"Good"/Interesting Speculations?

[elfmotat]

Out of curiosity, I've been doing a bit of searching in the Speculations forum for anything that could be considered a "good" idea by mainstream physics. Really, I'm just looking for anything that isn't obviously nonsense. Unfortunately my search was unsuccessful: I couldn't find any. If anyone remembers any old threads that seem to fit my criteria I would be very much grateful.

 

**Note: I'm unsure if this is the appropriate section for this thread. If not, please move it .

Edited October 27, 2014 by elfmotat

[ajb]

If anyone remembers any old threads that seem to fit my criteria I would be very much grateful.

It is a sad fact that I cannot think of anything that would fit the bill. If anyone posed something well-founded and up to the standard of working physicists then it should probabily be in the physics section and not the speculations section.

 

Most things here are either basic questions that the poster needs a little pushing with (a lot a quick glance at wikipedia would answer!) or they are block of meaningless text. The real gems are few and far between.

[sunshaker]

Is this thread just going to be an extension of "crackpots in physics".

 

I enjoy speculation posts, So do others by the post and reply count,

 

PS sunshakers got some good posts in speculation,

 

damn, I have used wrong account to post

[Strange]

I have seen a couple on another forum (cosmoquest). One (I can't even remember what it was about now) was a very constructive discussion with a lot of evidence to test the idea being provided and - unusually - actually used to test the idea. I think the final conclusion was that the proponent decided he needed to rethink or abandon the idea. Another appeared to me (it was rather over my head) to be just a matter of transforming the equations of GR so that the curvature of space-time was a consequence of time dilation rather than the other way round (or something like that). As far as I could tell, it said nothing new but it did get published in a reasonable journal.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Strange

[ajb]

I enjoy speculation posts, So do others by the post and reply count,

Which is not the same question as if the ideas contained within are actually 'good' ideas.

 

It maybe true that sometimes some real physics can be prised out of them, and that this is good for all concerned. However, my experience suggests that few if any 'new ideas' here get to the published stage. Unless anyone can correct me here?

[elfmotat]

Is this thread just going to be an extension of "crackpots in physics".

 

I enjoy speculation posts, So do others by the post and reply count,

 

PS sunshakers got some good posts in speculation,

 

damn, I have used wrong account to post

 

No, I'm genuinely curious. I sometimes enjoy the speculations section too (for the same reason I enjoy looking at viXra papers), but that doesn't mean I put any stock into it.

 

 

I have seen a couple on another forum (cosmoquest). One (I can't even remember what it was about now) was a very constructive discussion with a lot of evidence to test the idea being provided and - unusually - actually used to test the idea. I think the final conclusion was that the proponent decided he needed to rethink or abandon the idea. Another appeared to me (it was rather over my head) to be just a matter of transforming the equations of GR so that the curvature of space-time was a consequence of time dilation rather than the other way round (or something like that). As far as I could tell, it said nothing new but it did get published in a reasonable journal.

 

Sounds like the type of thread we all wish happened more frequently.

[Sensei]

Respectable journals rejected Fermi's theories (beta decay, neutrinos)..

 

"When he submitted his paper to the British journal Nature, that journal's editor turned it down because it contained speculations which were "too remote from physical reality to be of interest to readers""

 

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi

Edited October 27, 2014 by Sensei

[elfmotat]

Respectable journals rejected Fermi's theories (beta decay, neutrinos)..

 

"When he submitted his paper to the British journal Nature, that journal's editor turned it down because it contained speculations which were "too remote from physical reality to be of interest to readers""

 

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi

 

That's interesting, but I'm looking particularly for threads in the speculations forum.

[swansont]

Some threads in speculations offer a chance to exercise your thinking skills in possibly new and different ways, in trying to find the inevitable errors in thinking. Plus the eternal optimism that someday one of the folks posting there will see the light and admit they are wrong and thank us for our time.

 

 

It is a sad fact that I cannot think of anything that would fit the bill.

 

Sad, perhaps, but utterly unsurprising (to me), given the general lack of science background the posters tend to have, along with their typical math phobia.

[Unity+]

I think the problem when finding good speculation is a majority of those who come here to post speculation are not very literate in the field they are speculating in, due to their lack of education in this particular area. This does not always happen, but I think this is an issue.

[ajb]

Sad, perhaps, but utterly unsurprising (to me), given the general lack of science background the posters tend to have, along with their typical math phobia.

I don't think it is unsurprising, but it would be nice now and again to have some really good speculation that one could work on. However, internet forums are not really the places for such ideas. For example, I would discuss things in person with experts and maybe send drafts of the work off to others for comments. Then if it is okay I will post a preprint on the arXiv. From there I will try to get it published. I am not about to start to post things here; it would get little response while potentially exposing my ideas to competitors.

 

With this in mind maybe we should never expect a really good speculation to be posted here.

 

 

I think the problem when finding good speculation is a majority of those who come here to post speculation are not very literate in the field they are speculating in, due to their lack of education in this particular area. This does not always happen, but I think this is an issue.

This seems to be the general case. They lack not only the technical tools and basic understanding, they lack also the philosophy of science research and the standards required.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ajb

[swansont]

I don't think it is unsurprising, but it would be nice now and again to have some really good speculation that one could work on. However, internet forums are not really the places for such ideas. For example, I would discuss things in person with experts and maybe send drafts of the work off to others for comments. Then if it is okay I will post a preprint on the arXiv. From there I will try to get it published. I am not about to start to post things here; it would get little response while potentially exposing my ideas to competitors.

 

With this in mind maybe we should never expect a really good speculation to be posted here.

 

 

 

I think most scientists have colleagues they can bounce ideas off of, and many who post speculations lack this so the forum is a proxy for that interaction. The main difference is that when the ideas get shot down, scientists generally drop or modify the idea, based on that feedback.

[ajb]

The main difference is that when the ideas get shot down, scientists generally drop or modify the idea, based on that feedback.

Or argue in the seminars and throw chalk at each other... It happens.

[mississippichem]

I would settle for a testable prediction. Even a silly idea can at least be respectable if it offers a quantitative prediction.

Edited October 28, 2014 by mississippichem

[imatfaal]

I would settle for a testable prediction. Even a silly idea can at least be respectable if it offers a quantitative prediction.

 

We have had a few testable predictions - I have memories of setting my bike up in the office and showing that a rapidly spinning wheel produced no measurable force on a hanging lead-weight (my colleagues always knew I was odd and that cemented the fact...)

[Strange]

On another forum, one poster insisted that the Doppler effect was caused by distance and not relative velocity. This is easy to test just by standing next to a road. He was unwilling to try any such test...

[elfmotat]

I don't think it is unsurprising, but it would be nice now and again to have some really good speculation that one could work on. However, internet forums are not really the places for such ideas. For example, I would discuss things in person with experts and maybe send drafts of the work off to others for comments. Then if it is okay I will post a preprint on the arXiv. From there I will try to get it published. I am not about to start to post things here; it would get little response while potentially exposing my ideas to competitors.With this in mind maybe we should never expect a really good speculation to be posted here.

That's a good point. But there are also members that post in Speculations who have already typed up their ideas into a viXra (or similar) "pre-print." So there's no danger of stolen ideas because the timestamp on the archive is there for everyone to see.

[ajb]

But there are also members that post in Speculations who have already typed up their ideas into a viXra (or similar) "pre-print." So there's no danger of stolen ideas because the timestamp on the archive is there for everyone to see.

These people I expect are trying to get their 'preprint' downloaded as many times as possible. That may convince them that they have a good idea. I don't know if any are really trying to get useful feedback other than 'interesting', 'well done' and 'you just kicked Einstein in the nards...'

[Klaynos]

 

We have had a few testable predictions - I have memories of setting my bike up in the office and showing that a rapidly spinning wheel produced no measurable force on a hanging lead-weight (my colleagues always knew I was odd and that cemented the fact...)

This was a hopeful thread. I'm pretty sure that once you presented your results it went down a traditional path.

[studiot]

I just wonder about the link between the modern early curriculum, particularly in Physics in the UK, which seems to emphasis showy ethereal stuff over (boring) solid foundations.

 

If you compare the numbers who rush to the cosmology / boundaries of science threads, but cannot explain how a bicycle works you might see some connection.

Edited October 29, 2014 by studiot