@Bob, you're distorting a very simple message here. There's nothing wrong in expressing opinions, even uneducated ones, but pushing crank ideas ("relativity is wrong") without any factual proof or basis is simply an elementary mistake and not tolerated here.

Good question! This is something that I have been discussing with colleagues many, many times. However, I don't think it's Physics in particular that attracts the cranks - there are probably many more crackpots in politics, philosophy, environmental sciences (global warming conspiracy theorists), biology/genetics (cranks advocating racial genetics), medicine (homeopathy) etc. etc. There are some fields in Physics such as Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology in particular, which are tangential to philosophy and thus attract cranks. If you go to more specialized fields, it's pretty difficult to be a crank (have you ever heard of a crank in Fluid Mechanics claiming that fluids don't actually flow :-)?).

Personally I think that crankness is just another form of delusional mental disorder. It's typical to this disorder that those suffering from it may appear completely normal in matters not related to their delusion, and thus behave as normal people - unless you happen to hit the right button :-).

The problem is that other sciences (chemistry, biology, etc.) either shows that your theory works or fails. For example: If I was a chemist and said this formula "creates flubber and never loses its elasticity" other chemists around the world can test it. This is true for most other sciences. Notice that Bigfoot crackpots are not getting too much recognition in biology circles.

In physics, the theories are far too advanced to be tested with modern technology. Think about cosmology for example: Hawkings has his theories about black holes and I have mine. Can we really test it to see who is correct? Nope. Therefore who is correct is more a function of popularity than correctness. So in physics Hawkings is correct (or more correct) and I am the crackpot.

WARNING: Shameless self-promotion ahead.

BTW, check out my crackpot book, "The Permutanomicon" on Amazon. It has 6000 untested formulae in physics which was generated by a computer program using unit analysis techniques. :P

http://bookstore.trafford.com/Products/SKU-000150963/The-Permutanomicon.aspx

@Jimmy. I hope that all your equations fulfill dimensional analysis requirements; otherwise you are in danger to be called a crank :-).

Seriously speaking experimental verification has not really been a hindrance to crankness. People choose to believe (or may become delusional) on almost anything that you can imagine. I think irrationality is hard-wired in the human brain; it must have served some useful purpose in evolution. It's a pity that now we're mostly suffering from it, at least in sciences.

Hmmm. Not sure it is completely true, biology for example also has it share (or chemistry!). But assuming it is, I would guess it is due to the wide range of application of physics. BTW, I have been surprised by the population of quacks at Researchgate.

I don't agree with @Jimmy. Just by looking at the discussions in ResearchGate you see many people denying facts which have experimental support. Even those related to astronomy or cosmology.

For example, check on this user RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR which claims that the earth is the center of the universe.

@Matias. You mean that we're not in the center of the Universe :-)?

According to RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR we are not!!

His last message to me was:

" I say that Tychonic is the truth and Copernican heliocentric model is only a mathematical model. give me your best arguments against my argument."

What do you all think about this??

Should one attempt to answer these questions or is it not worth it??

I think that at this point there's no more room for a rational argument. My reply would probably be something like: "Look, its not me that have to prove my case, but the burden of proof lies on you. So either give me the proof or be proven a fool".

@Jimmy Davis, could you make available some pages of your book so as to understand what it is about?

Sure. Here I include the formulae found by the program involving three variables and some of the constants. I removed a lot of them from this sample. There are about 250+ formulae in the uncut version. The second chapter includes the formulae with 4 variables.

The formulae in these chapters can lead one to perform experiments. Here is a basic experiment on the formula:

E^2 = F^2 * A

Experiments with a PASCO sensor showed that at least between 10-50N the formula seems to hold true.

Enjoy. :)

@Jimmy. Your algorithm may be dimensionally correct, but most of these equations are useless. It's almost a trivial exercise to combine physical variables in multiple ways such that dimensions work out; however, most of such equations are physically meaningless. Especially in classical physics all relevant equations are already known from "first principles". In some limited regimes they may be approximated by (Taylor) expansions and such; this may "validate" some of your formulas. However, this is pretty much a useless exercise imho.

I think we have a case of borderline-crackpotness, don't you agree?

hahahaha

@Jimmy, your experimental "verification" of E^2 = F^2 * A is wrong in many elementary ways. In your setup it's the momentum conservation law that must be used in the collision, which means that m * v_f = int F(t) dt, where v_f is the final velocity of the cart and F(t) is the time-dependent force upon impact to the sensor, which must be integrated over time (int). If you make the (poor) approximation that F(t) = const., with finite duration t_d (or exponentially damped, which is probably closer to reality), you get that h is proportional to some effective F; however, this is neither correct nor meaningful. Looking at the quality of the measured data I think it shows clearly that this approximation is not very good.

I must conclude that your "paper" belongs to the realm of crackpot or junk science. It's missing even the most elementary mechanical analysis.

The condition to post in this discussion was that of not being a crackpot. User @Al Church probably didn't read John Baez Crackpot Index I posted in the thread ( http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html ) but he has just won 5 crackpot points under article 8.

I will use his message to stimulate the discussion here. He said:

*******How many physicists would have characterized Einstein as a crackpot in 1905? Probably 99%. To answer your question more directly, I suspect that it is the lure of understanding the big picture, and the characteristic of schizophrenia that leads to grandiose thoughts. Given my first question, I suspect that a certain number of physicists may tend to dismiss alternative views by applying the "crackpot" label. After all, they are the smartest person in the room, aren't they? :-)*********

Einstein had completed the mathematical physics program and he had already obtained his PhD before the miraculous papers. He, as it happens to many people in the scientific community, was having problems finding a lecturer position after his PhD. Since he already had a wife and kids, he couldn't afford not having an income so he started working in a patent office. In the meantime he held discussions with a respectable circle of scientists and correspondence discussing the physics of the time. Stubborn as he was, he continued doing theoretical research and he came up with his fabulous insights which proved he was worth of a position in the University (and much more).

Which is the historical fact that makes crackpots think that Einstein was considered a crackpot back in 1905??

One has to be an outstanding ignoramus to claim that Einstein was considered a crank during his time. He published his theories and predictions in peer-reviewed scientific journals, instead of printing his own books, booklets or flyers. He explained previously unexplained experiments in a mathematically consistent way, and predicted new phenomena, which could be experimentally tested. His results and calculations could be easily verified. He fulfilled all the requirements of scientific rigor and consistency. Anybody who claims that he was considered a crank has no idea what science is about. Nevertheless, during his time there probably were a few scientists who didn't understand the scientific method, either... :-)

Hi everybody,

in my opinion physics is one (not the only one) of the most inclined to attract crackpots because of the possibilities that it offers: quantum mechanics and relativity are just a playground for those who are attracted by them but don't want to waste energies in studying the maths that make them work and the interpretations that have been given during the decades; they are attracted by the idea of being "the one who will write the theory of everything"; and even more attracted by the idea of being misunderstood and unappreciated! That is classy :-)

I identify three degrees of crackpotness (corresponding to my personal experience):

1) Someone asks you, for example, "Could it be that LHC will generate a black hole that will swallow the entire planet?" you usually answer "No: by the time being, realistically, I don't think that we are able to create such a black hole"; than the answer tipically is "how can you be so sure!? It could be!", and so on and so forth...

2) Someone grasps the basics of physics and tries to apply them, dressed with some ideas of mathematical equations and a lot of misinformation, to the realm of the "Big Questions" (we have some distinguished examples in this place).

3) There are also those who are good physicists, in fact they are professors and researchers in some universities, they manage mathematics and they know orthodox and non-orthodox interpretations of the various elements of physics (or some areas); but they are stuck on some theories that experiments have already proved wrong. These are the less annoying in the precincts of a scientific blog, but nonetheless are sometimes "dangerous".

I would like to start with a big "hahahah" for the first item in Giovani's list of "crackpotness". (If someone ask me such a question just for saying at the end "how can you be sure, it can be" then why asked you that question in the first place if she/he already knew the answer). Ok more seriously, i think it's just because the statements that for decades irresponsable media have taken from revolutionary theories such as general relativity, quantum mechanics and nowadays, string theory. All those documentaries talking about profound ideas in a naive way really contribute a lot to this situation. They should take this stuff more serious and tell the whole story in little more detail and not just the fancy statements. For example, it's quite easy to tell why time is relative whit the help of Einstein's thought experiment of trains and thunders. A little more complicated, but still possible, is to explain the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics in the basis of experimental evidence that suports this (the succes of predicting the periodic table for example).

Greetings

Raúl

@Tapio. I agree with your assessment on a fundamental level. This is why the paper was never published. Yet the fact remains that experimentally the formula allows us to predict physical behavior. For example, we can correctly and accurately predict how much further back the PASCO sensor will rebound.

So now the question remains, despite the problems that you noticed... why can we do with this formula what science is all about, which is predicting the future.

Also, this formula is not the only one we have played with. The same arguments come forward. Academically the formula has no meaning. Practically however they "work."

Dear Raul,

about my first item: that's why this kind of approach is the most annoying! They want to hear from a physicist that their idea is right, though scaring in the case of black holes ;-)

And yes, tons of simplistic documentaries have their share of responsability in the matter. I would also include popular sci-fi movies, which are often wrong in describing causes and effects of physical phenomena but they are realistic enough to convince the average audience that "it could be": I'm not joking, if someone is able to believe in astrology and ufos, then a movie talking about the quantum mechanics of time-travel is really appetizing.

@Jimmy. You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? Your paper would not even pass as a high school level report. You need to spend some serious time in studying physics and sciences before attempting to do anything in these fields.

@Tapio. Whoa there good Doctor, you don't have to get insulting just because you don't like certain things. Btw, I've done my time in physics and sciences. I hold a B.S and a M.S. in engineering and physics, respectively. I've worked as a graduate researcher at NASA, the Florida Space Institute and did research on brown dwarf stars in France and Germany.

You see, the physicist in me agrees with you. The engineer, however does not. Engineers are more interested in "making it work" and sometimes using something that "works" is good enough. Just because you don't like my methods doesn't mean you need to get snippy.

In any case, I am happy to see you defend Einstein, whom I quote now, "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."

I think that about sums up the career of most "pure" physicists. :)

@Jimmy. My intention is not to insult anybody, but just tell the facts. I'm sorry if it sounds insulting, but facts sometimes do.

IMHO the intersection of science and religion occurs most strongly with this question - I am an atheist living in the southwestern US, and my entire region is religious - more than a few people here who have it "all figured out" so to speak. This is also without mention of the amount of poverty present, which can only be effectively dealt with psychologically with self delusion, which reinforces the religiosity and conviction of self exponentially. Not knowing that they don't know, but convinced that they do... in addition, there is bound to be a response in the physics community to this stimulus, wouldn't you think? Perhaps a heightened resistance to change?

@Brandon. I think you're on the right track. There are clear similarities in the psychological conditions between fundamentalist religious beliefs (that deny scientific or empirical facts) and actual delusional beliefs. Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" deals with this issue (I haven't read the book yet, though). The human mind is a result of evolution, and thus belief structures that are so easily adopted by many must have served a useful purpose in evolution imho.

Bob Copeland is the prototypical crackpot.

Hadn't it been for the fact that we are generally speaking about them and not about specifics in physics, deletion would have been recommended. But in this particular subject, which is more epistemological than scientific, I will repose his message here to stimulate the debate.

He said:

------- As a crackpot who has been labelled full of crap by one of Researchgate's esteemed curators, I just couldn't resist. Without getting into religion, it is my unsupported view that whomever, whatever, or even randomness that put this working universe together, just has a tremendous sense of humor. Researchgate's curators want everything neat and tidy with an intellectual bow on it. Unfortunately, the universe isn't neat and tidy and nothing is 100% ( unsupported statement here ). The crackpot which is full of crap has been brought into Researchgate's equation ( see I'm learning math ) to stir up the status quo, in order to drive you physicists to greater glory cumulating in a Pulitzer Prize. So just remember. Behind every Pulitzer Prize winner is at least one unheralded crackpot that has drove a scientist dippy in order to achieve his / her ( equal opportunity here ) success. Modesty on my part, forbids me to mention my favorite curator. I sense ( scientifically unsupported ) that he has the ability to win a Pulitzer Prize and with a little luck ( no reference here ) I'll be successful. Each of us in this world have a cross to bear and he and I share one. --------

btw Bob, pulitzer prize? What are u talking about?

I think we're ready to flip over to the Philosophy topic, don't you think :-)? They'll probably delete all the physicists' posts :-).

@Tapio - I actually have The God Delusion on top of my bookshelf as we speak (excellent work by Prof. Dawkins). I believe that evolution marks the line between sentience and non-sentience with simple possession of imagination. I think imagination and the use thereof is what made homo sapiens the dominant species here. Also, while Dawkins says a good deal about evolution and religion, I don't think he quite understands the desperation with which my poverty stricken family (region, country, etc) holds onto religion. He seems honestly perplexed by their tenacity, while I personally see it, and look past it. They think hopelessness is what awaits them in secularity, and they fear it more than hell.

@All - Perhaps a definition of "crackpot" would help; I'll give it a go - Someone who resists changing beliefs in the face of empirical evidence and/or attempts to influence others to resist said evidence. Alternately, someone who subscribes to fantasy instead of fact and attempts a spread of the disinformation. How's that?

I just couldn't resist, once again. I don't mind being called a prototypical crackpot that is full of crap, but so far Matias hasn't provided any empirical evidence which isn't philosophical or metaphysical. If Matias can provide me with any scientific proof that is backed up with scientific studies acceptable to the physics community then I'll shut up. I've never attempted to influence others and personally don't care what anyone thinks as long as whatever he / she thinks doesn't adversely affect civilization. Most of the questions in this website start with " what do you think " which doesn't require any proof. Without being overly critical, it would seem to me that if the problem isn't adequately defined by the questioner, it can't be expected that the great unwashed would give a penetrating answer. Opinion in some ways is fantasy. It's all in the eyes and brain of the beholder. As far as spreading disinformation is concerned, I have yet to find any response from the great unwashed that would fulfill that definition. It may be you guys and gals know more than us, but just because that is true, you can't accuse us of spreading disinformation if we don't know something you know exists.I haven't read The God Delusion but it seems to me, that if imagination is the criteria for sentient beings, then both physicists and philosophers have it. As far as religion is concerned, someone said somewhere that it's the opiate of the masses. Physicist's express imagination through math and if it tests out by experiment so much the better. Philosophers express imagination through language and if it tests out by finer and finer choices of words and phrases so much the better. Religion has been hijacked by the intellectuals ( proletariat ??? ). From your studies as a physicist and my philosophical inheritance, both of us would have to be daft if we didn't realize that something / somewhat has designed this universe. The religious call it God, Physicist call it science and the Philosopher's don't know except it doesn't appear to be a committee because everything works and seems to be well designed. I like Mr. Johnson's comments and I hope he won't see these comments as harsh and confrontational. Matias said he wanted to stimulate the debate and I hope that my comments have helped him towards that goal.

I don't want to take unfair advantage of Sanjay, but I don't understand how you can make these statements when you're in a profession that can't measure accurately, get something right after 3 tries and can't tighten cable. If you don't know what I'm talking about just read the Cern comments on Researchgate. On second thought you did fire the coach ( manager ) and did sack the public relations spokesman. I suppose in retrospect you did get something right.

In particular, Albert Einstein weighed in on the topic back in 1944 in response to a young physicist who was trying to incorporate philosophy into his modern physics course:

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth."

Einstein sincerely believed that his interest in philosophy made him a better scientist. Using his philosophical background, Einstein took a step back, realized what was wrong with the current scientific paradigm, and built a revolutionary new theory of relativity.

I think you're trying to draw a conclusion from facts that don't support it.

It's easy for a pro to spot a bad penny and it's often not too difficult for a smart layman, either.

There's very simple advice to all the cranks:

1. Write up your ideas professionally such that everything is mathematically and physically consistent with known physical laws and principles.

2. Show that your new idea agrees with existing experiments and predicts new phenomena, which can be experimentally tested.

3. Submit your paper to a reputable scientific journal and have it published.

4. Give seminars where you explain your results to other scientists.

If you can do this nobody will call you a crank :-).

You give a very good summary for good scientists.

Just explaining how Einstein did it..:-)

I don't disagree with you either in principle. I don't mind if you want to limit the participants to your fellow professionals. What I object to is that you allow people with uneven backgrounds to comment on the questions usually starting with " What do you think " and then slag them with innuendo, names and general crankiness. From my reading and understanding of the Researchgate aims as stated in your blurb on the subject , there doesn't seem to be any coordination between what you say you will do and want and what turns out to be what you are doing and wanting. The curators say they don't want any opinion and to stay on topic. I don't object to that aim providing that everyone including the commenting physicists stick to it. I realize the physicists and philosophers are busy slagging each other on the internet and each side are winning and losing points.

@Bob, you're distorting a very simple message here. There's nothing wrong in expressing opinions, even uneducated ones, but pushing crank ideas ("relativity is wrong") without any factual proof or basis is simply an elementary mistake and not tolerated here.

I agree that your message is simple, but like most simple messages it's profound. I have yet to read any replies from the great unwashed which would qualify as pushing crank ideas. On one hand you say there's nothing wrong in expressing opinions, even uneducated ones yet on the other hand you say that you won't accept ideas without any factual proof or basis. My question to you is when does an opinion become an idea??? Your curator's are so fast on the trigger that most opinions from the great unwashed never last long enough to qualify as pushing crank ideas. Would you please comment without incorporating motherhood statements like " Obviously you are wrong ". It seems to me you're applying the same criteria to this website, as would be applied to a peer review magazine or for that matter the fine list that you kindly assembled 5 comments up above this one. Your website has to qualify as one of the weirdest. Most websites are tolerant of reasonable opinion. Most opinions border on ideas. Right now I can't think of any opinion that can't be classified as an idea ( even the overused word crank ). If someone posts an opinion it usually qualifies as an idea. If someone asks a question, I suppose it qualifies as neither an opinion or an idea.

@Bob, it should be obvious even to the "great unwashed" that you should neither *answer* a question that you're not qualified to answer nor *contradict* scientifically proven facts w/o any proof (or both in the worst cases:)). Instead try to *learn* from the experts - we're more than happy to educate you. It's really no more complicated than that.

Finally we've reached a consensus. The obvious part seems to have eluded both sides of the debate for a long time. I suppose in order to "learn" from the experts the "great unwashed" should just read and not comment.

In the spirit of co-operation I have raised this question on your website to which no expert has answered. It goes something like this:

As Einstein said that space doesn't exist unless something extends into it and that the maximum velocity in space is the speed of light, then of what does space consist ???

This question is deeper than it appears. If for every action there is a reaction, then what prevents light from going faster??? Ergo, space must have some type of construction.

@Tapio. The steps you provided I think are overly simple. I quote them here so other's won't have to hunt them down because this thread is getting quite lengthy.

"1. Write up your ideas professionally such that everything is mathematically and physically consistent with known physical laws and principles.

2. Show that your new idea agrees with existing experiments and predicts new phenomena, which can be experimentally tested.

3. Submit your paper to a reputable scientific journal and have it published.

4. Give seminars where you explain your results to other scientists."

So my question is this. If you follow these steps exactly, and somebody thereafter proves you wrong; where does that leave this abbreviated version of the scientific method?

For example: M.J. Gaffey wrote on identifying pyroxene samples for years before I even stepped into physics. He published (along with his graduate assistants) papers on this topic. I arrive, write "Frequency distribution of pyroxene types and a method to separate the composition of multiple pyroxenes in a sample." This thesis disproved his pyroxene work. It took me less than two weeks to pull this apart. (It's available in my profile.)

So did peer-review fail for decades? Are the journals he submitted his work in "disreputable." Or can we consider Dr. Gaffey to be a member of the class of persons we are talking about in this thread?

Now if you believe that peer-review failed, then the system is faulty. Errors get in and are propagated through time until somebody catches it. In the meantime, careers are spent working on these supposedly good scientific works; only to be proven wrong in the end.

If you are still following me, this next question might be a little disturbing. What if you're wrong not because you're a bad scientist... but because the papers you are using are fundamentally flawed and you did not catch it? I am certain those who cited Gaffey all these years thought they were doing just fine (and probably still do.) Funny thing is, I was asked NOT to publish my results by about four physicists after they handed me my MS in physics. Which is the first of three reasons I left physics and became a lawyer instead of pursuing a Ph.D.

@Jimmy. All practicing scientists know very well that there's no "ultimate truth", but (exact) sciences are self-correcting. This is included in my simple recipe, which all professional scientists follow, and it works very well indeed!

@Tapio. Ah, so now we are at the crux of the matter. Since all practicing scientists know very well that there is no "ultimate truth", then everything (including first principles) are open to examination and questioning. Examining where we came from (and what we potentially missed) is every bit as important as pushing forward in fields like thin films and battery technology. Maybe, just maybe there is a better way to start classical physics. Maybe that way will lead to the GUT. And maybe you're right, maybe it's a waste of time. But if you don't look, how will you find out?

The problem with modern physicists is that they lack imagination. They are content sticking to conventional paradigms for fear of losing their positions at University. So there is an enormous incentive to stay on safe ground. In other words, they are scared of taking risks.

I think Einstein said it best, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited, Imagination encircles the world."

You, dear Tapio, are certainly very knowledgeable; but that certainly comes with some downsides. :)

@Jimmy. My opinion is that most scientists - and especially physicists - have much more imagination than most people. Scientific discoveries speak for themselves. What you call "sticking to conventional paradigms" seems to me a misunderstanding of the scientific method. Any new paradigm has to pass the same scrutiny as the current ones have. Science is not created by a million monkeys typing random sequences of words (or equations for that matter :)), but by a quest based on knowledge of the past and ability to discover the unknown.

@ Tapio. Ah, despite myself I'll shall have to "like" that last post for its wit and hidden insult. We may disagree as to the efficacy of the modern (or as I see it, 17th century practice) of physics, but I shall let time see who will win this argument for us.

I believe that sites like http://www.openscience.org are just the beginning for scientists to begin communicating their results. Unfortunately for the journal approach, it should only be a matter of time before science becomes a forum based effort, instead of a closed "ivory-tower" approach. After all, here we are debating (at least topically) on how one should approach physics.

So funny enough, your million monkeys idea may not be too far off. :P

@Bob. In defense of physics. When you mention that physicists cannot measure things accurately, I think you confuse their idea of inaccurate. Physics experiments measure things more accurately and precisely (yes, there is a difference) than any other science field.

As far as the CERN comments go, Tapio and the others here are not opining that physicists are perfect. Mistakes will be made, such are the dangers of letting humans work on problems. But I assure you that unless you have ever worked in a lab concerning optics or physics, you likely have no idea how difficult the level of accuracy physicists attempt to achieve.

I have too much work to do to worry about so-called "cranks". There are a number of people that I've run into here who insist on ideas that are clearly without any basis. I usually use them to test my own theories about why people will insist on taking such positions despite the lack of supporting evidence and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It's more due to a psychological interest for me, than anything about physics. If the person is just going off on a tangent about why Einstein was wrong or the Big Bang never happened, I don't even waste my time...

This is an interesting question. Here's an attempt to give an answer. Physics is, in some ways, the simplest natural science because it limits itself to non-living matter unlike biology, which is definitely not a simple natural science. And compared to chemistry, while it is true that physics deals with molecular bonding, the interest is not so much in what atoms are bound together and what systematic properties characterize many-atom molecules, but in the general principles underlying the binding process.

The simplest area of physics is, of course, classical mechanics. And this provides some insight into why there are lots of crank theories out there dealing with physics. Many people have intuitive feelings for forces, for example, and anyone who has taught physics knows the pitfalls associated with preconceptions about the mechanical behavior of macroscopic human-sized objects. It's fun for a novice to think out how and why bodies move and respond to forces the way they do. Sometimes the novice is right, but not always. But the main point is that naive "intuitive" understandings of mechanics deals with deeply ingrained knowledge of everyday space, time, and forces. And herein lies the problem.

Now we come to something like special relativity, which is a very sophisticated understanding of space and time or, properly understood, space-time. When intuitive ideas, deeply ingrained and reinforced daily by common experience, clashes with something like special relativity, well, sparks are bound to fly. Those who don't want to admit that they don't really understand the subtleties of something like special relativity get on a high horse and proffer all kinds of "proofs" that relativity is "wrong."

I could give other examples (e.g., from cosmology and quantum physics--wherever there are concepts that challenge an everyday understanding of the physical world), but let's just say that physics draws crank theories because physics is, in a way, simple, and because modern theories of physics extend everyday concepts to the point that the comfortable intuitions that the crank uses so "skillfully" are seriously challenged, which the cranky mind that doesn't see the value of saying "I don't know" or "I don't understand" wants to set straight.

Very good points, Sanjay. There are a lot of flaky books about "quantum consciousness" and the like. Not that the question is settled--Eugene Wigner, Nobel Laureate physicist, was convinced that consciousness was involved in the measurement process. I think recent theories of decoherence and Bohmian mechanics have put the lie to it. Nevertheless, quantum mechanics, especially the measurement problem, Bell theorem correlations, and the like make grist for the mill of the pseudoscientific practitioners.

The very fact that you had to ask means you might not be intellectually equipped to determine whether the answers you get are in themselves BS...

Physics is for watch makers. Every person is entitled to his watch. The society of Physicists have to test and verify whether a watch works. Brian Greene's watch made up of many watches is intriguing. I look forward to experiments for prediction and Dark Energy characterization. Dark Matter also.

The Brian Greene question is the very reason why I don't like it when people get on their soap box about cranks, because it is too often then used as a smear against legitimate scientists and researchers who are working on the cutting edge and thus threaten the sensibilities of some scientists. The next thing that happens is that people who aren't versed in what is real cutting edge science and what is quackery, then start imitating said behavior and anything that they don't understand becomes quackery.

Brian Greene may be wrong sometimes, be he's no crank. People that make claims about things for which they show not one shred of demonstrable evidence and or that violate the known laws of physics without a falsifiable context, are far more likely to be cranks than Brian Greene ever will be...

I agree with Marshall in principle. Unfortunately for the physicists etc., science has become mainstream because of the Internet. Most of the cutting edge thinking is being dispersed through the Internet including Brian Greene's dissertions. After all, Brian has to make a living and his audience is busy trolling the Internet for information and pleasure. You obviously go where your customers are located. The Internet can be wrong but so can the books as they become out of date. Labeling opinion contributors to Researchgate as cranks is just a socially acceptable way of making someone feel bad without social and academic repercussions.

It seems the edit has disappeared so I'll have to continue here. Don't forget that Researchgate broken down means "Research " and " gate ". It seems to me, when I'm more dispassionate than passionate, that the people in control of Researchgate are trying to put the genie back in the bottle and that ain't gonna happen.

@William Jackson:

I disagree that " ... People that make claims about things for which they show not one shred of demonstrable evidence and or that violate the known laws of physics without a falsifiable context ..." applies to Brian's Greene's presentation because I'm familiar with the theories that he's talking about and know how to interpret what he presenting. That's what I mean - people who aren't familiar with the cutting edge of the field making judgements about ideas coming from that field.

I went back and skimmed through the article again. Aside from his inferring, erroneously, that Einstein's unified field theory has any relationship to string theory as an attempt to unify all the forces of nature, there's nothing in the piece that shows Greene stepping outside of well substantiated concepts or making claims that are impossible to, at least one day, verify. It's as simple as that. The rub is that you have to know enough about the field in the first place, and where the research is headed, to make those kinds of observations. Too often, people who don't have that knowledge try to determine things one way or the other, and end up being wrong.

I think too often, science imitates the Church which used to persecute it. It's priests are PhDs and professors. It's heretics are called cranks and crackpots and persecuted with the same amount of zeal, oft times with as little evidence. The minute I see someone complain about cranks and crackpots I know that their own work isn't important enough, or plentiful enough, to keep them busy and not caring about those who obviously make themselves look foolish to the science community. A crackpot is easy to debunk because they have nothing to show to substantiate what they're saying, so in short, who cares? It's the use of such terminology, to denigrate to outriders of science, that is troubling and too often that is exactly what is behind such complaints and protests.

I've encountered at lesast a few individuals at researchgate that I could classify as crackpots, but I refrain from doing so. Instead I counter their ideas with well thought debate to make them defend what they're saying. That's the best way to handle them, not call them names.

Simultaneously, just because I debate someone, doesn't mean that I think they're a crackpot or a crank...

Once again I agree with Marshall. Without denigrating all the excellent questions that others have posted and I've seen, not seen it seems that the most penetrating comments in terms of interest and volume is all about CERN and cranks. I joined Researchgate so I could expand my knowledge of leading edge science. Generally speaking when you attempt to learn something unless you were born with horseshoes you look very dopey to your teachers. Most teachers will tolerate their students stupidity and lack of background / reasoning because those teachers used to be in the same boat. It seems to me, without being purposefully unkind, that it's just my dumb luck that the people that actually run this website were flawless students that never had to find out that learning was challenging and frequently frustrating. So far all I've learned from Researchgate is how to be effectively mean and underhanded. The only reason I bother staying around is because these people are academically smart and insightful and I rather childishly hope and pray that they will do something scientifically wonderful with their lives. Just remember what goes around comes around. I just hope for the sake of those running Researchgate, that they smarten up, before they inadvertently ruin their careers through this nonsense.

Is not the Standard Model, the watch of Physics? It is the BS Meter where new watches are shown by their operation in the universe to fail, match or improve in the realm of explanation and prediction of physical phenomena.

The Standard Model's fate lies in the discovery of the Higgs where Hawking says it won't be found and I say it will. 'Til then, the Standard Model is not set in stone.

The BS Meter is a rhetorical and overly simplistic crutch for those that want to rely on stereotypical and hackneyed lists, which are rife with biased and useful references for control protocols. Theories are shown to be wrong from analysis and experiment. That's what I use. Maybe because the theories I test are from the likes of Hawking, Thorne, Kaku, Barbour, Carroll, Greene and the like, I have to use something a bit more sophisticated than a BS Meter, like my brain...

Marshall, I sincerely hope that you never turn your back on Researchgate. You're the only bright light in this abysmal darkness.

BS is garbage. Theory is the way. My watches are meant to be theories. Thanks Jackson for problems with BB theory given on your web site.

@Bob:

Thanks for the kind remarks. Actually, Researchgate isn't as bad as other sites. I think the main thing we all need to realize is that science is a quest for truth, not a fortress to protect it. We never get the entire picture and it often changes over time. It's important then to try to keep things in focus as much as we can without demanding that everything freeze...

There's a world of difference between Brian Greene's interpretation of the mathematical features of string theory, and crank or BS claims. If you don't understand the difference you understand nothing about science.

@Tapio

Duh. I believe I said as much 14 posts ago and then reiterated it several times later... BTW, can you actually play that axe, or do you just like to pose with it?

Right, but I needed to say it, too.

:) It's a custom-made, pearl-white Carvin DC-200/400 hybrid (with Strato-style body), with Seymour Duncans. I can play it well but never to my own satisfaction.

I have a black Gibson SG style guitar with white pick guard, that has the skinniest neck (in terms of across, edge to edge) and a skinny head stock which remains so far, unidentifiable. It is an actual Gibson product with the name on it and a 1968 era serial number, but no one knows for sure what it is. It's been autographed by my friend Pete Way of UFO, so I just keep it as a collectible now, since I played the hell out of it in the late 80s and early 90s in session work and also a number of rock videos I produced then.

I have a Strat knock-off S101 that has worn-out frets that I'm going to sell and I've replaced it with a 20th anniversary, blonde Fender Squire Strat with the big head stock that I've custom detailed (like I did my SG) with an explosion of psychedelic and holographic stickers. Looks very 1971. I was just wrenching cosmic blues and space metal riffs out of it this morning...

@John Paul McNevin

I can see it now - We could perform the "I've Got The Crying' 'Bout The Cranks and Crackpots Blues" ...

Life is all in the beat.

For the heck of it I took the John Baez test. I got a 15. For starters, the test is biased against anyone that comes up with a theory. The majority, and I mean the vast, overwhelming majority of people in physics never come up with theories of their own, and the test is biased in their favor. Just based on item #8, anyone who has a theory dealing with gravitation, etc. could earn points for mentioning Einstein quite legitimately, so I ignored that one. Besides, Baez includes "Hawkins" in there as well, but doesn't put the name in quotes, so it appears that he misspelled "Hawking" on his own. Not good.

I earned my 15 points because of one thing - #25 for naming something after yourself. Actually, I just realized I have done that twice (though shared the credit on the second), so I get an extra 20 points for a total of 35. I think that also is biased however because, as an engineer, composer, etc. that is how you handle intellectual property, so a profession where most of the practitioners never produce anything of intellectual originality wouldn't understand that value. So I'll take my 35 points (there's a minus 5 points you get for just playing which off-set my original 20) because what I put my name on was no theory - they were both processes that no one else had come up, with those resolve significant issues dealing with time, and quite frankly, there's no way I'm not putting my name on something like that!

Dear Marshall,

Maybe, and I say only maybe, since your are an engineer rather than a scientist, you misinterpret Baez test regarding the bias because you don't understand aspects of how scientific research works.

Regarding item number 8, let me tell you the following: It is very common and accepted to use "Einstein" in the proper context. For example, you may find papers published today which speak about "Einstein equations", "Einstein Tensor", "Einstenian manifolds", "Bose-Einstein statistics", "Einstein-Hilbert action" and many more. You can even read something like "Einstein equations are a good classical approximation to gravitational phenomena, but need to be ultraviolet completed..", and that's fine.

Instead, if your read in a physics forum something like "I believe Einstein's reasoning in his thought experiments is deeply flawed...", or something like "But Einstein's interpretation on Quantum Mechanics....", etc, then, there you have your crackpot alert. You would need some confirmation, so keep reading, but the crackpot alert is on.

If you don't understand the difference between these two type of "Einstein" quotes in the last two paragraphs, but you would like to understand them, then you should study physics. Baez's "Einstein" citation refers to the second paragraph.

Writing "Hawkins" rather than "Hawking" is just a joke. Many crackpots who claim to have new profound or revolutionary theories and ideas base all their knowledge about physics in Hawking's popular books (History of time, Universe in a nutshell, etc). The joke refers to a gross or ignorant person who would misspell Hawking (could be interpreted as a little bit xenophobe joke, because a folk from somewhere where English is not the first language, like me, could also misspell it easily). In fact, just as an exercise, look up "Stephen Hawkins" in wikipedia and you will be redirected to "Stephen Hawking": it is a very popular mistake among non-physicists.

Regarding naming something after you: I don't know how engineering works with this. Maybe it is considered OK to name something after you in your area. In physics it is not. The credit for your work goes in the authoring of the paper where you present your results and in the citations you receive from other scientists to acknowledge the usefulness of your work for further developments. You don't name something after yourself. It is considered bad taste and arrogant. Those equations, processes, theorems, theories or effects which have the last name of someone, where called after that someone as a recognition of the scientific community to that author. But a good physicist never names something after him. Other people do it. That's why this item is on Baez list. You can easily spot a crackpot when he starts naming things after him.

Dear Matias:

I know how the proper use of Einstein's name works, which is why I listed the item as "ignored", however, Baez didn't distinguish it that way and it looks sloppy. Also the Hawkins reference - I get the joke but again, there was no differentiation as I noted. Again, these are signs of bias, meaning tilted toward a specific viewpoint. Someone not versed in the science community might not catch that, which is why it's biased. I got it, which is why I knew it was biased against those that might not. That's my whole point. Duh.

As for the naming issue, the processes in question are very specific with not a lot of chances for uses in the general physics community, so the chances of being referenced are slim. However, as I'm already dealing with an apparent issue of some moron stealing from my research, I'll stick with the moniker I gave them. Call me arrogant if you want, but the science community doesn't write my pay checks and I never claimed to be a scientist. I'm simply marking some of my own intellectual property which will earn money when included as content in my lectures and media materials. The important thing is that the processes work as advertised. Crackpot theories don't.

I think what's worse than so called crackpot theories are the mistakes that turn up in a a lot of work these days. The hidden assumptions and just plain running the train off the track thinking sometimes. Stuff like "a clock is in the gravitational field of a neutron star and in front of a worm hole mouth. Outside the gravitational field some distance away is another clock in front of another wormhole mouth which is connected to the first. If you could go from the outside of one mouth to the other, you would see that the two clocks have different times but if you look at one from the other through the wormhole mouth, you would see they have the same time..." That's the kind of stuff I pay attention to. I couldn't care less about obvious cranks.

Quite unfortunately I have to agree with your moan about crackpots in Physics - it's astonishing ... (As a case in point, I was once a member of several Physics forums on Linkedin , all of which I left because they were overrun with self-important, self-delusional crackpots - save for the Ph.D's-only forum.)

The publishing world is also chockful of worthless tomes (by the likes of Milo Wolff and many others) which purport to explain the Universe. Even discussions on ResearchGate are not always immune (see the astonishing thread that a certain Theodore Retician is attempting to start)

It's really bad, because it also has a negative, but unavoidable, feedback effect on proper science, which tends to become overly conservative and rigid, so as to shield itself from crackpotdom (well, it's a usual phenomenon in Society, isn't it, a minority of bad apples always affect the majority who pays the price for the bad apples in its midst)

Answering your question - why are there so many - I believe that the answer is maybe twofold: on the one hand, some folks love to boast of having achieved something that they seldom are willing to, or even can, pay the price for : I see it on occasion in languages, where some people will insist - nay, brag - that they speak absolutely perfectly some language whereas all they can do is babble it, riddled with elementary vocabulary and grammatical mistakes (indeed, it's easier to boast that you speak something than brag that you are an engineer, for instance, because you need a degree in engineering to do that).

The second element is, some people somehow sorely need self-reinforcement and self-importance, again unfortunately without paying the requisite, often stiff, dues - I've come across so many nobodies who, yes Sirrree!, will tell you why e.g. Einstein was wrong and how they will prove it. People need to reinforce their own sense of self-worth, and Physics, as it explains 'everything', is the new holy grail of knowledge.

It's pathetic .... and just possibly, might point to some once-necessary evolutionary flaw in the way our brains evolved ...

Historian Michael Godrin's book The Pseudoscience Wars reviewed earlier this year in Nature and The Times Higher Education, and discussed by Michael Shermer in his Scientific American column, seems to offer a rather interesting historical perspective on pseudoscience.

Didn't end up getting the book myself, has anyone else read it?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v490/n7421/full/490480a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20121025

http://chronicle.com/article/Separating-the-Pseudo-From/134412/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-pseudoscience

I think it is because Physics (and Astronomy) are the disciplines whose can answer What Human is, more nearly. I think in the future all can be explain by Physics.

To know what we are, are metaphysics questions relate with God or existential problem, that in rational people can be next to craziness. And people without studies of science don´t know what they don´t know.

I'm not Physic and I can feel a little like a quack here, but this is not a question of Physics. (It`s is about psychology or Psychiatry).

Maybe because physics is beautiful, it takes something terrifying and complex (nature and the Universe) and attempts to explain it with symmetry and beauty. People are attracted to that for the same reason they are attracted to a handsome dog or a lovely woman.

I've certainly spent a lot of time discussing physics with "crackpots" but on some level, I feel obliged to be patient with them. In many cases these are very intelligent people (smarter than me in many cases) who didn't have the family encouragement or good fortune to wind up in a Ph.D. progam.

They didn't get to struggle through Jackson's electrodynamics, they didn't get to dive into the perfection of Landau-Lifshitz, they didn't learn statistical dynamics from Pathria or puzzle over the high weirdness of renormalization or delta functions. On some level, don't they deserve our patience?

In some cases, maybe we can learn from them! These are people who who are infatuated with a field for which they often lack the requisite tools, for which they are not paid, for which they struggle for acceptance from the mainstream, and they're still willing to devote their life to it.

In some cases (like Kenneth Salem's 'crackpot' screed "9.8 Angstroms" (self-published in the early 1970s) they may be find a truth (i.e. the possible acceleration of the universe) years before the folks at the big theory labs find it. True, it may be a handwaving argument rather than rigorous, but isn't it a form of academic snobbery that we're willing to reduce these thinking, intelligent people to a "crackpot" label just because they don't have the tools to communicate properly with us?

I think our field should feel blessed, rather than cursed to have the energy and excitement of these untrained, excited amateur theorists. It might even add to the vitality and excitment of what we do.

I think Physics has different levels and is good to answer only your level. And don´t look another.

The problem is when the people want to discuss for nothing. It´s better no answer.

It all comes down to the fact that if you can't write an equation to support your idea you are obviously a crackpot .

Physics is a field of ultimate questions which are attrative for certain type of personalities.

I agree. What equation?

A wonderful book deals with this very theme: 'How The Hippies Saved Physics" by David Kaiser.

The takeaway from the book is that the "hippies" were all hard-nosed scientists - no crackpots there - who dared to ask the grand, wider-scheme-of-things questions which conservative and perhaps timorous physicists of the time frowned upon.

I know some of those people in that book, though I haven't read it. My policy is that all questions should be on the table and tested. If they work, great. If not, on to the next. No one should be picked-on for looking into something. Claiming something that goes against established results without evidence, however, is where I draw the line.

As for why the crack pots are drawn to physics - it's because more than any other area of science, physics has the mystique of genius attached to it and that is due directly to the influence of Albert Einstein's success. That's also why most cranks want to over throw his theories - because then they'll appear smarter than him and that's what it's all about - the psychology of their own self-image.

Sounds good to me.

The same could be said for Big Pharma. What's more crackpot that designing drugs which you know aren't ready for prime time, selling them anyway - knowing full well that they'll have to be taken off the market eventually when enough people are harmed by them? Big Pharma does more to undermine the public confidence in science than all the cranks, crackpots, charlatans and psuedoscientists in the entire history of the world, and continuing.

Bob:

What do you call it when you can't draw a space-time diagram to describe your theory? Does that make a person a crack pot too? If so, I know a whole slew of top physicists who are crack pots then, beginning with Kip Thorne...