Are There Any Undiscovered Newtons?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vandivx

Guest
<font face="Times New Roman"><p><font size="3">Einstein and GUT... yes I know he didn't work on that, I put it there as gross simplification while being perfectly aware that he worked only on the partial unification you mention, reason was everybody knows what GUT is and it is written out only by three strokes into keyboard and the fact that Einstein worked only on partial unification and that full blown GUT wasn't the goal yet in those days is, I think, besides the point in what I was trying to say there, going into such details would only distract from the subject matter, which was not history of science presentation, that would mean losing sight of the forest because of trees</font></p><p><font size="3">I hope nobody takes what I write here as textbook grade and tries to get his physics (history of science) education here, no one should use any forums that way anyway</font></p><font size="3">good explanation necessarily simplifies and it is </font></font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">self-serving</font><font face="Times New Roman"> trying to hold one to details, it has to be taken in perspective, for example I am not trying to say that Newton just stated - here's the </font><font face="Times New Roman">principle</font><font face="Times New Roman"> of calculus and bye bye, I am off thinking of or inventing something else, he invented it because he needed it for other problems that he was working on at the time and as with every new baby one tries to develop it himself to be sure, still it remains the fact that the fat calculus books </font><font face="Times New Roman">full</font><font face="Times New Roman"> of theorems and proofs and what not that today's students wade through only came to be in subsequent times and that was the point I was trying to make, actual reality is typically hardly ever as clean and unmessy to serve as good explanation - here the </font><font face="Times New Roman">explanation</font></font><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3"> of what is the import of genius thinkers</font></font><font face="Times New Roman"> <p><font size="3">actual reality is always somewhat messy, no one ever confined himself strictly to the groundwork of undiluted genius grade and in the work of lesser scientists there occasionally </font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">shows</font><font face="Times New Roman"> stroke of genius, nothing is </font><font face="Times New Roman">clear-cut</font><font face="Times New Roman"> in life but that doesn't mean we should avoid </font><font face="Times New Roman">distilling</font></font><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3"> reality for the purpose of clear view</font><font size="3">true enough, few ever kept producing genius grade work throughout their lifetimes, what I expressed </font></font></p></font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">disappointment</font><font face="Times New Roman"> over was that Einstein plainly let himself be taken in by academia and its style of work in his later years which represented total abrogation of his previous approach to physics, which was physical thinking, not mathematical juggling of equations which </font><font face="Times New Roman">admittedly</font><font face="Times New Roman"> had some success in the history of physics and unfortunately many got sold </font><font face="Times New Roman">on</font></font><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3"> doing physics that way like if it was mathematics</font></font><font face="Times New Roman"> <p><font size="3">if Einstein instead focused for example on the problem of inertia which is central to relativity theories, then perhaps his biographer A Pais wouldn't have to write that inertia of masses remains to this day an unsolved mystery in physics (as of ~ 1950s), if Einstein worked on that using his early methods of gedanken thinking, then even if he didn't </font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">succeed</font><font face="Times New Roman"> at solving it, at least it would be dignified effort, it has to be said despite the respect one otherwise has for him (that's how I see it, make what want of it, I don't want to hear retorts like who am I telling Einstein what to do or something to that effect, I just say my opinion, how I see it, </font><font face="Times New Roman">that&rsquo;s</font><font face="Times New Roman"> all)</font></font></p></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Einstein and GUT... yes I know he didn't work on that, I put it there as gross simplification while being perfectly aware that he worked only on the partial unification you mention, reason was everybody knows what GUT is and it is written out only by three strokes into keyboard and the fact that Einstein worked only on partial unification and that full blown GUT...Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>Apparently not everyone understands what a GUT is.</p><p>A GUT is a Grand Unified Theory, and despite the name it is not a unification of all known forces.&nbsp; It is specifically and attempt to unify the theory of the strong force, quantum&nbsp; chromodynamics, with the&nbsp;already unified theory of the electromagnetic and weak forces, the electroweak theory.&nbsp; It specifically is not an attempt to unify gravity, with the electroweak or strong forces.&nbsp; A theory that would include the electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravitational forces is sometimes called a Theory of Everything.&nbsp; </p><p>What Einstein was pursuing in his later years was an attemtp to unify the electromagnetic force with general relativity, i.e. gravity.&nbsp; So his unification attempt was none of the above.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<p><font size="3">well, now they know but are they better off for that?</font></p><p><font size="3">&nbsp;all these unification efforts are misguided same way that Einstein's was, it is putting cart before the horse, there is desire of unification and then the fileds/areas are chosen to be unfied - classical top down approach driven not by some concrete&nbsp;fact(s) which would point to common ground but simply by desire 'how would it be nice and neat if we had one set of equation instead of two' and while it would be nice indeed, it is shouldn't be primary reason for such efforts</font></p><p><font size="3">&nbsp;speaking of unification, why do we still have to this very day two&nbsp;separate&nbsp;relativity theories? why didn't that bother Einstein as much as the other unification that he worked on? it did bother him a bit&nbsp;I believe but apparently&nbsp;not to the extent of dedicating much time to it, the initial idea was that GR would include SR, after all that's what the term 'general' would seem to imply</font></p><p><font size="3">&nbsp;why wasn't he&nbsp;bothered for example&nbsp;by the apparent&nbsp;disparity of inertia playing role in accelerated motion but not in uniform (that would make for smooth transition&nbsp;between the two RTs, SR&GR and thus their unification), never mind Newton's none other than first law? breaking laws never mind 'first ones'&nbsp;would be true genius stuff and&nbsp;might&nbsp;have&nbsp;put Einstein on the same pedestal that Newton is on, who knows</font></p><p><font size="3">I put&nbsp;this in as an example of what makes&nbsp;a genius a genius or more specifically what would make Einstein bigger genius, working out picky and not so picky consequences of one's new theory is indeed also done by geniuses but it is not why they came to be called geniuses in the first place, one has to separate, that is distill what is important in this regard, I feel like stating the obvious which is what it is or should be</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>well, now they know but are they better off for that?&nbsp;all these unification efforts are misguided same way that Einstein's was, it is putting cart before the horse, there is desire of unification and then the fileds/areas are chosen to be unfied - classical top down approach driven not by some concrete&nbsp;fact(s) which would point to common ground but simply by desire 'how would it be nice and neat if we had one set of equation instead of two' and while it would be nice indeed, it is shouldn't be primary reason for such efforts&nbsp;speaking of unification, why do we still have to this very day two&nbsp;separate&nbsp;relativity theories? why didn't that bother Einstein as much as the other unification that he worked on? it did bother him a bit&nbsp;I believe but apparently&nbsp;not to the extent of dedicating much time to it, the initial idea was that GR would include SR, after all that's what the term 'general' would seem to imply&nbsp;why wasn't he&nbsp;bothered for example&nbsp;by the apparent&nbsp;disparity of inertia playing role in accelerated motion but not in uniform (that would make for smooth transition&nbsp;between the two RTs, SR&GR and thus their unification), never mind Newton's none other than first law? breaking laws never mind 'first ones'&nbsp;would be true genius stuff and&nbsp;might&nbsp;have&nbsp;put Einstein on the same pedestal that Newton is on, who knowsI put&nbsp;this in as an example of what makes&nbsp;a genius a genius or more specifically what would make Einstein bigger genius, working out picky and not so picky consequences of one's new theory is indeed also done by geniuses but it is not why they came to be called geniuses in the first place, one has to separate, that is distill what is important in this regard, I feel like stating the obvious which is what it is or should be&nbsp; <br />Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>One might hope that people are better off by knowing the true nature of a concept.&nbsp; Try it you might like it.&nbsp; You might want to read up a bit on&nbsp;physical theories so that you can discuss them from a perspective some understanding.&nbsp; You clearly lack much understanding at the moment.</p><p>There are not two distinct theories of relativity.&nbsp; Special relativity applies in situations of relative uniform motion between reference frames, and in particular in the absence of gravitational phenomena.&nbsp; General Relativity includes special relativity and addresses relative acceleration between reference frames and gravitational phenomena.&nbsp; The reason for the distinction is two-fold:&nbsp; Special Relativity was formulated an published about 10 years prior to General Relativity, and was an established theory by the time that GR was announced.&nbsp; Secondly, the mathematics of Special Relativity is quite a bit more simple than that of the general theory, and hence special relativity is still taught to audiences that do no have the necessary mathematical background for GR.&nbsp; But in situations in which gravity can be neglected and in which one is not dealing with accelerated motion, GR reduces to Special Relativity.</p><p>The ability to work out the details of a revolutionary theory, to make specific predictions and to recognize how the theory meshes with the remainder of physical law, in detail, is what separates a geniun from a crackpot.</p><p>I note that you chose not to address my original question and provide an example of a so-called genius who did not work out the details of his "genius-level" proposal so as to be able to provide a useable theory with predictions that coould in principle be tested.&nbsp; </p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the mathematics of Special Relativity is quite a bit more simple than that of the general theory, and hence special relativity is still taught to audiences that do no have the necessary mathematical background for GR.&nbsp; But in situations in which gravity can be neglected and in which one is not dealing with accelerated motion, GR reduces to Special Relativity.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br /><font size="3">I always found the statement misleading&nbsp;that GR reduces to SR (in the limit when gravity is weak and the curvature straightens out...) because by reduction I would expect mathematical reduction to&nbsp;equations of SR&nbsp;which would mean there would be no separate&nbsp;theory&nbsp;as SR then but that is not the case</font></p><p><font size="3">perhaps if SR were able to incorporate acceleration (I&nbsp;wouldn't find that inconceivable)&nbsp;and so be able to&nbsp;calculate with perhaps some extra difficulty what GR can do more easily, then I would agree that about the reduction, then it would be&nbsp;analogous to&nbsp;Schrodinger equation vs Heisenberg matrix mechanics which do the same things differently but one is more sensibly employed in given situation than the other and vice versa</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The ability to work out the details of a revolutionary theory, to make specific predictions and to recognize how the theory meshes with the remainder of physical law, in detail, is what separates a geniun from a crackpot.I note that you chose not to address my original question and provide an example of a so-called genius who did not work out the details of his "genius-level" proposal so as to be able to provide a useable theory with predictions that coould in principle be tested.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><font size="3">well, yes, but you seem to miss what I was trying to explain and that was what makes a genius a genius, the gist of what determines that some achievement is&nbsp;genius grade,&nbsp;surely one must provide some basis for one's claims, it wouldn't do if Newton just claimed that the Moon is falling same way&nbsp;that an apple does and leave it at that or if Einstein just pointed out that speed of light is constant and that one can't ride along with electromagnetic wave as observer&nbsp;and that if you were falling in elevator you couldn't tell that from being suspended&nbsp;in free space etc. etc., that wouldn't be enough to make them the&nbsp;geniuses they are, it is neccessary to provide at least basic theoretical&nbsp;framework proving and showing their&nbsp;insights amd giving the theory some development generally&nbsp;and as I said everyone tries to develop his theory himself to reap as much from it and not to leave it free to all for initial easy picking to scientific&nbsp;specialist sharks who get to feed and thus cut theit teeth on it and earn credit they otherwise couldn't earn without the genius providing them with the theory in the&nbsp;first place&nbsp;</font></p><p><font size="3">but the&nbsp;whole point is those starting brilliant&nbsp;insights are the sole reason for being taken for genius by one's peers, when people look&nbsp;back at their&nbsp;achievements, that's what they see and admire,&nbsp;that does not mean that&nbsp;certain&nbsp;theoretical development for&nbsp;the initial presentation of the genius idea is necessary, which process&nbsp;sometimes can go on past the genius's lifetime even and provide others with Nobel prizes&nbsp;and what not else but typically such work doesn't put them into genius class, for that they would need some fruitfull&nbsp;brilliant intial insights of their own which would open up new grounds for exploration</font></p><p><font size="3">&nbsp;that is my answer to what I see as&nbsp;your intentional misconstruing of what I posted on the genius subject -&nbsp;that tries&nbsp;to put everything into the&nbsp;worst light by hooking onto literal out of context meaning, also I don't enjoy your adversarial approach and the 'pulling by small hairs around ears' method like when you admonish me like&nbsp;above:&nbsp;"I note that you chose not to address my original question "</font></p><p><font size="3">sometimes I suppose I also get (got)&nbsp;like that but mostly I try to avoid that and just&nbsp;state my opinion and others may state theirs, how they see it and that they disagree with me and if they explain why they disagree, fine, if not, I don't put them verbally on spot challenging them like in some duel of one upmanship</font></p><p><font size="3">I can see that we will disagree on the&nbsp;the role of&nbsp;genius in science,&nbsp;with you minimizing their role and indispensability&nbsp;and myself maximizing it, of course I run the&nbsp;danger of making it look as if they are irreplacable and that others didn't come close or count, like when something is done in&nbsp;a workplace&nbsp;by a group of people, I look for that one essential&nbsp;individual who was the prime mover behind what was done, mostly there is one person&nbsp;like that who made the group's doing possible, while others might credit all group's members equally</font></p><p><font size="3">on the subject of undiscovered geniuses, I thought I would mention Bobby Fischer -&nbsp;the one time&nbsp;chess master&nbsp;who was the opposite of undiscovered, he chose to hide his abilities from world while still in 'productive age', that would be like if Einstein would go into seclusion as far as his later life's work was concerned as a gesture of&nbsp;disagreement over his theory being used to make possible the&nbsp;atomic bomb, then we might be left&nbsp;wondering what we have lost because of that and there would be scramble to get at his notes posthumously</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I always found the statement misleading&nbsp;that GR reduces to SR (in the limit when gravity is weak and the curvature straightens out...) because by reduction I would expect mathematical reduction to&nbsp;equations of SR&nbsp;which would mean there would be no separate&nbsp;theory&nbsp;as SR then but that is not the caseperhaps if SR were able to incorporate acceleration (I&nbsp;wouldn't find that inconceivable)&nbsp;and so be able to&nbsp;calculate with perhaps some extra difficulty what GR can do more easily, then I would agree that about the reduction, then it would be&nbsp;analogous to&nbsp;Schrodinger equation vs Heisenberg matrix mechanics which do the same things differently but one is more sensibly employed in given situation than the other and vice versa&nbsp;well, yes, but you seem to miss what I was trying to explain and that was what makes a genius a&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.&nbsp; GR does in fact reduce to SR in the absence of&nbsp;acceleration and gravity.&nbsp; GR is a GENERALIZATION of SR.&nbsp; Period.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">Heisenberg's matrix mechanics and Schrodingers wave&nbsp;mechanics are merely equivalent definitions of the same thing.&nbsp; There is&nbsp;no reduction involved.&nbsp; They are completely equivalent.&nbsp; </font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;the gist of what determines that some achievement is&nbsp;genius grade,&nbsp;surely one must provide some basis for one's claims, it wouldn't do if Newton just claimed that the Moon is falling same way&nbsp;that an apple does and leave it at that or if Einstein just pointed out that speed of light is constant and that one can't ride along with electromagnetic wave as observer&nbsp;and that if you were falling in elevator you couldn't tell that from being suspended&nbsp;in free space etc. etc., that wouldn't be enough to make them the&nbsp;geniuses they are, it is neccessary to provide at least basic theoretical&nbsp;framework proving and showing their&nbsp;insights amd giving the theory some development generally&nbsp;and as I said everyone tries to develop his theory himself to reap as much from it and not to leave it free to all for initial easy picking to scientific&nbsp;specialist sharks who get to feed and thus cut theit teeth on it and earn credit they otherwise couldn't earn without the genius providing them with the theory in the&nbsp;first place&nbsp;but the&nbsp;whole point is those starting brilliant&nbsp;insights are the sole reason for being taken for genius by one's peers, when people look&nbsp;back at their&nbsp;achievements, that's what they see and admire,&nbsp;that does not mean that&nbsp;certain&nbsp;theoretical development for&nbsp;the initial presentation of the genius idea is necessary, which process&nbsp;sometimes can go on past the genius's lifetime even and provide others with Nobel prizes&nbsp;and what not else but typically such work doesn't put them into genius class, for that they would need some fruitfull&nbsp;brilliant intial insights of their own which would open up new grounds for exploration&nbsp;that is my answer to what I see as&nbsp;your intentional misconstruing of what I posted on the genius subject -&nbsp;that tries&nbsp;to put everything into the&nbsp;worst light by hooking onto literal out of context meaning, also I don't enjoy your adversarial approach and the 'pulling by small hairs around ears' method like when you admonish me like&nbsp;above:&nbsp;"I note that you chose not to address my original question</p><p><font color="#0000ff">And you did not address that question.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;"sometimes I suppose I also get (got)&nbsp;like that but mostly I try to avoid that and just&nbsp;state my opinion and others may state theirs, how they see it and that they disagree with me and if they explain why they disagree, fine, if not, I don't put them verbally on spot challenging them like in some duel of one upmanshipI can see that we will disagree on the&nbsp;the role of&nbsp;genius in science,&nbsp;with you minimizing their role and indispensability&nbsp;and myself maximizing it, of course I run the&nbsp;danger of making it look as if they are irreplacable and that others didn't come close or count, like when something is done in&nbsp;a workplace&nbsp;by a group of people, I look for that one essential&nbsp;individual who was the prime mover behind what was done, mostly there is one person&nbsp;like that who made the group's doing possible, while others might credit all group's members equallyon the subject of undiscovered geniuses, I thought I would mention Bobby Fischer -&nbsp;the one time&nbsp;chess master&nbsp;who was the opposite of undiscovered, he chose to hide his abilities from world while still in 'productive age', that would be like if Einstein would go into seclusion as far as his later life's work was concerned as a gesture of&nbsp;disagreement over his theory being used to make possible the&nbsp;atomic bomb, then we might be left&nbsp;wondering what we have lost because of that and there would be scramble to get at his notes posthumously </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Einstein's theory actually had relatively little impact on the design of the atomic bomb.&nbsp; He was not&nbsp;particularly knowledgeable in nuclear physics.&nbsp; Others understood that subject far better than did Einstein.&nbsp; His role was&nbsp;basically t lend his fame and reputation to a letter to Roosevelt that called attention to both the potential for such a weapon and the danger&nbsp;that it might be&nbsp;developed by Nazi&nbsp;Germany.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">My point in asking you to think about your words and to provide an example is that opinions are more valuable when supported by a fact or two.&nbsp; Everyone has their right to an opinion, but opinions unsupported by the facts are not worthy of consideration by others.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br />Posted by vandivx</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Undiscovered Newtons?"&nbsp; interesting topic this oneI believe they are there and always have been but not necessarily with some earth shattering discoveries worked out,----------------- &nbsp;continued <br /> Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p><font size="2">Excellent 3-part post, vandivx!!! Eloquently presented and nicely touched all important areas of physics and science in general.&nbsp; I'll only retype (copy really) some of the important sentences from your posts and will try to emphasize them.</font></p><p><font face="MS Sans Serif" color="#ff0000"><font size="2">why some periods in history of mankind are abundant with geniuses in various fields and why there are stretches of times without them, I'd say it depends on the propitious environment that societies provide at various times</font></font> </p><p><font size="2">Hard to say, because I may be wrong but I think during the periods when Newton's discovered gravity and Einstein worked&nbsp; on relativity, the world was 'relatively calm' politically.<br /></font></p><font face="MS Sans Serif" size="2" color="#ff0000">Plato&nbsp;was lesser genius than Aristotle&nbsp;(you could say, no wonder given that it was necessity for them as sciences were just coming into existence and had to be invented themselves in those days </font><p><font size="2">&nbsp;How and when science started will always be a debatable subject and people will have different opinion on this. But one thing I noticed in history&nbsp; in medieval time people were sincerely searching for&nbsp; knowledge, their hunger for knowledge in all earthly and non-earthly matters&nbsp; are well documented in writings. It's a shame how our present society views interest in knowledge or acquiring knowledge by someone.</font></p><p><font face="MS Sans Serif"><font size="2"> <font color="#ff0000">it takes near genius to recognize another genius&nbsp; </font></font></font></p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;This&nbsp; is avery profound statement I have heard for some time. But the problem is what if one genius is born today and the next genius is born 100 years later? The first genius will be ridiculed to his grave then people will recognize their mistake. Just look at Kaluza's theory - published almost 100 years ago, now string theory is reborn because of his theory. There are, I'm sure, other similar examples .</font></p><p><font face="MS Sans Serif" color="#ff0000"><font size="2">basically genius is one who opens up new roads of inquiry that other lesser scientists then travel on and develop it bit by bit making small or greater connections within existing compendium of knowledge but to the extent they are not geniuses they cannot stray afar from the rough cut roadway that geniuses before them opened up,</font></font> </p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;After Newton and Einstein and the group who put the foundation of quantum mechanics in place, we haven't seen a real genius yet. Feynmann comes close, but I won't place Hawking in that Feynmann group either. This is what separates the genius group and the rest of the scientists. </font></p><p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><font face="MS Sans Serif">that they never throw out the bathwater with the baby</font></font> </p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;What if we really have done that? Have we thrown away the baby with bathwater? Because so many people so many ways&nbsp; tried to solve this incredible puzzle throughout centuries, we may have unknowingly ignored/dropped someone's work which could have led us in the right direction a lot faster and sooner.&nbsp; </font></p><p>&nbsp;<font face="MS Sans Serif" color="#ff0000"><font size="2">another such closed area of science is the field of quantum mechanics, that is its logical/physical interpretation, typical attitude is that the issue is closed, that it was proved once and for all that no understanding of the phenomena can be had and any efforts in that direction don't receive any attention, in fact one has almost the impression that the solution here would not even be wanted, that scientists in effect take pride in the profundity and mystery that envelopes this whole field </font></font></p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;This time you completely read my mind. I have also noticed established scientists don't want to find out the mysteries behind QM, why do we have to use probability, what is the reason behind uncertainty, even quantum tunneling, In my mind, is not a fluke of nature. Main stream scientists mindset is 'You can't touch this!! Don't touch QM, you'll break it, use it as it is, no question asked'.<br /></font></p><p><font face="MS Sans Serif" color="#ff0000"><font size="2">one day new genius steps in and opens up new vista, fundamentally changes the course of the scientific inquiry and that gives the science new lease on life, without such renewal the science becomes in time overspecialized and embroiled in minute details and runs off into speculative theories when the old roads are over explored and over trodden and too many blind alleys and puzzles&nbsp;are found for which there are no answers</font></font></p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;This is another condition of science I constantly vent on. Overdoing research on a particular topic until it bleeds. Two subjects come to mind right now, big bang and blackholes. The amount of man-hour spent on their research&nbsp; could have been diverted and used on some other research roads less traveled. Now the same thingis happening with dark matters.</font></p><p><font size="2">vandivx, your posts are full many interesting points discussing the past and present conditions of science, it was a very interesting read,&nbsp; </font><font size="2">I have touched only a few of them. </font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>,,, I may be wrong but I think during the periods when Newton's discovered gravity and Einstein worked&nbsp; on relativity, the world was 'relatively calm' politically.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Well there were a few changes: American Revolution, French Revolutioin, replacement of the British monarchy with parliamentary government, Boxer Rebellion, 1905 Russian Revolution ...</font></p><p>..., &nbsp;After Newton and Einstein and the group who put the foundation of quantum mechanics in place, we haven't seen a real genius yet. Feynmann comes close, but I won't place Hawking in that Feynmann group either. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Feynman, Schwinger and Tomogawa's formulation of quantum electrodynamics&nbsp;ranks right up there.&nbsp; So does Dirac's work,&nbsp;and Weinberg's.&nbsp; </font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>This is what separates the genius group and the rest of the scientists. that they never throw out the bathwater with the baby </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Einstein tossed out most of quantum mechanics.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>...&nbsp;&nbsp;another such closed area of science is the field of quantum mechanics, that is its logical/physical interpretation, typical attitude is that the issue is closed, that it was proved once and for all that no understanding of the phenomena can be had and any efforts in that direction don't receive any attention, in fact one has almost the impression that the solution here would not even be wanted, that scientists in effect take pride in the profundity and mystery that envelopes this whole field </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Yet John Archibald Wheeler mentored Hugh Everett when he wrote his dissertation on the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;This time you completely read my mind. I have also noticed established scientists don't want to find out the mysteries behind QM, why do we have to use probability, what is the reason behind uncertainty, even quantum tunneling, In my mind, is not a fluke of nature. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">The fact that a probabilistic interpretation is required is one of the deep mysteries of physics.&nbsp; It is what kept Einstein from accepting the theory and kept him looking for "hidden variables" to eliminate&nbsp;probabilities and return to a deterministic theory.&nbsp;&nbsp;This has been investigated in depth and it has been shown that no set of hidden variables can provide for a deterministic theory.&nbsp; Scientists are not closed-minded about the issue, but they are realistic about it.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Main stream scientists mindset is 'You can't touch this!! Don't touch QM, you'll break it, use it as it is'.one day new genius steps in and opens up new vista, fundamentally changes the course of the scientific inquiry and that gives the science new lease on life, without such renewal the science becomes in time overspecialized and embroiled in minute details and runs off into speculative theories when the old roads are over explored and over trodden and too many blind alleys and puzzles&nbsp;are found for which there are no answers&nbsp;This is another condition of science I constantly vent on. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Venting is not particularly useful, particularly when not fully informed.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>Overdoing research on a particular topic until it bleeds. Two subjects come to mind right now, big bang and blackholes. The amount of man-hour spent on their research&nbsp; could have been diverted and used on some other research roads less traveled. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">If you think other research avenues would be more productive, why not pursue them?&nbsp; But&nbsp;pursue them rigorously and with knowledge of the basics.&nbsp; Good researchers pursue their own paths, not paths dictated&nbsp;to them.&nbsp; Although sometimes the popularity of a particular line of research leads to some overemphasis.</font></p><p>Now the same thingis happening on dark matters.vandivx, your posts are full many interesting points discussing the past and present conditions of science, it was a very interesting read,&nbsp; I have touched only a few of them. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jbachmurski

Guest
<p>Interesting discussion, but its not the geniuses that I wonder or worry about, it&rsquo;s the ordinary person who makes an extraordinary scientific discovery. Experts seem to automatically assume that amateurs, outsiders, and ordinary people are wrong about such things, as a result most amateurs often work alone. If their discoveries differ with conventional thinking, they are dismissed as &ldquo;crackpots&rdquo; long before anyone knows what it is they are trying to say. If they don&rsquo;t have the resources to do ALL of the work to prove to the world that they are right, then&hellip; regardless of the truth, they&rsquo;re just fighting a lost cause.</p><p>So if anyone, or any great discovery, has been lost to history I believe it&rsquo;s the ordinary guy with a truly extraordinary scientific discovery. He&rsquo;s the one who is most likely to take his work to the grave.</p>
 
T

Tissa_Perera

Guest
I am pretty sure there are at least a few potential individuals in the world population who may be as smart as Newton. They may already have great theories of&nbsp; their own subject matter. They may even have it all written up and ready to publish. Unfortunately, they are held back from publishing due to many factors that&nbsp; professionals enjoy as a matter of course. Not many so called professionals are productive as Newton either. But they have the privilege to be heard in scientific circles even if they produce a dead end theory<br />as most of them are. Most of the professionals&nbsp; produce thesis papers and concepts that are invalidated later, but still earns them a PhD and a job. <br /><br />The other factor is Plagiarism. Some may be put off from publishing because of the fear of&nbsp; ideas being stolen by others. Copy rights may not suffice to put off potential copy cats. What is needed is to have&nbsp; something similar to the USPTO with an additional safety from Plagiarism.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />I would like to see a government funded reputed scientific organization, where for a small fee, it would be possible for any one to submit an idea for scientific scrutiny. The submission should be available for public viewing immediately, like this post, with author and date as proof of first publication. Of course, there will be many millions of submissions, mostly unscientific and crazy, but that will be the paid work of this organization. Hopefully, the public will get better returns from science spending.<br /><br />Tissa Perera<br /><br />
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Interesting discussion, but its not the geniuses that I wonder or worry about, it&rsquo;s the ordinary person who makes an extraordinary scientific discovery. Experts seem to automatically assume that amateurs, outsiders, and ordinary people are wrong about such things, as a result most amateurs often work alone. If their discoveries differ with conventional thinking, they are dismissed as &ldquo;crackpots&rdquo; long before anyone knows what it is they are trying to say. If they don&rsquo;t have the resources to do ALL of the work to prove to the world that they are right, then&hellip; regardless of the truth, they&rsquo;re just fighting a lost cause.So if anyone, or any great discovery, has been lost to history I believe it&rsquo;s the ordinary guy with a truly extraordinary scientific discovery. He&rsquo;s the one who is most likely to take his work to the grave. <br /> Posted by jbachmurski</DIV></p><p>Experts assume no such thing.&nbsp; Scientific 'experts' actually make the best skeptics and will scrutize ANY papers presented to them no matter what your credentials are.&nbsp;&nbsp; Crackpots are only labelled as such when they present something without any supporting evidence or supporting evidence that is just flat out wrong and continue to claim their little pet theory is right and the mainstream is wrong.</p><p>I'd also like to remind you that Einstein was an amateur by definition when he had his 'Annus Mirabilis' papers published which included work that earned in a Nobel in physics.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Interesting discussion, but its not the geniuses that I wonder or worry about, it&rsquo;s the ordinary person who makes an extraordinary scientific discovery. Experts seem to automatically assume that amateurs, outsiders, and ordinary people are wrong about such things, as a result most amateurs often work alone. If their discoveries differ with conventional thinking, they are dismissed as &ldquo;crackpots&rdquo; long before anyone knows what it is they are trying to say. If they don&rsquo;t have the resources to do ALL of the work to prove to the world that they are right, then&hellip; regardless of the truth, they&rsquo;re just fighting a lost cause.So if anyone, or any great discovery, has been lost to history I believe it&rsquo;s the ordinary guy with a truly extraordinary scientific discovery. He&rsquo;s the one who is most likely to take his work to the grave. <br />Posted by jbachmurski</DIV></p><p>Do you have any evidence whatever for this assertion ?&nbsp; Even one example ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Experts seem to automatically assume that amateurs, outsiders, and ordinary people are wrong about such things, as a result most amateurs often work alone. If their discoveries differ with conventional thinking, they are dismissed as &ldquo;crackpots&rdquo; long before anyone knows what it is they are trying to say. So if anyone, or any great discovery, has been lost to history I believe it&rsquo;s the ordinary guy with a truly extraordinary scientific discovery. He&rsquo;s the one who is most likely to take his work to the grave. <br /> Posted by jbachmurski</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;I totally agree with your assessment of the situation. I think this is what Vandivx termed as 'throwing baby with the bathwater'. Some ordinary individuals who may not be as brilliant as Newton (Newton was Jack of most trades) but may make&nbsp; just one extraordinary discovery without following conventional scientific rules (scientific but not conventional), he'll never get a scientific ears to listen to him. He'll never get access for a second to a million/billion dollars equipment to test his theory. Only published papers are kept for centuries, so his unpublished works will disappear from the face of the earth&nbsp; as if it never existed.</font></p><p><font size="2" color="#ff0000">I would like to see a government funded reputed scientific organization, where for a small fee, it would be possible for any one to submit an idea for scientific scrutiny. The submission should be available for public viewing immediately, like this post, with author and date as proof of first publication. Of course, there will be many millions of submissions, mostly unscientific and crazy, but that will be the paid work of this organization. Hopefully, the public will get better returns from science spending.</font></p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;Interesting idea, but I hate to get government involved in this. May be a non-profit public organization with substantial&nbsp; financial help from government. Patents have become unbelieveably expensive, average Joe can't afford a patent for ideas small or big.</font></p><p><font size="2" color="#ff0000">I'd also like to remind you that Einstein was an amateur by definition when he had his 'Annus Mirabilis' papers published which included work that earned in a Nobel in physics.</font></p><p><font size="2">Current scientific environment is very different from what they had during Einstein's relativity period, early 1900s. That was the time when many new ideas were born and people were hungry for new ideas. If quantum mechanics were conceived in the 1990s, my guts feeling tells me, it would have taken 50 to 100 years to be fully accepted. <br /></font></p>L<font size="2">et's see if I can explain the current problem with a hypothetical example. Suppose a scientist developed a theory in which he showed a curve in a graph, because of certain approximation or an assumption which are incorrect, has gone up instead of down. Later other scientists will follow his works and will extend the theory&nbsp; by making the curve go up and up as they keep discovering amazing results from the original theory. [We assume no experimental verification is possible with current tech] <br /><br />Now, say 2 or more decades later another scientist takes a different approach to the original problem and finds the curve actually goes down. He sends a paper for publication, do you think the paper will be published? The paper goes completely against the accepted theories.<br /><br />The mistakes in the&nbsp; scenario I have just described is not completely unthinkable. We are human.<br /></font><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;</font></p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp;I totally agree with your assessment of the situation. I think this is what Vandivx termed as 'throwing baby with the bathwater'. Some ordinary individuals who may not be as brilliant as Newton (Newton was Jack of most trades) but may make&nbsp; just one extraordinary discovery without following conventional scientific rules (scientific but not conventional), he'll never get a scientific ears to listen to him. He'll never get access for a second to a million/billion dollars equipment to test his theory. Only published papers are kept for centuries, so his unpublished works will disappear from the face of the earth&nbsp; as if it never existed.I would like to see a government funded reputed scientific organization, where for a small fee, it would be possible for any one to submit an idea for scientific scrutiny. The submission should be available for public viewing immediately, like this post, with author and date as proof of first publication. Of course, there will be many millions of submissions, mostly unscientific and crazy, but that will be the paid work of this organization. Hopefully, the public will get better returns from science spending.&nbsp;Interesting idea, but I hate to get government involved in this. May be a non-profit public organization with substantial&nbsp; financial help from government. Patents have become unbelieveably expensive, average Joe can't afford a patent for ideas small or big.I'd also like to remind you that Einstein was an amateur by definition when he had his 'Annus Mirabilis' papers published which included work that earned in a Nobel in physics.Current scientific environment is very different from what they had during Einstein's relativity period, early 1900s. That was the time when many new ideas were born and people were hungry for new ideas. If quantum mechanics were conceived in the 1990s, my guts feeling tells me, it would have taken 50 to 100 years to be fully accepted. Let's see if I can explain the current problem with a hypothetical example. Suppose a scientist developed a theory in which he showed a curve in a graph, because of certain approximation or an assumption which are incorrect, has gone up instead of down. Later other scientists will follow his works and will extend the theory&nbsp; by making the curve go up and up as they keep discovering amazing results from the original theory. [We assume no experimental verification is possible with current tech] Now, say 2 or more decades later another scientist takes a different approach to the original problem and finds the curve actually goes down. He sends a paper for publication, do you think the paper will be published? The paper goes completely against the accepted theories.The mistakes in the&nbsp; scenario I have just described is not completely unthinkable. We are human.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>I'll pose to you the same challenge.&nbsp; Provide one concrete true example supporting your notion as to how scientific ideas are evaluated.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><strong>Current scientific environment is very different from what they had during Einstein's relativity period, early 1900s. That was the time when many new ideas were born and people were hungry for new ideas.</strong> </p><p>While this may have some truth to it, the process for having new ideas accepted is still the same.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>If quantum mechanics were conceived in the 1990s, my guts feeling tells me, it would have taken 50 to 100 years to be fully accepted.</strong> </p><p>How so?&nbsp; How has the process to get new ideas accepted changed?</p><p><strong>Let's see if I can explain the current problem with a hypothetical example. Suppose a scientist developed a theory in which he showed a curve in a graph, because of certain approximation or an assumption which are incorrect, has gone up instead of down. Later other scientists will follow his works and will extend the theory&nbsp; by making the curve go up and up as they keep discovering amazing results from the original theory. [We assume no experimental verification is possible with current tech] Now, say 2 or more decades later another scientist takes a different approach to the original problem and finds the curve actually goes down. He sends a paper for publication, do you think the paper will be published? The paper goes completely against the accepted theories.</strong></p><p>Would it get published?&nbsp; In a heartbeat provided it is supported with evidence.&nbsp; After it is published, the paper will undergo the scrutiny of being peer reviewed.<br /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS