I have some new interpretation about physics experiment from chemist view. This can explain many basic physics concepts, like charge, interaction or force, movement etc. what is a suitable way to expose my idea?
Dear Dr. Jiang,
This forum, ResearchGate, is most suitable, at least as a 'launching pad', for presenting your ideas and views, succinctly and to the point. Please allow me to present my own opinion regarding the matter at hand:
1. We have been trained as scientists. This means that we should not toss at each other any insults or offensive remarks. Any discourse should be based on "argument(s) versus argument(s)", and nothing else.
2. If one wishes to introduce unconventional, or revolutionary, ideas, one should expect rejection by "the establishment" unless the ideas are presented cogently and -- as a starting point -- within the current mindset(s). It is unwise to dismiss centuries (or millenia [!]) of previous cumulative thought.
3. In this respect, please read the works of Popper and Kuhn; they are full of eye-opening insight.
4. The time to submit new, revolutionary ideas is when one piece of evidence after another begin to show signs of collapse or crash of current theory. (Recall, for example, the turn of the twentieth century -- the ultraviolet catastrophe, the behavior of matter at low temperatures, the photoelectric effect, and so forth.) New ideas take time to establish themselves, provided they lead to much-needed insight and to solving problems or resolving certain contradictions, inconsistencies or paradoxes.
5. Before launching an attack on current theory, one should make sure that one is well-versed with 'secrets of his trade'; otherwise very few people will listen or care.
Good luck! (Cosi la vita!)
The really suitable way is to write up your ideas in the form of a proper paper and submit it to a reputable journal. You can try other forums, but it is likely that even if you succeed in developing a "cult following", the scientific community will be unaware of, and/or dismiss your efforts. The journal experience can be frustrating, but if your ideas are valid, I am sure you will be able to publish them.
Usually, it is not easy for researchers to accept a new opinion unless you can express it exactly with the help of mathematics. Of course, the direct way to expose your results is submit it to a scientific journal. if you think you can not write it definitely and clearly, it is a suitable way to communicate with specialist around you first and listen to their comments. But before that, I suggest you do some information collection to see if anybody else have done this work before.
Do not promote your theory as physics, but instead as an abstract model.
Physicists tend to treat their profession as a kind of religion. They require the application of the scientific method as a stringent defense barrier. Despite the fact that all current physical theories contain significant flaws, physicist consider "new" theories with great suspicion. They form a very conservative crowd with little tendency to innovation.
Only mathematicians and philosophers are allowed to think about fundamentals of physical reality. Their activity is not considered as science and certainly not as physics,
Dr. van Leunen is correct but, I think, a bit negative. The first thing you must do is to make friends with one or more physicists and chemists. Then, when you are having a friendly conversation, bring up your ideas. As suggested above, it is best to have them in writing, with equations and calculations since, quite frankly, these communities often have trouble with ordinary language! Don't expect publication, unless your ideas are so good that one of these friends will suggest to a journal that it should be published. The days are long gone, when a patent clerk in Switzerland can send along a manuscript about some absurd notion like Relativity, and get a hearing!
Just write a clear, concise paper about your ideas. Don't hesitate to use some mathematics, because, as Galileo Galilei already pointed out, the Book of Nature is written in the language of mathematics. Don't insult anybody. Just modestly present your approach.
Physics is closely connected to mathematics, however, physics is not mathematics.! Quantum mechanics do have the problem on the interpretation, but it is a successful and useful theory we ever have . Based on the facts and experiments, physicists like Plank, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac.....built the foundations of quantum theory. It is not from the mathematical logic rather from the fact! QM may be incomplete now but is not a fake theory!
This blog shows, once again, that, after a few entries that address more or less the original question, some people attempt to hijack the discussion with entries concerning their own strange ideas. This blog contains numerous rather stupid and somewhat offensive remarks about Physics and physicists by people who, apparently, don't understand any physics. This is a disservice to the scientific community! People should stop viewing blogs like this one as opportunities to circulate half-baked or wrong ideas. My advice is: Keep them to yourself until you know what you are talking about!
Apparently, there are no limits to the dissemination of nonsense.
Akira> nobody in physics explained to me why we have elements in the universe which are lighter than the Fe.
If you really wants to learn about this topic you should ask this question in a separate thread; it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. But you should first educate yourself on the matter beyond some minimum level; there is a lot of easy available matter around.
The statements of your many other posts in this thread are pure nonsense, as you have been repeatedly and carefully explained on several other threads. And they are anyway out-of-topic for this thread, except as examples of how not to expose ones ideas (but too ridiculous examples to be useful).
Yutao> basic physics concepts, like charge, interaction or force, movement etc.
Why do you classify such concepts as theoretical physics??? They belong to science, chemistry as much as physics.
Theoretical physics is just a way of studying physics using mathematic tools.
First of all thanks for everybody's response. I tried to published my opinion in some physics Journal because I learned these concepts in physics class. But nobody accepted it. I think one reason is I did not use physics language ( I could not), another reason is chemist view things from different direction. Then I turned published it on Lulu.com by myself. I attached it here. If you are interested it, you can read it. Hopefully, my writing will not make more confusion.
I am a chemist and so my interpretation is that of a chemist’s, with the main focus on the material structure and that intrinsic properties of the material are what governs its behavior. The major different is the concept of “change”. Chemist deal with change all the time; we know that every change is reversible. Chemical change is because the electron or ion transfers from one atom or molecule to the other. The basic component has never been changed.
In the pair production experiments, it was observed that photons can be converted into particles and vice versa. This is a strong implication that particles and electric field (light) are made up of the same material. Based on this, other physics concepts can be interpreted easily, such as force, charge, momentum, energy etc. We can also understand why material moves. Is movement relative? How does a photon move so fast and why does an electron move in an atom without losing energy?
Because this discussion is only qualitative, there is no math involved.
Based on my opinion, all the materials in the universe are connected. They entangle together and moving relatively to each other. It is impossible to put all material in a simple equation. Math can be used in a specific situation to help us describe material only, we call it model. But most physicist tried to use their theory universal (over use). These cause a lot of argument.
Maybe some super mathematician can build a super math to fit my idea. It is beyond my ability.
Thanks again
Yutao
Youtao, I took a look at your booklet.
You begin with some slight mis-statements about things being either particles or waves, whereas the view ever since de Broglie and Heisenberg has been "duality." This would identify you as a novice and likely derail any review of your work.
The first half of your idea is interesting, but you are not the only one to have thought of it. It is practically identical to Asif's theory, which is worked out in more detail. See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262925966_de_Broglie_wave_and_electromagnetic_travelling_wave_model_of_electron_and_other_charged_particles That does not mean you should not continue to work on it, but you'll need to reference the background and similar literature, and take classes in QM and QED to provide a mathematical formulation. I was not even able to find a QED class in my metropolitan area.
In the middle section on light, you are re-interpreting material that is so well accepted, I suggest you avoid this material until you are a well known physicist, and have thoroughly mastered the math of QM. You would need to re-derive all that math, at the very least.
The latter section about the structure of the proton, I didn't read in detail, because it seems to be at odds with QCD and scattering experiments which have established the structure of the proton. Also, those electrons and positrons would annihilate.
Article De Broglie wave and electromagnetic travelling wave model of...
@Robert Shuler, Thanks for your response. Based on my opinion, particle is a radiate structure of electric field, wave is a moving behavior of material. Material is made of electric field. Wave is not a material. Electron and positron never annihilate, they just combine together to form a double ball or multi-ball particle, like proton etc.
I agree that quantum theory solved many problem, but in fact all materials in the universe are connected. For example, based on quantum theory, an electron is treated as a solid particle. But in reality an electron is surrounded by electric field. This means the field is part of the electron. Based on my opinion, particle has no absolute edge. We can approximately defined its edge based what we need (like quantum theory). That is why quantum theory is an approximate theory. It can work very well on the behavior of particle, but it cannot be used in field. Quantum field theory is not a correct concept.
The field from one particle aligns with the field from other particle. This is why there is interaction among particles.
Jiang:
I am sorry to point out "based on quantum theory, an electron is treated as a solid particle" is completely wrong which means you have little knowledge of quantum theory. If you really want explain the physical world using your language, first of all you should understand what the quantum theory is talking about. Please do not talk about it in your ways before you really understand what you are talking about.
@Mengjun Hu : The base of quantum theory is "material is portion by portion". No matter what equation you derived later. The thing I want to point out is material is not portion by portion, it is connected by field. the electric field around an electron is connected with electron, but field and electron was treated separately. Have you ever see an electron without field around it? Why do they exist together all the time. The basic idea of quantum theory is not correct. I have no reason to study it further. Based on this wrong idea, quantum theory treats force as particle transfer, then generate graviton, gravity speed etc. That makes nonsense. As I said, quantum theory ignores the field around particle. It works well with particle behavior, but it was pushed to field, like quantum field theory. That is totally wrong.
The same thing for the relative theory. Movement is not relative. Movement is absolute. Movement reflects how unbalance a system is. Einstein wrongfully used distance as space. This causes all the movement relative. Then, people generated time channel, space curvature etc.
@Han Geurdes I think most people spent too much time to study the famous theories. After a while you are totally trapped in it. I did take some relevant classes in graduate school, but I could not understand most of them. Most theory can work on something and failed on others. We have one nature only. It means something is wrong in the theory. I have to get back to the truth.
Actually, the mistake in current theories are very basic. That is why they were ignored for so long.
Dear Yutao Jiang, as you can conclude from this forum: mainstream will never give you a chance to expose your ideas. No journal will ever accept your ideas.
All the ideas and explanations that Akira Kanda gave here are systematically down voted by mainstream members, who profess their religion of mainstream physics in order to maintain their job. It is the easy way to get one's wages at the end of the month: do like a soldier in the army: don't think, just follow the rules!
Innovating scientists like Paul Marmet have been crucified by mainstream, and Akira Kanda will be.
The scientific world of physics, especially that of gravity, cosmology and astronomy is ruled by people who abhor change. They only build upon the past, whatever that past is.
So, the rules are that Special relativity, General relativity, Cosmology and Astrophysics are not subject to any change, no matter the falsifications one may bring and no matter the evidence that another theory explains much more and in a much more logic way.
@Thierry De Mees: I was told the same thing before. they cannot even allow people publish their idea. That is bazaar. How can they claim they are scientist? Luckily, I do not live on this.
@ Yutao: you are welcome to publish your paper on the website of the General Science Journal. Please contact me in private.
Yutao> they cannot even allow people publish their idea
You must have an idea before you can get it published.
Yutao> Science currently holds that matter in our world is made up by two categories of materials: one is the particle, the other one is field.
Having misconceptions is not the same as having ideas.
Yutao> Quantum field theory is not a correct concept.
Such statements can only be taken serious if they come from someone who is able to (i) compute the (g-2) Schwinger term from scratch using conventional QFT, and (ii) provide a better working alternative which is also consistent with all existing, experimentally verified, predictions of QFT.
Thierry> Innovating scientists like ... Akira Kanda
Are you thinking of his innovative mathematical proof that the kinetic energy of a noninteracting particle obeying Newton's equations of motion is not conserved, thereby disproving the most basic parts of calculus and Hamiltonian mechanics since (and including) Newton?
# I have some new ideas about football, having watched it on TV for years. And I have discovered serious mistakes made by players like Pele, Garrincha, and Eusebio. And I have tried to communicate my ideas to clubs like Juventus and Barcelona. They don't even bother to answer my offers to join their organization! They cannot even allow people to present their ideas! Not even clubs like bottom-of-the-barrel Rosenborg!
That is bazaar, I guess. But how can they claim they are football professionals? Discipline of thinking must be very strong within this clan!
# Why is it that so many who want to demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect select theoretical physics as their topic of communication? Is it because it is a field which requires absolutely no talent, no training, no knowledge, no critical judgement, no practice, no acquired skills, ... ?
Yutao~ I read through your booklet with a positive and open mind. It is similar to many others I have seen, although different in details. The common feature of all such works (there are many, made by obviously dedicated and intelligent people) is that they are extremely narrow-minded in their views of how the world can possibly work. This is one reason why such works are rejected by "the establishment".
I think publication of your booklet in the General Science Journal is among your best options. You may also put it on viXra.org, and --- for a fee --- get it published in some of the more suspect open source journals. None of these options will help (much) in propagating your ideas to the science community, but they will document that you have thought them.
Dear Yutao,
Thank you for wasting my time which i don't have it, so please study the concepts of physics very well then i hope that you will make something in science very good. But take my advise because you dont know how much they spent money and time to proof all of these things you talk about it maybe there are many things still "and we dont know yet" special cases of larger theories. As example QM is special case of QFT, and maybe QFT is special case of something bigger.
And i am sorry if i was hard with you but you made many people angry.
C. Thierry De Mees. “Dear Yutao Jiang, as you can conclude from this forum: mainstream will never give you a chance to expose your ideas. No journal will ever accept your ideas.
The scientific world of physics, especially that of gravity, cosmology and astronomy is ruled by people who abhor change. They only build upon the past, whatever that past is.”
A. Respected Yutao Jiang, if you have a really strong idea you can explain it and make publication in the form of a monograph. Nobody can stop you that way.
I have made publication of my monograph in the year of 2011 titled “Z-Theory and its applications” (ISBN-13 978-1452018935).
My articles appeared later in various international journals and conference proceedings. You can easily find them in the Internet. All of them make deal with advanced physics that stays beyond limitations of 20-th century physics.
I recommend you to ask International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications (IJSRP) (ISSN 2250-3153) to help you.
For example, the journal made publication of my research paper titled ‘The Epistemological concept of the True Space-Velocity Detector’. You can see the paper by the following link.
http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-1112/ijsrp-p1136.pdf
The mainstream knows nothing about such device. However, my patent application WO/2015/040505 (published by the International Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO, Geneva, Switzerland) describes the physical device in details. I mean this. If you are able to describe a device you can take a patent and nobody stops you that way too.
Today, my monograph mentioned in the list of books stored in the Oxford University Library and nobody says that the university shows a “nonsense book” to the students.
Dear Dr. Jiang,
This forum, ResearchGate, is most suitable, at least as a 'launching pad', for presenting your ideas and views, succinctly and to the point. Please allow me to present my own opinion regarding the matter at hand:
1. We have been trained as scientists. This means that we should not toss at each other any insults or offensive remarks. Any discourse should be based on "argument(s) versus argument(s)", and nothing else.
2. If one wishes to introduce unconventional, or revolutionary, ideas, one should expect rejection by "the establishment" unless the ideas are presented cogently and -- as a starting point -- within the current mindset(s). It is unwise to dismiss centuries (or millenia [!]) of previous cumulative thought.
3. In this respect, please read the works of Popper and Kuhn; they are full of eye-opening insight.
4. The time to submit new, revolutionary ideas is when one piece of evidence after another begin to show signs of collapse or crash of current theory. (Recall, for example, the turn of the twentieth century -- the ultraviolet catastrophe, the behavior of matter at low temperatures, the photoelectric effect, and so forth.) New ideas take time to establish themselves, provided they lead to much-needed insight and to solving problems or resolving certain contradictions, inconsistencies or paradoxes.
5. Before launching an attack on current theory, one should make sure that one is well-versed with 'secrets of his trade'; otherwise very few people will listen or care.
Good luck! (Cosi la vita!)
Thanks, Humam B. Ghassib, for your very useful and carefully worded remarks!
@ Kåre Olaussen
“Innovating scientists like ... Akira Kanda”
This is a Jesuit-like citation. My text was: “Innovating scientists like Paul Marmet have been crucified by mainstream, and Akira Kanda will be.” This text doesn't emit any opinion about particular theories of Akira Kanda, but it expresses a great esteem for the late Prof. Paul Marmet. It also claims that having a different idea than mainstream (like Paul Marmet and Akira Kanda) suffices to be crucified.
“I have some new ideas about football”
A football club is not doomed to find or to follow the truth, even if it would exist. But a scientific community is doomed to look for the truth.
However, that is not done by mainstream. On the contrary, mainstream follows and continues with what it earlier had defined as being the truth, just like a football club.
It is not normal that, despite the numerous falsifications of SR and GR, the theories are still alive. It is not normal that dark matter and the expansion of the universe have been invented, just because of a lack of understanding of gravity and the forgetfulness to look at other energy-absorbers for photons in the universe.
“Why is it that so many who want to demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect select theoretical physics as their topic of communication?”
Which talent is needed for mainstream members to maintain their positions? Follow the group, appy the rules, don't look backwards or sidewards.
So, a lot of changes are needed! Besides, GR must be abandoned in favor of gravitomagnetism.
@Allan Zade, Thank you for your suggestion.
I did a little modification and added some references on it. Here is the modified version.
@Yutao Jiang.
Thank you for the paper. I'll read it and let you know my point of view.
Yutao Jiang, you can see my review and comments on your paper. Please, see the attached file.
I did not find anything that makes sense or satisfies scientific standards in the Wikipedia article quoted by Manuel Morales.
Dear Yutao Jiang,
I have seen many inventors come along that want to compete with existing physical theories. Usually they forget to study the enormous pile of existing knowledge that represents current mainstream physics and that we use in order to build planes, automobiles, computers and other things that shape our technological life. Indeed, that pile of knowledge contains flaws, inconsistencies and shortcomings, but most of it is trustworthy and useful. It is a hard job to improve on current mainstream physics.
Dear Hans
There exists a documented study indicating that about 50% of scientific publications is flawed this way or another.
If you follow this rule there is 50% chance this study is flawed too :)
So safely we can assume 25% is flawed.
This is quite a lot.
So far, "scientific Darwinism" appears to have worked rather successfully: Uninteresting or wrong results are being weeded out by the community fairly efficiently. Let's not get paralyzed by fear that much of Physics or other Natural Sciences may be wrong.Let's be critical, but, equally importantly, let's be serious in our attempts to understand the ideas of great minds that have given rise to the birth of modern Physics!
@Andrew
I do not understand where you take your 50%. It would mean that a large part of our technology is flawed and is full of failures. I can imagine this for software, but not for hardware.
I have tried to find some inconsistencies in physical theories and indeed I found some. They hardly influence the applicability of these theories. Instead these inconsistencies and shortcomings make it difficult to understand why physical reality works the way it does. Most of physics works perfectly and enables us to build ingenious equipment.
See for example: "Foundations of a Mathematical Model of Physical Reality"; http://vixra.org/abs/1502.0186
Dear Hans
The 50% figure is not an urban legend but I refer to a research that has recently been publicised. You can explore that in links provided. I do not say this must be the same ratio in every branch of science as there seem to be two categories: soft and hard science. The soft science seems to accept lesser rigour of proof.
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915-most-scientific-papers-are-probably-wrong/
My latest view on the foundation of physics is described in the link below.
Vixra.org is a perfect platform for launching such theories. It is free and it offers an efficient revision service.
http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0146
http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Theoretical Physics