Censorship of non-mainstream ideas in physics leads to opportunities for independent scientists

There have been some discussion whether are new ideas in physics censored or rather supported. I would say, that it heavily depends whether are the the new ideas within mainstream opinions or outside of the main flow. For example theories like string theory, theories about worm holes, time travel, superdeterminism (no free will) or multiverse theory appears to me as ridiculous, non falsifiable and without the sligthest support by observations, but all these mentioned theories are due to some psychological and sociological tendencies established as mainstream.

When we look on it from personal perspective of professional physicist, it takes decades to complete the needed education (master, PhD, postdoc) and years to fit into some research. And this long preparation period is first major selection mechanism, where most non conformist persons are pushed out, because the maistream is not teached as broad stream of competing theories, the mainstream is preached like god given scripture. After this big educational hurdle, the few remaining non conformists are under extreme pressure to fit in within established maistream, because sometimes even the slightest venture into non mainstream can lead to vicious attacks by peers and swift excommunication of the rebel.

Therefore the majority of professional physicists are extremely anxious about presenting some new non mainstream ideas, because they could lose the respect of peers, lose ability to publish in preprint and journals, lose the tenure. Simply they could lose everything in few days just because of some few negative reviews and all the years of hard work could go down the drain.

Some people are expressing negative opinion about this situation, but I would like to highlight the positive side of this situation. Professional physicists have superior knowledge compared to independent/amateur scientists, but they are significantly limited in what they are able to research or publish. People who stick to the truth presented by observations and experiments could be more succesful than the professional physicists in case when the true description of nature is outside of the current established mainstream and therefore outside of the reach of professional physicists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unfortunately, there is no choice - a serious education is necessary before starting doing real science, at least in physics.

Of course, learning science is a hard job, and you have, essentially, not much choice but to learn what was successful in the past. But it is not completely true that this would rule out non-conformism. The point is that what education requires is that you the established theories, not that you like them. And what you need to get your PhD and your first publications is to find something new - thus, something yet unknown. You will not get a PhD simply for repeating the Dogma.

What is the problem is what happens after you finished the education, after you got your PhD. The reasonable way would be the following: Once you have got the PhD, thus, shown that you have learned science, and shown to be able to find something new, get a safe job, low wage but forever, and try to find something new. Once you succeed, fine, higher payment. If not, ok, such is life, live for low wage, but you are free to try whatever you think is a good idea.

The result would be a lot of very different approaches. Of course, most of them will fail. In every particular question, all except the single correct one will fail. But so what, this is known from the start.

What do we have today? You have to get a grant, thus, to work in some mainstream direction. After two years, you need a new job, thus, have to be attractive for those who decide about who gets the jobs. Thus, you have to follow the mainstream. The predictable result is something close to what we observe - one, however speculative, approach becomes the only game in the town.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If one looks at how these ideas are investigated by professional physicists, much of it is by looking for ways to gather evidence for and against such theories.

The mainstream is taught as a series of methods and techniques. Ignoring these is frowned upon but the conclusions have less standing than technique.

You can't lose tenure once you have it. Even by harassing students, you probably can't lose tenure.

Examples? Evidence?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nobody is looking for evidence for and against string theory. In its core it is theological theory, which is based on believes and on esoteric math, but it is established part of the mainstream physics, so physicists can publish it and get grants for research and nobody asks for evidence. It is also good example of that psychological and social factors are more important than actual evidence when it comes to what is selected as mainstream and what is not.

 

Really? Recently I presented you with a page with links to many researchers looking for evidence for and against string theory. Some of them have published evidence that shows that certain kinds of string theories likely won't work.

That you find the mathematics esoteric is something about your psychology, not about the math or about the people who use the mathematics. People criticize some forms of string theory for having too many free variables, but this is a legitimate scientific criticism, not a mathematical criticism.

But, foolishly, I ask again, are there examples of people who have "lost it all" in a matter of days because of publishing some alternative theory?

 

This is, in fact, an interesting question. Is there something objective which one can use to distinguish esoteric mathematics? Of course, "esoteric" is sufficiently vague, so that one should not expect something very precise. But it is also not completely arbitrary.

There is, for example, the classification of simple Lie groups. There are some infinite series, quite easy to understand them. But there are also some other, so called exceptional groups. What can be a better pretender to the status of an esoteric Lie group than the largest of these exceptional groups? This is E(8). And this group plays a large role in string theory.

This is not the problem. The problem is that if you decide to spend time developing alternative theories, you will publish. Nothing. And then you are out after the end of your actual grant.

No need for evil conspirators who destroy what you have once you have published some evil theory. (This happens in more politically influenced sciences, but not in physics.)

 

Invariably these types of threads boil down to, "My uneducated guesses at physics are rejected as absurd, so physicist must not allowed to think 'out of the box'".

 

There are some fundamental unanswered questions in modern physics, such as why is the speed of light the same in all inertial references. To put this in perspective, in a universe of assumed randomness, this observation does not follow the trend. Why doesn't the speed of light follow the random assumption trend and have statistical or even quantum variation?

If you can't answer these two basic questions, maybe the rest of the theory is built on a weak foundation.

The speed of light is the same in all references because this is the zero state of the universe. Inertial reference may be relative, but the speed of light reference is the same for all because it is the place of lowest potential in the universe. It is analogous to the ground in an electrical circuit. It does not where in the circuit we begin, the ground is always the same. Even absolute zero still is not the ground state.

What explanations do all the standard theories use? If we compare two theories and one theory can explain this and the other can't, doesn't one theory become a more solid foundation? The answer is yes.

But what often happens is once a castle is built on a sandy foundation and begins to settle and crack, it is shored up. If a solid stone foundation is made available, there is often not enough desire to move the castle, as long as the shoring is successful; bandaids.

It is not easy to take apart the castle and build on the new foundation. You will need to dismantle the entire castle to get to the support beams, with the fathers of physics who laid those beams, not with us, to help fasten them on the new foundation.

One answer to why change is difficult is we have too many finish carpenters but not enough framers, like the days of old.

 

No, this one is different. Common approach is to blame "evil physicists" about censorship of new ideas, but this approach is embracing the fact, that professional physicists are stuck in the dead end in case when the true theory is outside of the mainstream and it is highlighting a positive chance for people who have no such limits. Overwhelming majority of them will produce nothing valuable, but they still could have better chance than the self limited approach of otherwise superior professional physicists. And when I look on the advances of explanation of dark energy and in creation of quantum gravity theory in last 10 years, I would say that professional physicists are really stuck in dead end.

 

I see that idea as preposterous and an excuse used by would be's if they could be's and/or those that have failed to actually make the grade...While at times there maybe exceptions, the fact remains that with the advanced technological instruments and precision equipment available to the professional today, it's obvious that those not qualified and or amateurs are at a total disadvantage.
My suggestion is that if they or you believe fervently in what you say, then spend the time and effort obtaining the necessary degrees and qualifications, and via the scientific method and peer review, put forward for consideration what you believe is superior to those you say are at a dead end.
Best of luck!

 

Well if you are right, time will tell. But often these sticking points can last for half a century or more, so don't expect a quick resolution.

 

No, the "chance" of people who are not part of the physics community to come up with useful new ideas is at best a rounding-error away from zero. It's rare in any science and I don't think has ever happened in physics.

 

Doesn't sound any different to me. [Shrug]

 

Please don't post your pseudoscience in the science section.

 

Thats not true. For example Heaviside greatly improved Maxwells equations and was participating on the early development of part of relativity theory with FitzGerald.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside

I understand, that this is rare and rather old case, but it certainly proves you wrong.

 

A chap who belongs to the astronomy forum that I belong to discovered a new galaxy and you would bet your house that was not possible.
Another group are still beating the professionals to super nova discovery and these days you would think absolutely no way.
Mind you these folk have been dedicated astronomers for years.
Unusual things can happen sometimes.
Alex

 

It validates 2 of 3 because of the age and rarity and the third I hedged on. I'll say it again without the last part: No, the "chance" of people who are not part of the physics community to come up with useful new ideas is at best a rounding-error away from zero. It's rare in any science.

 

Was that directed at me? I'm a serious amateur astronomer so yeah, I know what I might discover: http://www.russsscope.net/
Being the first to see a never before seen object is only the entry point to a scientific discovery. In order to be a meaningful contribution, it has to be studied and properly interpreted. The best I would hope for (and I do hope to one day make such a discovery) is to have my name on the paper a professional astronomer writes about it. But I'd settle for in the paper.

Stumbling on a cave that turns out to have an archeological find in it isn't being a professional archeologist either, it's just luck: http://mentalfloss.com/article/7041...nds-discovered-ordinary-people-and-one-badger

 

No it was not.

I dont think he got a mention and I did not follow it other than the excitment on the forum.
I was not trying to suggest these guys were doing professional science.
But certainly with one of the super nova observations the professionals would not have known if not for our guys observation.
I can not recall specifics because my memory is not working as it once did and I am not going to try and search for any details. But the team is known as the BOSS team not to beconfused with the "professional boss team" and again I cant recall what the letters in each case stand for. Iceinspace is the amateur astronomy site if you wish to look. You may find the deep sky astrophotography interesting as some of our guys are doing decent work.
Ignore me there I am the resident crackpot there to sideline the occassional cranks and I have not posted any captures for many years now.

Alex

 

Fair 'nuff.

There is an amatuer who has been so prolific in watching Jupiter that he's been asked to participate in NASA research:
http://jupiter.cstoneind.com/
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/stor...nomer-to-play-key-role-in-jupiter-exploration

I'm not sure if this guy was mentioned in scientific publications, but he got a decent amount of media and probably a little endorsement deal for discovering a supernova:
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/wolfgang2-jpg.35025/