Why are Physics Speculations so Popular ?

[ajb]

there are smart people out there that have never set foot in a college.it would discredit them to admit that knowledge is free.

I do not agree with this sentiment.

 

There are plenty of preprints and open access journals online to view. Authors will often send you an offprint of their paper if you ask.

 

There are plenty of books avaliable for you in libraries. There are some books that you might have to buy, but google books can be useful in getting round this.

 

So knowledge is availiable if you look.

 

i dont need to understand automobiles but i can buy a chilton and repair one.

If you can repair some part of an automobile, then you must have some understanding of how it works. Not nessisarily a lot nor to the level of a qualified mechanic, but still some knowledge.

expensive specialty science books holds back the flow of knowledge.and after reading i may still not have the answer im looking for.im not against people specializing but dont be a snob with the info.be patient and cooperative.

The trouble is that specalist science books tend to be written for a very small specalist audeience. This means they will never sell many copies and so the books are very expensive. In reality they are going to be part of university libraries and similar.

 

Because the books are very specialised there will be a lot of assumed knowledge and language, as well as a particular style. If you are looking for books for a more general audience then you should do that rather than look at research monographs and conference proceedings.

[robomont]

i maxxed out letourno universities library and my local junior college.i found more practical knowledgevin a childrens book"home made lightning"than any book i have found anywhere else on the subject.i actually checked out a book from new york on time that hadnt been checked out since 1930.that books info was what i used to put an airforce physicist in check with.i havent tried to learn much more on the subject because i gave up trying to find it.most everything these days is math gobligoop.i would like to find resources but havent been shown a path to go towards.the closest that comes is those dummies books that are not in depth.if you know of some that would help or free knowledge in that field im all ears.

[ajb]

if you know of some that would help or free knowledge in that field im all ears.

In what field? I can only probabily point you towards undergraduate and graduate books in mathematics and physics as that is what I know. Other subjects I am sure others can help guide you with the books they have found useful.

[ACG52]

hat hadnt been checked out since 1930.that books info was what i used to put an airforce physicist in check with

If the book was 80 years old, then most of the information in it would be outdated.

[robomont]

i was working at eglin airforce base.building the observation tower next to the rocket track used to test bunker busters.a physicist was asked by the electrician if lightning could be stored.he said no.

i stated that lightning can be stored in a pure water capacitor under five atmospheres of pressure.his jaw dropped.

the physicist was responsible for lightning arresting ?

he ask how i knew such things being a tower hand and i told him i study high energy physics in my spare time.that was 1998.

[abisha]

I hang out with scientists all day at work. Nobody gets upset when you shoot down an idea. Why? Because if you can shoot is down, IT'S WRONG. And pursuing ideas that are demonstrably wrong is a waste of time. They won't work. It doesn't matter that it seems to work in one or two examples that you thought of, because happy coincidences do happen. The trick is that when you're wrong, you want to be verifiably wrong, so you don't go a long way down some path that ultimately fails. You'd rather find that out early on.

 

Now, it's possible they can be fixed to take care of the problem that causes them to fail. So you do this iteratively. But that's generally not what happens here, in speculations. Unlike scientists, who want to know when they're wrong, too many in speculations go into denial. The proponent keeps touting the one or two examples where the idea doesn't fail, because of the happy coincidence, and that's the opposite of how science works.

 

I don't think it's practical.

 

how do you expect to come with new ideas, theories, or even concepts?.

do you think people that made history books, where not visionaire, they can look outside the box for their current age.

 

i think science, need to chill down, and recalibrate or being stuck for centuries on old theory

[D H]

how do you expect to come with new ideas, theories, or even concepts?.

do you think people that made history books, where not visionaire, they can look outside the box for their current age.

 

There are a number of hidden assumptions here that many of our outsider speculators make that are completely false. One is that the current system is moribund, decrepit, and hostile to change. That is not true. It is very lively, very active, and embraces new ideas. Another is that someone educated by this moribund, decrepit is bound to think inside the box. That too is not true. Young scientists must think out of the box. A PhD thesis must in some way extend the boundaries of current knowledge.

 

The only way one can think out of the box is if one knows what the box is.

[swansont]

I don't think it's practical.

 

You don't think what is practical?

 

how do you expect to come with new ideas, theories, or even concepts?.

do you think people that made history books, where not visionaire, they can look outside the box for their current age.

 

i think science, need to chill down, and recalibrate or being stuck for centuries on old theory

 

Unfortunately, in this context "outside the box" is often used in ways that mean "ignore how my proposal is contradicted by experiment", either by omission or commission. (i.e. by being ignorant of the body of work, or worse, despite being aware of it)

 

One such error of omission is to simply ignore all of the advances science has made over the years, all the while claiming that science has stagnated.

 

Also, thinking outside the box is not an automatic virtue. If the answer is wrong, it's wrong. Novelty doesn't change that.

[abisha]

You don't think what is practical?

 

 

Unfortunately, in this context "outside the box" is often used in ways that mean "ignore how my proposal is contradicted by experiment", either by omission or commission. (i.e. by being ignorant of the body of work, or worse, despite being aware of it)

 

One such error of omission is to simply ignore all of the advances science has made over the years, all the while claiming that science has stagnated.

 

Also, thinking outside the box is not an automatic virtue. If the answer is wrong, it's wrong. Novelty doesn't change that.

 

yet, those science that do, chances the world.

example, Inventor of the Time crystal.

which was claimed Imposable.

[swansont]

yet, those science that do, chances the world.

example, Inventor of the Time crystal.

which was claimed Imposable.

 

 

Well, the time crystal has not yet been build and IMO the subject has some overblown claims (in terms of how they define their system), but as the people working on it are doing so within the framework of physics, I don't see how this challenges the status quo in any way.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.....if you know of some that would help or free knowledge in that field i'm all ears.

Try science lectures on [ you tube ] . You have to be selective , but there are some easy to follow lectures if you search . ...- CHOOSE THE FREE ONES - ... -

 

Here is just a sample link http://www.open.edu/openlearn/about-openlearn/try?gclid=CNOH2cyAvLcCFY3HtAod31wA9w

 

Try this one to start link http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/science/physics-and-astronomy/galaxies-stars-and-planets/content-section-0

 

 

Mike Smith

 

If these are too simple , search for some at a higher level.

 

There are some for 1st year University Students.

 

Richard Feynman ,

 

link

 

 

 

Brian Cox

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fbUiNQ0Buk

etc

 

 

For Prof Lewin

 

press on this link to activate Prof Lewin at MIT . http:// www.videolectures.net/mit801f99_lewin_lec01/

 

 

Then if you want the Real heavy stuff there are some names that I can give you to search. ( Ed Witton , Frank Wilczec etc )

 

Or you can go direct to sites for their public lectures SLAC Princetown University etc

Edited May 29, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[robomont]

thankyou mike.very much.i am going to check these things out over the next few days.even if they arent high enough .just you putting in the effort to help me : )

[imatfaal]

Go to edx.org register for some of the courses there.   I am a few weeks away from finishing 802x - that's a real time (although delayed by about 10 years) online version of Walter Lewin's Electromagnetism course for 1st year students at MIT.

 

It's a 13 week course with 3 lectures (with questions that must be answered to proceed) a week, a weekly homework assignment (at least an hours hard graft sometimes much more), three midterms (all assessed) and a final. ; It's delivered by one of the fore-most physics educators of his generation, it's is proper physics, a structured course - and it's free.  So what's stopping you?

 

I will warn you - it's a lot tougher than listening to nice pop-sci/maths-free lectures; no matter who is giving them (even the sainted Feynman and the beautifully-haired Cox)!  You will learn why and how the maths is unassailable , completely necessary, and in some cases mind-boggling beautiful.   And just to note that it's the level that most of our physics experts were tacking about 15 weeks into their 3-4 year long undergraduate degree and probably taught for extra cash during their post-grad work.

Edited May 30, 2013 by imatfaal
sudden appearance of extraneous characters

[Ophiolite]

i think science, need to chill down, and recalibrate or being stuck for centuries on old theory

One of my interests is the diversity and thus the origin of basalt lavas. My initial interest occured as an undergradaute in the late 1960s and thus was based on research work from the 1950s and early 1960s. The understanding of basalt formation has undergone significant development from that time. Arguably at least three distinct phases can be identified in the progress of our understanding. These required thinking outside the box in terms of analytical methods, basic theory and geographic scope. Please tell me in what way petrologists need to chill down and recalibrate in relation to theory that is,, in some cases a couple of years old, not centuries old?

[Humblemun]

If you look at a comparison of Replies numbers. Physics, Politics,Lounge, Speculations rank among the highest. If one puts Politics and lounge as the desire to relax, yarn and pontificate, then that leaves Physics and Speculation in the Big Numbers League. WHY ?

 

Surely this demonstrates

 

a) A desire to seek and know how our Universe Works.

 

B) A keen desire by many to SPECULATE what that knowledge could possibly be.

 

 

So why beat the living daylights out of each other for having a genuine Desire and offering only Possibles. ?

An excellent observation.