4 ms·

Am physicist. First of all - this paper was never peer-reviewed. (And I suspect will never be.) The "summary table" looks weird and all over the place: both in

Am physicist. First of all - this paper was never peer-reviewed. (And I suspect will never be.) The "summary table" looks weird and all over the place: both in levels of abstraction and in cause-effect relationships. The rest of the contents of the paper reek of "non-mainstream unrecognised genius" stuff. PS. Oh, and author is not affiliated with any actual research institution.

aeonik 4y ago
Sounds to me like you just peer-reviewed it! We all appreciate your contribution to science.
koheripbal 4y ago
> this paper was never peer-reviewed. (And I suspect will never be.) ... > author is not affiliated with any actual research institution. There's something very elitist about this thinking. As if only members of academia are allowed to make breakthroughs.
- Espressosaurus 4y ago
  Until it has been checked for errors and results verified to a suitable level of confidence, it's scribbling on a page. That's how science as a process works once you get beyond one person.
  - GordonS 4y ago
    I think the GP's comment was more about the latter part of the quote, about the author not being affiliated with a research institution.
- quantum_mcts 4y ago
  I wonder what was the last fundamental scientific breakthrough made not by a member of academia...
  - krastanov 4y ago
    Surprisingly recent example that is really borderline[1], but they are indeed exceedingly rare (however I do count corporate/private RnD as being staffed by people coming from academia here). 1: https://www.quantamagazine.org/statistician-proves-gaussian-correlation-inequality-20170328 https://www.quantamagazine.org/statistician-proves-gaussian-...
    - quantum_mcts 4y ago
      The article is about a guy who was a university professor for decades.
  - motohagiography 4y ago
    Srinivasa Ramanujan springs to mind as the most famous example. This is an interesting question to me because while the answer is probably none or predates the modern definition of academia, there's a hidden circular definition embedded in the problem. Fundamental science is defined by its acceptance through the peer review process, and not by its applications or results. These undiscovered geniuses sending papers to professors are looking for inter-personal validation and acceptance as a peer. They want a benediction to become something (or to redeem or reinvent as something) and they think the blessing of a prof will give that to them. More cynically, a few want to be able to front the conversation like they do in sales, where they can say, "well, we're in talks about it with <high profile client> right now and here's the opportunity to get in before this thing gets really big." Substitute client for institution or professor, and it's the same play. Fronting an institution is also the easier problem to solve than actually applying their own ideas to build the time/perpetual-motion/free-energy/anti-gravity machine, and blaming an ossified bureaucracy for getting in their way seems plausible because it gets in everyones way. However, some monograph authors are solving an important problem, which is finding analogies and abstractions that scale their minds and (albeit, incomplete) knowledge to others faster than the official rate of publication. Sure, it's probably misleading at relevant levels of detail and the map is not the territory, and it creates a signalling and noise problem for practitioners - but knowledge is not so precious. I'd propose we need more maps for hackers to use for free exploration with the understanding that the governance and prestige systems are their own games. We need more people actually doing math and physics on their own and with better cognitive tools, and perhaps fewer gatekeepers. Now with the internet, what was once a necessary filter is now mostly a bottleneck. Every elite competency has a funnel and pipeline problem and papers like this (and authors like James Gleick, John Gribbin, Douglas Hofstadter, Roger Penrose, Simon Singh and other popular writers with varying credentials) bring people into the field. Dismissing this author for a lack of affiliation is probably accurate, but it is a lazy argument that forfeits the opportunity (and an implied responsibility) to improve the public discourse with engagement with ideas that arrive in it. Many respected academics believe and openly advocate stupider things than this paper, and offering it just a fraction of what they have applied to more ridiculous ideas would go a long way to scaling knowledge to new minds, imo.
- krastanov 4y ago
  I get your point, but consider this: I can not speak for OP but I have the same background as OP and I had the same reaction, even if I would try to phrase it more mellowly. I receive "crackpot" papers to my email multiple times a year. I generally try to engage with these "lone geniuses", because everyone deserves respect and not everyone has been lucky enough to be introduced to Physics in a structured way that would let them self-correct if they are making a *silly* mistake. I try very hard to not be patronizing when pointing out mistakes. I actually read the papers and try to do the best possible interpretation of crackpoty statements. I point to actual research question that are closest to the nonsensical metaphors used by the authors. I suggest reading materials. But in the vast majority of cases these authors do not care about doing the actual work to correct glaring mistakes, they just assume everyone else is wrong. So, it is quite reasonable to use the signals that OP detected in order to say that the paper is nonsense. That signal has been 100% correct for me for the last 9ish years, and I did spend the time to check exactly because I dislike the elitism of using this signal.
  - kemiller 4y ago
    Thanks for this perspective and also thanks for taking crackpots seriously. I get that it’s usually not worth the effort, but I’m glad someone is doing it. If nothing else I imagine it hones our ability articulate what we do know to an audience that doesn’t have the training.
- rowanG077 4y ago
  On one hand I agree with you. But on the other hand. Physics is not something you just teach yourself to such a high level. It would be completely unprecedented in modern times.
- throwoutway 4y ago
  > author is not affiliated with any actual research institution. I assume you’re probably upset, but this is elitist and an appeal to (elitist) authority. As someone who hopes to one day publish without affiliation, just point out why the paper is wrong rather than using appeals.
weberer 4y ago
Alright, but I don't really care about any of that at all. Do you see any flaws in the actual math or logic of the paper?
- quantum_mcts 4y ago
  How about the first sentence in the body of the paper? > In nature, all motion can be described by the principle of least action: motion minimizes action. It is wrong. The actual principle is that the trajectories are stationary points of the action - not minima. (Edit: It is wrong even with the "locality" caveat that the author later adds.)
Beltiras 4y ago
Is the list of thanks at the bottom also not affiliated?

aeonik 4y ago

Sounds to me like you just peer-reviewed it! We all appreciate your contribution to science.

koheripbal 4y ago

> this paper was never peer-reviewed. (And I suspect will never be.) ... > author is not affiliated with any actual research institution. There's something very elitist about this thinking. As if only members of academia are allowed to make breakthroughs.

Espressosaurus 4y ago
Until it has been checked for errors and results verified to a suitable level of confidence, it's scribbling on a page. That's how science as a process works once you get beyond one person.
- GordonS 4y ago
  I think the GP's comment was more about the latter part of the quote, about the author not being affiliated with a research institution.
quantum_mcts 4y ago
I wonder what was the last fundamental scientific breakthrough made not by a member of academia...
- krastanov 4y ago
  Surprisingly recent example that is really borderline[1], but they are indeed exceedingly rare (however I do count corporate/private RnD as being staffed by people coming from academia here). 1: https://www.quantamagazine.org/statistician-proves-gaussian-correlation-inequality-20170328 https://www.quantamagazine.org/statistician-proves-gaussian-...
  - quantum_mcts 4y ago
    The article is about a guy who was a university professor for decades.
- motohagiography 4y ago
  Srinivasa Ramanujan springs to mind as the most famous example. This is an interesting question to me because while the answer is probably none or predates the modern definition of academia, there's a hidden circular definition embedded in the problem. Fundamental science is defined by its acceptance through the peer review process, and not by its applications or results. These undiscovered geniuses sending papers to professors are looking for inter-personal validation and acceptance as a peer. They want a benediction to become something (or to redeem or reinvent as something) and they think the blessing of a prof will give that to them. More cynically, a few want to be able to front the conversation like they do in sales, where they can say, "well, we're in talks about it with <high profile client> right now and here's the opportunity to get in before this thing gets really big." Substitute client for institution or professor, and it's the same play. Fronting an institution is also the easier problem to solve than actually applying their own ideas to build the time/perpetual-motion/free-energy/anti-gravity machine, and blaming an ossified bureaucracy for getting in their way seems plausible because it gets in everyones way. However, some monograph authors are solving an important problem, which is finding analogies and abstractions that scale their minds and (albeit, incomplete) knowledge to others faster than the official rate of publication. Sure, it's probably misleading at relevant levels of detail and the map is not the territory, and it creates a signalling and noise problem for practitioners - but knowledge is not so precious. I'd propose we need more maps for hackers to use for free exploration with the understanding that the governance and prestige systems are their own games. We need more people actually doing math and physics on their own and with better cognitive tools, and perhaps fewer gatekeepers. Now with the internet, what was once a necessary filter is now mostly a bottleneck. Every elite competency has a funnel and pipeline problem and papers like this (and authors like James Gleick, John Gribbin, Douglas Hofstadter, Roger Penrose, Simon Singh and other popular writers with varying credentials) bring people into the field. Dismissing this author for a lack of affiliation is probably accurate, but it is a lazy argument that forfeits the opportunity (and an implied responsibility) to improve the public discourse with engagement with ideas that arrive in it. Many respected academics believe and openly advocate stupider things than this paper, and offering it just a fraction of what they have applied to more ridiculous ideas would go a long way to scaling knowledge to new minds, imo.
krastanov 4y ago
I get your point, but consider this: I can not speak for OP but I have the same background as OP and I had the same reaction, even if I would try to phrase it more mellowly. I receive "crackpot" papers to my email multiple times a year. I generally try to engage with these "lone geniuses", because everyone deserves respect and not everyone has been lucky enough to be introduced to Physics in a structured way that would let them self-correct if they are making a *silly* mistake. I try very hard to not be patronizing when pointing out mistakes. I actually read the papers and try to do the best possible interpretation of crackpoty statements. I point to actual research question that are closest to the nonsensical metaphors used by the authors. I suggest reading materials. But in the vast majority of cases these authors do not care about doing the actual work to correct glaring mistakes, they just assume everyone else is wrong. So, it is quite reasonable to use the signals that OP detected in order to say that the paper is nonsense. That signal has been 100% correct for me for the last 9ish years, and I did spend the time to check exactly because I dislike the elitism of using this signal.
- kemiller 4y ago
  Thanks for this perspective and also thanks for taking crackpots seriously. I get that it’s usually not worth the effort, but I’m glad someone is doing it. If nothing else I imagine it hones our ability articulate what we do know to an audience that doesn’t have the training.
rowanG077 4y ago
On one hand I agree with you. But on the other hand. Physics is not something you just teach yourself to such a high level. It would be completely unprecedented in modern times.
throwoutway 4y ago
> author is not affiliated with any actual research institution. I assume you’re probably upset, but this is elitist and an appeal to (elitist) authority. As someone who hopes to one day publish without affiliation, just point out why the paper is wrong rather than using appeals.

weberer 4y ago

Alright, but I don't really care about any of that at all. Do you see any flaws in the actual math or logic of the paper?

quantum_mcts 4y ago
How about the first sentence in the body of the paper? > In nature, all motion can be described by the principle of least action: motion minimizes action. It is wrong. The actual principle is that the trajectories are stationary points of the action - not minima. (Edit: It is wrong even with the "locality" caveat that the author later adds.)

Beltiras 4y ago

Is the list of thanks at the bottom also not affiliated?