Snap! The light has gone on in your head, and you have a brilliant and revolutionary new theory of physics. But you’re not a professional physicist, you’re just an amateur who may or may not have any physics training at all. How will you get your ideas recognized?
Here’s the problem. There’s thousands and thousands of people thinking the same thing, and the vast majority of them range somewhere between simply incorrect and outright crazy. Fortunately, there’s some easy ways to tell where you fall on that scale or if indeed you might be on to something - it does happen, after all.
1. Is your theory mathematically specific? In other words, if your idea is not expressed mathematically you need to work on it until it is. If you don’t know the math, try learning it. That advice is perfectly serious; mathematics is not easy but it can be learned by any reasonably intelligent person willing to devote real time to it. Local libraries and colleges will be of great help. But until your theory can be described mathematically, it has no hope of making clear predictions about the results of experiments. You must be able to get actual numerical answers to problems using your theory. This is an ironclad requirement.
2. Does the theory make clear predictions? Any mathematical theory from Newton’s laws of motion to quantum mechanics to relativity necessarily makes predictions. Plug numbers into the equations and see what numbers come out. Do they make sense and do they reflect what we actually observe?
3. Are the predictions different from the predictions of current theory? If you think your theory can explain everything that accepted theory can, great! But if there’s no difference from accepted theory anywhere then you’ve not actually made any forward progress. What numbers do your equations produce that are different from the numbers standard equations produce? Can these differences be detected experimentally?
And that’s it. If you satisfy those three requirements you may well be on your way to a real discovery. If not, you have to keep thinking until you do. This is what professional physicists do pretty much all day!
17 responses so far ↓
1 Carl Brannen // Jun 7, 2008 at 2:02 am
Well, I’m an amateur and I got at least one of my ideas recognized. It ain’t easy. In fact, my formula for the neutrino masses was just mentioned in an invited talk on neutrino theory at Neutrino 2008 by Alexei Smirnov [15MB] see page 29.
Part of the recognition problem is that it is difficult even for professionals to get their stuff recognized. In addition to the above three, you must also be working on something that connects with stuff that other people are working on.
In my case, among the people who knew about Koide’s formula for the charged leptons, it was well known that the formula was incompatible with the neutrino oscillation data and therefore could not apply to the neutrinos. This fact was printed at least twice in the peer reviewed literature. Mohapatra and Smirnov were about to publish a review of neutrino physics with the incompatibility mentioned once again. I sent Smirnov an email correcting the error and showing that how Koide’s formula could be rewritten to a more natural form that would generalize.
I was also lucky on that formula in that it is so simple that it can be explained in a couple of paragraphs and needs only high school math. Professionals are very busy and don’t have time to read rambling theory papers by other professionals in their own field, much less from unpublished amateurs working on slightly different subjects. The other advantage is that I’m “all but dissertation” in physics at U. Cal., Irvine, and abd at U. Washington in mathematics. So I may make slightly fewer typos and gross errors (that make the professional reader immediately throw your paper away).
Amateurs need to understand that all physicists amateur or professional, have ideas all the time. Ideas are excuses to make yourself learn the mathematics necessary to flesh them out. The math is the hard part, not the idea. In my case it was Clifford algebra.
Sending ideas in to professionals (without mathematics) is like shipping coal to Newcastle. They already have plenty of ideas, what they need is mathematics. Years ago, my aged aunt, on hearing that I was studying physics in grad school, said “ah, yes, isn’t all existence really about vibrations?” I’ve been tempted to cite her as a reference ever since on the subject of wave particle duality.
And an amateur (or professional) should not be so worried about recognition while they are in the early stages of working on a new idea. What they should worry about is their own personal progress and the faith they have in their idea and in themselves. They should worry about recognition after they have obtained results that are so magnificent that they defy their ability to keep them secret. Until then, just publish enough to keep employed. For an amateur, that means publish nothing.
A great physics idea should have lots and lots of applications. Don’t worry so much about people ignoring you, just follow your faith and keep on knocking out the applications. When you run out of ideas, or when you your tenure review is coming up, then worry about recognition.
2 Uncle Al // Jun 9, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Horsepucky. Contemporary physics theory predicts what it is told to predict (proton decay half-life and Super-Kamiokande) A good experimentalist eats theorists for breakfast. What is the theory for high temp supercons?
http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html
Yang and Lee, 1957. No numbers preceding, fast track Nobel Prize/Physics.
The greatest obstacle to understanding reality is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Reality is not a peer vote.
Oppose chemcially identical single crystal test masses of enantiomorphic space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 alpha-quartz in an Eotvos balance. Do (metaphoric) left and right shoes vacuum free fall identically? It cannot be calculated. It can only be observed. Both GR (Equivalence Principle) and string theory (BRST invariance) can be empirically falsified at the founding postulate level by a footnote outside theory. No prior observation in any venue at any scale in the massed sector would be contradicted. Somebody should look.
3 aggy // Apr 6, 2009 at 11:56 pm
It’s a pity there are such rigorous requirements to have physics theories listened to, for example my theory is a theory of everything and would easily explain the unexpected results of collider experiments, such as this one found @ thefreelibrary.com
Positrons, electrons from supernuclei
Naturally occurring atomic nuclei get as large as about atomic mass atomic mass, the mass of a single atom, usually expressed in atomic mass units 250. By striking nuclei against each other, however, physicists can sometimes make them amalgamate for a fleeting moment into something like a supernucleus, with atomic weightatomic weight, mean (weighted average) of the masses of all the naturally occurring isotopes of a chemical element, as contrasted with atomic mass, which is the mass of any individual isotope.
….. Click the link for more information. around 500. One thing such a supernucleus has is an extremely strong electric field. And physicists were hoping that in this way they could make a field strong enough to produce positrons out of the vacuum–or, as some of them put it, to produce positrons by ionizing space-time itself.
Experiments at the Gesellschaft fur Schwerionenforschung (GSI GSI - Gensym Standard Interface ) in Darmstadt, West Germany, are in fact finding positrons that come out of such heavy-nucleus collisions. However, these positrons seem to come not from the vacuum but from some other source, perhaps a new kind of subatomic particle. Such a particle, if it is real, would be something unexpected by current theories of subatomic particles.
Pity that my theory is wasted, it took me nearly 20 years to come up with it and alot of research, not to mention the very rare experience I had to have to start me thinking about it. Still, I know how it all works even though I can’t explain it mathematically, and all the pysicists are way off track. Their loss not mine HaHaHa
4 Anonymous // Oct 21, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Only quantum theory , Relativity , string theory , quantum gravity , cosmology are interesting , the rest of physics is boring . you have to learning the boring stuff to learn those interesting stuff
5 sergio // Feb 20, 2011 at 12:56 pm
the problem is that idea is equal to intuition (i have a new idea = i have a new intuition). but our intuition can be right or can be worong. we just know if it is right or worong doing an experiment. so, that’s it. your idea must came with an experiment to prove it. but physics today demands hard experiments, if not impossible (string theory). so, without a good experiment, you intuition can not be considered true, and your sensation that it is true means nothing without an experiments prove it so. physics has become an dificult area to evolve, just becose of that.
6 Robert Propoggio // Sep 16, 2011 at 2:31 pm
I would like to submit a paper I have written, for discussion. The title is,”Curious Mathematical Relationships Between Celestial And Atomic Phenomena”. Using physical constants to determine magnitudes of the solar system.
Using just the physical constants; c, h, G and the rest mass of the electron, with simple ratios it is possible to predict, the average Astronomical Unit, the mass of the Sun, and the average velocity of any object orbiting the Sun at A.U. distance. These ratios allow for the formulation of a different type of gravitational equation which is specific for the solar system. There is nothing unique about the solar system, but, these ratios do predict exact values. Perhaps with in these calculations there will appear concepts which will allow for generalizations which would apply universally.
7 Robert // Sep 20, 2011 at 2:08 pm
/Users/robertpropoggio/Desktop/THEORY /COSMOLOGICAL/Physical Constants & the Solar System #2 PDF.pdf
8 BBB // Oct 28, 2011 at 5:07 am
To be able to contribute to theoretical physics one must have extensive understanding(and not only knowledge) in vast areas in math and physics. This means he has to do huge amount of more simple problems on his own before being able to begin research
9 Robert Seago // Apr 29, 2012 at 8:15 am
How do I register and log in as a first time user of this interesting site.
Thanks you,
Robert
10 david findley // May 22, 2012 at 8:51 pm
yes, I have developed a new Space-Time model that simplifies GR and establishes theoretical proofs for a small multitude of phenomena, (simultaneously,) but it is not getting recognized.
I don’t think the editors of the journals I am sending it to are even reading it.
It is wholly compatable with the standard model, and I have suggested an experiment that may verify/bunk the theory, (in part,) but… Still I don’t think it is getting read.
If anyone knows any theoretical physicists who might be willing to peer-review the work for me as I submit it to journals, that would be great :O\
11 Allaoua // Aug 14, 2012 at 6:30 am
This information is encouraging. I was a physics major in a major university a few decades ago, but switched to engineering after a couple of years to match the job market’s demands of that time. I came across this site which is encouraging for those of us who would like to catch up with the evolution of physics and its related mathematics, and use it as a foundation or platform to do further research. Are there facilities or institutions that would allow an ambitious amateur scientist (me) to conduct his experiments? (even with a fee)
12 Marc S. Reiter // Nov 14, 2012 at 12:32 pm
I have a few questions based on the 3 requirements given in the original article here.
From Above : 1. Is your theory mathematically specific? … If an amateur’s theory is based on already proven equations (ie. General Relativity’s gravitational field equation) and explains (assuming in great detail) which variables need to be manipulated as well as how those variables need to be manipulated… would this give the amateur theory being proposed at least some slack, or would differential geometry involving calculus really need to be learned and applied?
… If the answer to my first question is at least in the vicinity of “it’s possible,” then this next question is applicable …
From Above : 3. Are the predictions different from the predictions of current theory? The mathematics (such as would be the result of known equations and detailed explanations of changes to them) should be able to treat gravity (as per Newton and Einstein’s theories) and extend to treat observations currently attributed to dark matter (including individual galaxies, galaxy collisions, gallaxy clusters and superclusters). If this were to be found correct, it should further treat the interpretations and observations surroundng dark energy itself. These aspects would demand an actual quantization of space itself. Would this qualify as different predictions of current theory, or do such placeholder equations as associated with “dark matter” and “dark energy” nullify this as a different prediction?
13 John Carter // Dec 14, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Join the group and contribute in a meaningful way.
14 itp.nyu.edu // Feb 25, 2013 at 12:54 am
I do not drop many responses, however i did some searching
and wound up here Guide for the Amateur Physicist. And
I do have a couple of questions for you if it’s allright. Could it be only me or does it look as if like some of these comments come across like coming from brain dead folks? :-P And, if you are writing on other sites, I’d like to
follow everything fresh you have to post. Could you
make a list of every one of all your social sites like your
Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?
15 roofing contractor // Mar 12, 2013 at 11:46 pm
Undeniably consider that which you stated. Your favourite reason
appeared to be at the web the easiest thing to
take into account of. I say to you, I certainly get irked at the same time
as people think about concerns that they plainly do not realize about.
You managed to hit the nail upon the top and also outlined out the whole thing with no need
side effect , other folks can take a signal. Will probably be again to get more.
Thanks
16 xufwmt // Mar 16, 2013 at 12:55 pm
I am certain a lot of the site audience already know just the power of some sort of email marketing system. What’s more, a lot of people already know just that will promoting by way of web 2 . 0 will be able to improve web-site search engine serps together with enhance your web based appeal. So which a lot of the internet surfers are not aware is without a doubt -how you can utilize the power of web 2 . 0 recommended to the minor organisationrrrs bonus. Other ways some tips which sometimes aid you in ones own email marketing projects. The most important thing to recollect in terms of email marketing is you are thinking about creating a fascinating together with user generated content. This can be a kind of written information exactly who will want to offer their own acquaintances together with admirers on their community profiles. Build written information which is useful together with appealing, normally no person will want to discuss the item. Intriguing written information http://www.garybirkenmdmedicalmysteries.com/ might drive a person’s eye of your admirers together with fans. They may in all likelihood desire to discuss that, which will increase your probabilities to get more admirers together with customers. Depart room or space with regard to samples together with issues in your own web 2 . 0 campaign, particularly in the commencement. Watch out for precisely what the heck is and what is not working. Check every thing. Try to get improvements as vital. A thing that effective with regard to some various different businesses might not exactly work out fine. You might want to start learning on ones own samples together with glitches. When making use of this kind of advertising, possibly you have to together with refresh ones own completely totally place emphasis together with desired aims fairly often. Like that you are likely to continue to specific. There some sort of countless causes which may take ones own promoting all the way affordable sudden means. Therefore it is advisable to re-evaluate the particular focus it is fairly often. Do it right often. Look at your plans and find out what design is easily the most good. xrtiu6fd8gf
17 Lanetyntgaa.Posterous.Com // Mar 23, 2013 at 9:49 am
I am curious to find out what blog system you have been using?
I’m experiencing some minor security problems with my latest website and I would like to find something more risk-free. Do you have any suggestions?
Leave a Comment