure 1 and Figure 2 where I show a convex down hollow 0.82 m diameter aluminum hemisphere where I get a ~2.9% decrease in weight. I use 3000 watts some of which flows downward and through the walls of the convex down hemisphere.
It is difficult to get heat to flow downwards. This type of experiment is best done on very cold winter day where all the doors and windows are open. Also the object heated should be shaped as a hollow hemisphere that is convex down and not convex up.
The trouble with this type of experiment is that people will claim “hot air balloon buoyancy effect”. It is hard to conclusively rule out this effect. That why I like to do experiments where an increase in weight is observed. With these type of experiments its hard for other and myself to claim a hot air effect. And besides you can get a much greater change of weight.
Yeah, it’s clear that what’s happening in Peter Fred’s experiments is that the heating element is heating the air below the foil hemisphere making it less dense. This creates a slight downward pressure on the hemisphere, accounting for his measured downward force.
What troubles me is that Peter Fred has still not acknowledged that a blog post on how to do respectable science is still not the place to actually talk about any given example of respectable science. There are literally millions of ideas out there that we could discuss but that isn’t the point, either PF has an enormous capability for continued irony or he just doesn’t get that he hijacked a thread.
Whether or not someone is right or not is not the issue in general. We tolerate wrongness in ourselves and others everyday. This issue is when people try to enforce their wrongness in regions of known rightness. I am all for people at some party talking about their pet theory of the universe. It is only when they compare themselves to people who actually purport to talk about reality that the issues arise.
Peter, can you at least acknowledge that you understand what it means to hijack a thread? In my experience there is a class of person who cannot even do that. Their theory is so deeply embedded into their ego that it would be impossible for them to acknowledge that they are using inappropriate means. For them to do so would require them to break down (emotionally, mentally) completely. I have seen it happen and it is not pretty. So the next question is: why are humans so egotistically that we cannot accept that we are in some respects just plain wrong? This is what I feel is the greatest asset that a postgraduate education, it gives to people an understanding that most of the time you are wrong and that it is ok to admit that you are wrong and then spend 5 years sifting your knowledge for the
Do string theorists satisy Rule #3 (”complete and unambiguous”) of these three requirements?
I hate to contribute to the thread hijacking, but I’ve one comment for PF. The only way to rule out the buoyancy effects of air is remove the air itself. Perform the exact same experiments in a small vacuum chamber. If you still get the same effect, maybe you’re on to something. If not, the laws of physics as we know them still stand.
“Also, one last thing. Don’t compare yourself to Galileo. You are not Galileo. Honestly, you’re not. Dude, seriously.”
#55 - “I find this tremendously insulting.”
Why? aren’t you a person we should compare with?
The main problem with crackpots is that Einstein himself was a “crackpot” too, common working as a patent clerk!?
and so was Newton predicting the end of the world by 2060!
….and the many others the occasional genius of the day happen to have a book of, and believe me, many of our physics gods came up with very crackpot-like behavior at some point of their lives. Why did we care reading those? or paying any attention? Well, cus they were true geniuses! why? well, cus incidentally they changed our views of the universe, and after all that’s what the credential is granted for. It isnt enough if your primary school teacher and the bartender so claim, sory
Sure you can yell out loud you havent had the chance to change the world cus nobody listens to you!, dont you think then that *this* world therefore doesnt want to be changed *your* way? Why bother? why would you want all of us to switch into your ideas if they dont match ours? Why do you then crave for attention? Isnt a deepest knowledge of the universe enough reward for you, or it is just the greedy thought of a nobel prize??
Of course big revolutionary ideas might be passing by without noticing cus you didnt graduate from Princeton, and we scientist are a bit arrogant after all needless to say. Why bother going into the trouble to talk to them in the first place?
Unless you know what science is about, unless you agree to *stick to the rules* (see items), please, make the millions with the converting machine and go on vacations to the bahamas, do science the favor
It looks like Sean is at least taking seriously the possibility of amateurs making important contributions in science, otherwise he wouldn’t even give such advice. (And many of us have complicated backgrounds, with mixes of training but lack of completed certifications, or of proper career track, that require description as “amateurs.”) But that is only part of the problem: venue for reportage is another part. If you don’t have official cover in the form of proper affiliation (for putting of address, etc.), what forum can someone with decent ideas turn to? In theory, American Journal of Physics etc. will print home address and sometimes does, but it is an uphill struggle for a paper with such an address to be taken seriously. Also, there’s the matter of nature of claims. There used to be Speculations in Science and Technology for offbeat claims that were still well-argued, and to some extent Foundations of Physics and Physics Essays in Canada still take up that role. I don’t know how many people read them now, or whether a good case would be noticed well enough.
Although the temptation is to consider posting on the Internet to be worthless, one can get good discussions going in the right venues. Is it possible a good new idea would be noticed by the right people? FWIW, I started a discussion about a “New quantum measurement paradox” in the moderated group sci.physics.research in 2000. AFAIK it was novel, about repeated passes of a polarized photon through half-wave plates to build up angular momentum and thus measure intermediate levels of circular polarization of a single photon, contra standard measurement theory. (Ties into “weak measurement” concepts.) The arguments basically went round and round, with no clear outcome. Enough big shots like John Baez posted into it, and it linked around enough, that it comes up first in Google search for “Quantum measurement paradox.” Topping out in a subject search is not easy. I don’t find any direct commentary on it out there as a result, but perhaps the right idea could be noticed if you get high on Google with it? Would a good proposal in UseNet be noticed by the right people, aside from search issues?
Ultimately, I think it’s a matter of who you are: if someone well-known makes a point on UseNet, it will be noticed, but if you aren’t well-known, you must be published in a good venue to be noticed, over and above how good an idea was involved. Does anyone have examples of ideas presented in fora like UseNet, that actually caught on? Where can we find more about this sort of science sociology (really, we need a good name for the subject of the activity of scientists and science) be found?
#77, above “posting on the Internet” one should consider the narrower cathegory “latexpdf posting on the Internet”. This is because modern search engines do a very good work of indexing pdf documents, and modern browsers are able to download them. Looking at the records of our webserver, I find that a lot of hits into my documents come from persons looking specifically for the wording or the exact topic of a particular pdf document. Perhaps a good recomendation could be to use latexpdf plus the html navigation extensions of pdf, leaving to the reader the opportunity of navigating from the PDF towards related papers or towards the homepage.
Neil asked:
If you don’t have official cover in the form of proper affiliation (for putting of address, etc.), what forum can someone with decent ideas turn to?
I honestly can’t imagine to this day why the moderated research group wouldn’t be a good place for this, since it is, or *was* chalk-full of excellent physicists and students with no small mention to Baez, who basically led the group for quite a few years.
It’s really ironic for me, but it was right after he had proclaimed that “we’ve been over all of this”, [the negative mass puzzle], and that ‘there is nothing new to be learned here’… … … that I showed why this is not exactly true, and asked him to shoot me down. I’m still waiting, and here’s an even better presentation that I made later of evidence that the negative energy states have been misinterpreted…
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-03/msg0073465.html
Just don’t mention the strong anthropic principle… is the trick, me thinks!…
Hi Neil,
I remember that discussion. You argued your case very well, and it certainly gave me pause in thinking about the photon. It’s still one of those “Web studies” that I keep in mind, as I pursue my own investigations.
When we realize that practical use of the Internet, outside the government and university circles, wasn’t much of an option just a decade ago, we can see how great an impact it’s now having.
Even though it’s hard to get noticed with all the noise, sometimes that’s a good thing. The important point to keep in mind is that it provides a place for us on the “library shelf.” Sure, it might not be a highlighted spot in the lighted glass case in the lobby, but to be able to develop and record our ideas in our very own space on the library shelves is a hitherto undreamt of opportunity.
Once the significance of a work, or an idea, is recognized, everybody will be able to find it. So, if we are on to something good, we just have to bide our time. At least, we don’t have to worry about publishing just to look like we have something to say, as an indication that we are worth the money someone is paying us to think. I would really hate that. I would hate it much, much, more than not being on someone’s “respectability list.”
The irony of all this is that so many, like Sean, have a sense that the knowledge gained in the past is a sure sign that the civilization that possesses it, and that hands out the credentials to work on and extend it, is on the path that leads to ultimate progress in understanding the physical structure of the universe, but it ain’t necessarily so.
The ancient civilizations thought the same thing and they became very good at what they did, but just because the moon and planets, upon which we are now able to tread, are higher than the pyramids and the mountains, upon which the ancients tread, doesn’t mean that Western civlization is on the ultimate track to understanding.
The disconcerting trouble with modern physics is not just a matter of overcoming a super technical challenge. Almost every investigator at the top of the respectability list has acknowleged that we are in a fundamental funk. Something’s wrong with our fundamental understanding of the physical structure of the universe, and, if that’s the case, following Sean’s prescription is not likely to lead anywhere interesting.
Imagine the Egyptians giving that advise to the crackpots and cranks of their day. Someone suggesting to their high priests that they should consider the motion of a pendulum and begin to think in terms of potential and kinetic energy of moving masses, rather than the geometry of pyramids and the travels of the sun, would have never been able to make their respectibility list.
And telling someone like that to acquire basic competency in Egyptian mathematics and astronomy first, would have been senseless. The fact is, a different view of the fundamentals changes everything, undermining the craft of the priests, who maintain the respectability list.
It short, Neil, Sean’s prescription just reveals one edge of two-edged sword. The fact that most crackpot ideas are obviously inept in the science currency of the day, doesn’t mean that a true gem of an idea ought to fit comfortably into it.
Van wrote:
In Figure 7 at my home page is a graph showing a 11% increase in weight of a colander with a hot plate heating element on top. There is some aluminum foil and gasket material on inside used as insulation to insure that most of heat from the heating element would flow radially upward.
You can not get something to weigh 11% more by making the air below it less dense. Maybe a slight amount but not 11%.
With Figures 1 & 2 a ~3.0 % decrease in weight with a convex down hemisphere was observed. You have a better chance claiming that the rising hot air lifts the hemisphere and thereby decrease the weight of the hemisphere. But you can not have it both ways.
When I did the experiment shown in Figures 1 & 2, I was then overly concerned with how the force sensor would be affected by a change of temperature from the hot plate heating elements. The hemisphere was hung to a rod and fulcrum system the other end of which was attached to a wire that went to a force sensor that was attached to the floor. The force sensor in turn was shielded by Styrofoam from the heat from the heating elements.
I soon learned that this was a unnecessary precaution. Hanging hemisphere’s with steel wire to force sensors 2 to 3 feet above seemed to be all that was necessary. Using thin wooden rods which have lower coefficient of linear expansion that steel or copper also proved unnecessary.
This whole thread is an awesome exercise in point-proving.
Trouble is, an amateur’s theory may be just too radical for physicists to dare take seriously
Wow. It just keeps on going.
Re 67 PokerFace, I was thinking on a grander scale but fame, glory and immortalization comes with their own problems. Such a theory would enable us to move up the Kardashev scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale very quickly, we would have the knowledge of a type V civilization ( not on the scale it’s self ). Type IV would be able to use the power of space-time (page 317 in parallel worlds by Michio Kaku), Type V would have the knowledge of how to exist beyond the space-time of this universe and be able to use the energy of universes and have power to create them (E.g. Have you seen the film Eragon, a type 5 being would be Eragon and a universe would be his Dragon and both would be entangled as in the film (try not to think about them as a man and a dragon but as a universe and its shadow).
The problem of being the one who comes up with TOE, comes about in Eternal return http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return or if you like Ouroboros http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroborus . How can you have an endless amount of human civilizations that can reach type IV status? I guess what I mean is that; if we come up with a TOE, then there is a higher probability that we recreated this universe, in order to survive the end of time. These beings would have to make sure that this person does not exist in this new universe, or they would have to come up with something to make sure, that we have no chance of getting the TOE, maybe by telling us an infinite lie.
The only way such a thing can be circumnavigated is by this person being hard wired into the universe and multi-verse, he would just have to be here just like the Higgs Boson,(or he would just be the Higgs Boson), so who is this fool?
The clock never stops ticking, ever; no matter what!
PF,
Try the experiment two ways, one with the hemispher concave up with the heating element below and one with the hemisphere concave down and the heating element still below. My guess is you’ll find that the force sensor reads slightly less than the weight for the concave down case and slightly more than the weight for the concave up case. The reason for this should be obvious.
PK, I have the PDG book in my office. Feel free to grab it if the high entropy of my desk doesn’t make that impossible.
Seth Lloyd has recently published his TOE. He proposed that the universe is a quantum computer that executes a superposition of all possible programs (each program appears with a weight of 2^(-program length/2) in this superposition).
Doug:
Thanks lots for your thoughtful reply. It shows how much a big thread gets around, that at least one poster to this thread remembered it. Sure, that very example of presentation in a quality moderated group shows that you can get an idea out and be noticed by knowledgeable folks. The deeper problem is more subtle: Few readers of such posts will take the time to sort through and see if there’s really a substantive point, and respond with perhaps a follow-up paper. They won’t there the way they would if the same idea was presented in Physical Review by an average contributor, or even if someone big posted it to the same newsgroup. (Say, if John Baez posted it.) In practice, independent scholars have a hard time, but maybe that is exaggerated. I do thank Alejandro for some tips on making on-line articles easier to find.
This web site may be helpful: NCIS (The National Coalition of Independent Scholars.)
PS - I have my suspicions of some of the background notions that are used to filter out “crank ideas.” Consider the claim that classical laws of electromagnetism allow for a proof of energy and momentum conservation by internal consistency. I remember some of the points that go into those proofs, and they seem solidly based as far as they go. However, they don’t really go far enough, because there are issues requiring additional theoretical (or even experimental) intervention. For one thing, they take particle sources/targets for granted, and yet consider the difficulty of constructing a rational particle in EM: First, you have the infinite classical field energy if the particle is a point, requiring the contrived and debatable quantum mechanism of renormalization. If you want a reasonable classical particle and a field energy no greater than the observed mass, you need a finite size. That means holding the charge together somehow, with the non-electromagnetic “rubber bands†of Feynman fame.
That has to affect what happens. Just look at the sticky problems of the radiative self-force in the Abraham-Lorentz equation f_rad = 2kq^2 v dot dot / 3c^3. That is a fundamental self force required to conserve energy while radiating, and most of the posters here and elsewhere don’t really appreciate or have even heard of it per my actual experience. It is supposed to come from time delay affecting the transmission of effects from one part to another of the same particle, but how do you make that coherent if the particle is either a point, or held together with unknown other forces? Also, there are runaway solutions which must be stopped by contrived special equations of motion, and we don’t even really know what is true about that – seriously, check it out. Then there is the fact that classically, structures of any kind wouldn’t be formed by classical point charges - collections of charges would collapse into pair singularities or be thrown out. Also, the magnetism of materials cannot be fully explained classically anyway, meaning that for example, any off-beat device using real magnets can’t be blown off with breezy pretensions about the supposedly closed nature of classical E&M.
Food for thought.
It’s probably worth pointing out, for alternative-science practitioners out there, that physicists, and no doubt all other researchers, tend not to drop everything and study some new idea that person X has come up with, whether they are a crackpot or a Nobel laureate.
Many papers get published in the highest ranked physics journals (Physical Review Letters, etc.) and are never heard of again. It is incredibly self-centered to expect researchers to drop their own research and look at yours instead. Just because people ignore your idea doesn’t mean they’re out to oppress you. They (or rather we) do it to each other too.
Re 85 Qubit: Thankyou for your response. No, I haven’t seen the film Eragon, but your description of the weird and strange philosophical concepts arising from it, while probably not accurate of what really happens with a sufficiently advanced civilisation (it is sheer hubris to really hope to understand any civilisation much more than one rung up the ladder of technological development from one’s own, in my opinion, though nonetheless a quite entertaining exercise in science fiction), intrigues me and piques my interest. I will also have a look at the wikipedia entries you have mentioned.
Joe Fitzsimons said:
Many papers get published in the highest ranked physics journals (Physical Review Letters, etc.) and are never heard of again. It is incredibly self-