so some guy contacted my friend through my uni s physics dept. he is offering 4 000 USD for 4 weeks of work, typing up his theory in LaTeX, doing some calculations, and just offering a professional physicists opinion about his work.

his theory is a new description of fundamental particles and interactions based on "vortices". i didn t hear much about it, but i m pretty sure he s a crackpot. he s been working on it for years. he knows enough physics to pass off as knowledgable to a layman, but he s clearly not really a trained scientist. i think my friend said he owns a company or something. he said that he s a nice guy.

should i do it?

pros: $4 000, and i m pretty deeply into it with my credit card, so this would be a huge help to me.

cons:
i have my own work that i m going to be very busy with all summer, and i don t think i should take time away from my essentially full-time schedule. my work is very important and i don t know if i can take away as much time as this guy would want.

i would essentially have to perjure myself. i believe very strongly in the scientific method, and would have a hard time telling this guy that his theory is total crap to his face. i would have to sell out to the crackpots. of course, i wouldn t put my name on the paper. but still, it would feel dirty

Just work.

Even if the theory is BS, you will still most probably learn something, and if you have been doing your own work for a long time, you can come back with some fresh ideas. The best thing about crackpots is that they'll throw all their money behind their nut bag ideas.

So yes, I think you should be a crackpot whore for a couple of weeks, it will do you good, and the money I am sure will come in handy.

Originally posted by ryans
Just work.

Even if the theory is BS, you will still most probably learn something, and if you have been doing your own work for a long time, you can come back with some fresh ideas. The best thing about crackpots is that they'll throw all their money behind their nut bag ideas.

So yes, I think you should be a crackpot whore for a couple of weeks, it will do you good, and the money I am sure will come in handy.

yeah, that s kinda where i m leaning too. i ll talk to the guy, and see what kind of time committment he wants. hopefully i can get off easy, just type up 50 pages in LaTeX and be on my way, laughing at the crackpots all the way to the bank.

i just have to make sure i receive no credit for this work. your name on a crackpot paper will END your career.

thanks for the advice.

lethe:

<i>he is offering 4 000 USD for 4 weeks of work, typing up his theory in LaTeX, doing some calculations, and just offering a professional physicists opinion about his work.</i>

The typing is no problem. In theory, anybody could type up his stuff for him (although not that many people are LaTeX experts).

I worry about the "doing calculations" and "offering a professional physicist's opinion" parts, though.

What are you going to do if he wants your opinion? Lie to him? Or will you tell him you thing he is a crackpot?

The risk here is that if you give him helpful advice, he might come to consider you to be a collaborator on his ideas. Personally, I would be wary about the possibility of my name being attached to this kind of thing.

I'd do the type-up, if you can spare the time and want the money. But I'd skip the professional opinion thing if you're also doing the typing. On the other hand, if he wants to get somebody else to do the typing and calculations, then you would be quite ok in accepting a consultancy fee for giving him a fair assessment of his theory.

The bottom line is: you need to avoid any possible appearance of a conflict of interests, either between your real job and your crackpot-on-the-side work, or between your loyalty to this guy as a typer and calulator vs. your loyalty to him as an honest opinion giver.

Plus, what if you do a great job at pulling this guy's chain?

You write this up so well, that people believe in it and start getting behind it.

What effect, if any, would that have on your view of your integrity?

The way I would look at it, if it IS crackpot shit, I couldn't possibly do it justice, therefore, couldn't really earn my fee unless I lied or misrepresented the facts.

I agree with James.
I would offer him my technical skills by doing the typing and the math, but no more.

And I would DEFINITELY make him sign a confidentiality agreement stating that he will never mention your name in conjunction with this project.

You need to cover your career's ass.

lethe,

i'll pay you $10000 for your technical review. when i am desperate i'll pull your name for credentials. you can refute but that won't help you. damage is already done. heheheh. that is the modus operandi of any crackpot. keep away if you want to safeguard your name.

PS: hey, i dont have any crackpot theory at hand. just to warn you. thats all.

lethe,

Everneo is right. Don't do it.

If you do, don't be surprised if sooner or later, your name is attached to his crackpot theory. If that's not bad enough, how will you later claim that his theory was crackpottery after working four weeks with him on it.

It all comes down to a simple question: How much is your reputation worth?

Tom

lethe,

I can tell you this. If the guy is genuine he will accept cirticisim and frankly I think there is enough wiggle room (assuming it is half sensable) that you could give qualified answers.

But to say the least you need to have a firm understanding up front that you will be scientifically critical and if there is no wiggle room you will not contribute any clearly unacceptable answers.

And in any case (Unless you become a convert :D) don't have your name attached. This agreement should be in writting.

thanks for the advice, everyone. i m going to meet with this guy tomorrow, i ll let you know how it goes.

Vortices? go for it!:p

ok, so the guy is definitely a crackpot. he exhibited all the signs.

he s an older guy, i would say in his 60s or so. he says he s been working on this theory in his spare time, as a hobby.

the theory is rather reminiscent of a lot of the crackpot theories i ve seen on this message board. it seeks to supplant modern particle theory, nuclear theory, and even chemistry. i consists of two 3 dimensional spaces, in which the fundamental particles are closed and open loops. seems to have some borrowings from string theory in that respect.

it incorporates not one, but two absolute aether reference frames. there are spherical vortices, and all kinds of mixings from relativity and quantum mechanics, although an obvious lack of understanding of either.

i think that he s just an older guy, nearing the end of his life, and wants to do something he ll be remembered for in his life. he s worked at a lot of physics labs as an engineer, setting up particle detectors and stuff like that, so obviously he s been around physicists a lot, and must be attracted to the kind of respect and notariety developing a new model for theoretical physics can bring. and he is pretty ambitious in this goal. his theory will solve all the problems of physics simultaneously.

and he s the best educated crackpot i ve ever met. he knows how to solve differential equations, and add angular momenta. he knows a fair amount about nuclear physics, and seems to have read quite a bit about particle physics as well.

all in all, i think it s pretty sad. i kinda feel sorry for the guy. he is spending vast amounts of time on this project that is going to get him exactly nowhere. and he was rather passionate about his theory.

some of you may not feel that this is the case, but it is my opinion that to do meaningful new work in physics, you have to understand the work of those who went before you. and the modern theories are so mathematically sophisticated, that this takes years of study. any attempts without this background are misguided, although well-intentioned.

You said he's old. What's your definition of getting him no where? This man is obviously not trying to break into the field like a young pup right out of grad school. His goals are obviously far more personal. Personally, I would work for him. From what you've said, make him understand that this is not YOUR research and that you haven't been helping in long enough to #1 take credit for it with him, or #2 understand it enough to stake your name on it. I'm sure he'll understand. The job seems simple enough and the money's good. As for the time investment. There are some extremely good LaTeX editors out that would speed that process right along (copy and paste what you can), and he need not know that.

Crackpot or no crackpot, you said he's well educated, and for that he deserves some amount of respect. I'd show it.

-AntonK

Lethe:

If your Vortex guy's name is Steven Rado, I can give you information about him. It's quite public.

lethe,

some of you may not feel that this is the case, but it is my opinion that to do meaningful new work in physics, you have to understand the work of those who went before you. and the modern theories are so mathematically sophisticated, that this takes years of study. any attempts without this background are misguided, although well-intentioned.


I would not attempt to state any opinion about this theory based on what you have said. To little detail but from what has been said it sounds a bit mixed up. But having said that I want to re-emphasize a couple of points.

1 - I disagree that one must understand what others have done before you to be able to make a valuable contribution. The depth of such contribution would depend upon the knowledge and skill of the person to put the concept into useable scientific terms.

2 - Regardless of having "All the symptoms" as you call it, before you can reject it as nonsense or without any value what-so-ever, I feel one must look in depth at any theory for new meaning or interpretation, even if not thouroughly presented. After all he is acknowledging his own limitation by seeking to hire the required knowledge.

3 - While even the bulk of the concept may not be upheld in the long term, I feel it is importatnt to look at every aspect and to determine (not if it is consistant with other current theory) if it can stand alone as a consistant and viable concept that as an alternative contributes anything scientific of value.

4- Keep in mind that by your standards, the above standards are those of another crackpot.:D In his sixties, with nuclear education, experience, etc, albiet even less skilled mathematically.

Your assumption (which has also been directed at me by ryans, that we are seeking recognition before we pass on, is simply not the case (speaking for myself obviously). It is something I have found useful to me to assist in understanding the physical aspects of Relativity as opposed to outright rejection of the mathematical principles. Frankly in the case of my own work, if it is found wholly lacking, I would be content if some aspects of it became no more than "analogies" such as the rubber membrane for a gravity well.

In that case I clearly see a better fit with physical reality than the membrane or changing Pi presentations which fall apart so easily on inspection.

I guess what I am saying is you should keep an open mind and address the key components of the concept itself and not worry about predjudices toward anybody that holds views different than you are convienced foing in are the only correct views.

There are thousands of theories out there. If every one was taken seriously and examined completely, no real science would be done. It is reasonable to ignore a thoery if it doesn't show any value.

It's like letting someone build your house when they don't know what a hammer is. It would take 30 years to build and would consist of half a 2x4 sticking out of the ground.

Originally posted by Fairfield
Lethe:

If your Vortex guy's name is Steven Rado, I can give you information about him. It's quite public.

it s not.

Originally posted by MacM
lethe,




I would not attempt to state any opinion about this theory based on what you have said. To little detail but from what has been said it sounds a bit mixed up. But having said that I want to re-emphasize a couple of points.

1 - I disagree [...]

i thought you might disagree. this is why i said "some of you might not feel this is the case". i guess we ll just have to agree to disagree. whateverthefuck that means.


Your assumption (which has also been directed at me by ryans, that we are seeking recognition before we pass on, is simply not the case (speaking for myself obviously).


yes, perhaps that is not a fair assumption. i don t really know what his motivations are, and i can t possibly know what it s like to be in his position. i am much too young.

from what i can tell, this guy is a lot like you.


I guess what I am saying is you should keep an open mind and address the key components of the concept itself and not worry about predjudices toward anybody that holds views different than you are convienced foing in are the only correct views.

i am going to keep an open mind. he s a nice guy, and i want to give him every chance. but his theory is pure crackpottery, so it s hard to get past the first page.

lethe,

i am going to keep an open mind. he s a nice guy, and i want to give him every chance. but his theory is pure crackpottery, so it s hard to get past the first page.


ANS: That is all I was saying. Keep an open mind until you see outright failure of the concept.

1. you could come out of the experience a 'crackpot'
2. you could learn something new
3. you could find new reasons to believe in the scientific method
4. you could end up being used (without your knowledge) as some kind of underground supporter (i.e., the guy will say "a real physicist looked at my work, he helped me type it up and everything, and his comments suggest that although I may not be on the ball, the essential elements of a re-working of our understanding of physics as we know it could be in the making" (*nudge nudge MacM*)
5. you could pay off that debt, and deny all knowledge to the IRS that you were ever involved.
6. you could go down in history as 'the secret physicist' who helped develop vortex theory to the point where interdimensional transwarp technology first became possible. :eek:

Gundam Wing,

6. you could go down in history as 'the secret physicist' who helped develop vortex theory to the point where interdimensional transwarp technology first became possible.


ANS: What no royalty?

Interdimensional warp theory should remain free. :D
You better develop that shizzy soon, so I can meet borg 7 of 9.

lethe,

Glad you took the time to check it out ... And decided not to go
the 'but I could use the money' route. Personal integrity is price-
less; something you'll appreciate even more as the years pass.

:m: :cool: :m: