PSI Blog 20190306 An Open Response to Johanna
Miller’s Column--Sorry Crackpots
An Open Response to Johanna Miller’s Column: ‘Sorry, Crackpots’
On February 1, 2019, Johanna L.
Miller, an editor of Physics Today, published an article entitled “Sorry, Crackpots: A Physics Today editor explains
why we’re never going to publish your cockamamie theories”. As an independent researcher, one Ms. Miller would
improperly label as a crackpot, I believe that her position dangerously stifles
scientific advancement and innovation. To illustrate my point, I show how bias
and name calling prevents us from having a serious scientific conversation.
Let's begin with statements with
which everyone should agree:
- The average (or arithmetic mean), ξ, of
two expressions s and t can be found using the equation: ξ
= 0.5*(s + t). It can also be found using an equivalent equation: ξ
= t - 0.5 *(t - s). If you use the second equation but fail to
recognize it as an average, this does not enable it to take on new magical
properties.
- Mathematically, a circle (2D) or sphere (3D) is
axiomatically defined as, the set of all points in a Euclidean plane
(2D) or space (3D) that are a constant distance from a common
center. If you find at least two points that belong to the same set
and those points are not the same distance from a common center, then the
shape is not a circle or a sphere.
- If given the distance equation, distance=time*velocity,
you can solve for any variable if the other two are known. However, you cannot
use this equation to determine a velocity if you replace distance
with grams, volume, cycles, or shoe size.
Now, let's create some statements
with which few people should agree. I'll call these statements elements of a crackpot
test:
- On a sheet of paper. Draw a circle, an oval, a
straight line, and a squiggle. Convince yourself that each of the shapes
is a circle.
- Convince yourself that each of the following equations
are equivalent and will properly find the velocity of a moving
object: velocity = grams/time; velocity = cycles/time; velocity
= volume/time, and velocity = shoe size / time.
- Imagine a train approaches you with a bright light on
top of the locomotive. You know the wavelength, x', of the light.
You measure the light's wavelength as the train approaches and again as it
moves away from you as, s = x'c/(c + v) and t = x'c/(c - v).
Find the average Doppler equation, ξ. Convince yourself that the
average Doppler shift is the train’s spatial position.
Now for the test question: If
someone builds a “cockamamie theory” (Ms. Miller's words, not mine) based on at
least one of the above statements, would you label them as a crackpot and
dismiss their theory?
Before you answer the question,
recognize that a key theme of the scientific process is independent validation.
To this end, review Einstein’s 1905 paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Systems, and Michelson and Morley’s paper discussing their interferometer
experiment and see if you can find each of the anomalies (above). Why do I ask
that you find it yourself? Because when you do, it's no longer about someone
telling you what they've found. Instead, finding them independently allows us
to come to the table as peers and engage in a scientific conversation rather
than an emotional argument. Even if we disagree on whether a finding is
"right" or "wrong", we're discussing the same finding.
Ideally, you've independently found
each anomaly mentioned above. But, if you’re struggling to see the problems in
the original works, you can (optionally) review an academic poster presentation
that I delivered in February 2019 (see: https://goo.gl/8kaF3N ). However, I still encourage you to review the original
works and confirm each finding yourself.
Returning to the test question: If
you answered yes (and you've done the research mentioned above), not only have
you dismissed Einstein’s theory of relativity as a “cockamamie theory”,
you’ve labeled Einstein as a “crackpot”. This is why name calling
is so dangerous. While I believe relativity is invalid, I would never use such
terms to describe Einstein or his work. It is this type of labeling and name
calling that turns a scientific conversation into an emotional argument; at
which point serious discourse no longer occurs.
So, Ms. Miller, please join me in
changing the tone of the conversation. Let's agree to stop the grade school
name calling because labeling someone as a crackpot does nothing but perpetuate
a culture of bias and discrimination. Let's also agree to stop hiding behind
the excuse of peer reviews when editors, many of whom share your biases, have
no intention of publishing works that disagree or challenge their beliefs - no
matter how well-argued and researched that work might be. Name calling and
exclusion were (ineffective) tools we used as kids on a playground when we
didn't know any better. But as mature scientists, we owe it to ourselves and to
the broader community to find more effective ways of handling crucial
conversations. Fortunately, I've met many scientists who are quite open to exploring
material that challenges their beliefs. We can use them as role models.
Scientific innovation and discovery
advance best when we examine what others have to say and remain open to
reexamining our most deeply held beliefs. I think it would be a huge benefit to
the scientific community if more journals were open to publishing
well-researched, critical submissions that challenge our understanding. Ms.
Miller, will you please join me in moving the conversation from the playground
to places more appropriate for serious scientific discussions?
Steven
B. Bryant is a futurist, researcher, and
author who investigates the innovative application and
strategic implications of science and technology on society and business.
He is the author of DISRUPTIVE: Rewriting the rules of physics,
which is a thought–provoking book that shows where relativity fails and
introduces Modern Mechanics, a unified model of motion that fundamentally
changes how we view modern physics. DISRUPTIVE is available
at Amazon.com,
BarnesAndNoble.com, and other booksellers!
For the latest on no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see:
Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
2 comments:
Now that was an interesting Blog entry. Thanks!
George
E.g. my Universal Oscillation Theory is really just a new perspective built upon preceding physics that are almost universally thought to be objectively true. Granted, sometimes the difference between empirically shown and "Theory" is a shade of grey.
It is simpler just to point out that Einstein ruled out or excluded SIMULTANEITY from his conceptualization of SRT.
Although we have no current way to test simultaneity eventually humans will build a space lab that is kept equidistant from the centers of 3 galaxies. That would be a de facto Universal Relativity Lab (URL) and its measurements would be equivalent to some "Fixed" point in space to have as a reference. This is included in my unfinished book the TWE (the whole enchilada). go to the thewholenchilada.com web site for a taste of what's to come. Yes, I know, sketchy web site. I don't spend much time on it.
Post a Comment