minkwe wrote:Hi Ikcl, I have a similar story to yours in that, I'm not a theoretical physicist or a mathematician for that matter. I'm an experimental biophysicist. I became interested in theoretical physics because I was convinced the textbook explanations in my field (crystallography) were garbage. Crystallography is a field that is anchored on the phenomena illustrated by the double-slit experiment. Despite being a very productive field in terms of the numbers of scientific breakthroughs (more Nobel prizes than any other field), the very basic explanations of the central phenomena of diffraction are nonsensical. We have become skilled at inventing mathematical frameworks that work and produce reproducible results (like epicycles) but utterly lacking in physical content and or advancement of understanding.
hmm yeah i get the feeling that if mill's work was properly understood, it would form the core basis of an *actual* understanding of diffraction, i.e one where the fact that particles are "sphere-smeared" photons would be both key and fundamental. you're aware that mills' background actually comes from NMR scans? he got the whole basis of particles by having to fit a proper theory - involving REALLY strong magnetic fields of course - to NMR Medical data. the kinds of discrepancies that you'd get through such massive E.M. fields *doesn't allow* you to get things "wrong". i.e. where everyone else was going "ummm we don't know because the error bars are too large" he would have been going, "wow these huge E.M. fields affect particles so strongly that the signal-to-noise ratio has gone through the roof, and i can actually develop a proper testable theory".
the trouble being, it was *such* a different approach, nobody believed him. whoops.
I've looked at Mill's work early on, and I thought he has been unfairly treated by the community despite clear evidence that he has significant contributions to make. I think the current theoretical physics establishment is rotten to the core and I wouldn't bother to convince them or publish in their journals. There are not many physicists left. There are a lot of mathematicians with unhinged imaginations. Therefore, IMHO, lack of mathematical ability may be an asset which forces you to think first before calculating -- which is badly needed nowadays.
ha! very funny, and insightful
As someone who writes software and algorithms on a daily basis, I understand where you are coming from. Though I think you are doing great without my advice, here are some thoughts I have about how a person might go about establishing a new theory:
Start small, Identify the core idea that is new and different from existing ones. It should be physics, not mathematics! (Many go astray at this point) As early as possible, make sure you can explain experimental results already explained by previous theories, and if your explanation is simpler/shorter, that is a plus. If you can explain experimental results not explained by existing theories, the better you will be. If you can find a prediction of your theory for which existing theories differ, and the experiment is performable, that will be the golden opportunity. Once you have done all that, approach an experimentalist who has resources to do the experiment and present your full case. If you haven't done your homework, on the first part, it will be a hard-sell.
i was lucky enough to have been advised something similar, about 15 years ago. it was something along the lines of, "a theory has to be one of two things to be 'valuable'. either FAR more elegant (simpler) but effectively equivalent to an existing theory, or it has to have something new - a prediction that can be verified experimentally". which is pretty close to what you said.
As you indicated, you may need some help with doing some math at the early stages. It is very important not to get lost in the math because there are many temptations there. In that case, a good approach would be to ask a mathematician a very specific bite-sized mathematical question, not a physics question.
that is *extremely* good advice, and i've accidentally applied it in the past (using stackexchange). huh. i like it. the only slight problem being in this case: whilst i can look at the equations in dr mill's work, i *know* that i need to do a phase shift and/or a rotation of the Y0(theta,phi) equation he has for the electron in order to turn it into a "quark"... but i have *no idea which way to make the turn*... if indeed it is actually needed.
so until i know that, i really am stuck as far as actually asking a mathematician for help in tackling the equations. from a reverse-engineering perspective: i have *two* unknowns, not one.
Be patient and it will pay off. Don't worry about getting mathematicians to band together. That is the wrong approach, mathematicians can't solve a physics problem. They will never give you a physics theory.
and that's where the problem lies: i have a physics *theory* "unknown" on top of which i have a *mathematics* unknown. the two are unfortunately directly inter-related.
The current problem in theoretical physics is due to the invasion of physics by mathematicians. Get the theory first, develop the core ideas you are pursuing, then worry about peer-review later. Mills was too ambitious and went too big too quickly. Not only that, he tried to monetize his work before it was fully baked. That resulted in even more skepticism of his motives and gave his detractors ammunition.
... so he went ahead and carried on with the theoretical derivation regardless, increasing the volume of work until it reached a whopping 1,700 pages and approximately 30 separate self-consistent and self-supporting papers... none of which have been peer-reviewed because he's *too far ahead of the curve*. yeah....
One other thing: I'm highly skeptical of black-hole theory for some of the reasons I explained above, do you really need to bring it into the discussion?
do i *need* to? no. is there an (extremely long) logical chain of empirical evidence that made me think of that particular hypothesis? yes. have i ever encountered any evidence which would CONTRADICT that hypothesis? no. the similarities between the model for particles (a la mills) and the understanding of black holes is too great to ignore. if you look at Mill's model of the electron you will notice that he says that there is a UNIFORM field inside the electron's radius. when you have more and more photons "smeared" on the surface of the sphere, you get a larger and larger radius. is there a limit on how large that could be? no i don't think there is. keep increasing its size - keep throwing more and more photons at it - and eventually i believe you get to a size that is so large you actually have to give it a different name: "black hole". what's interesting is: there would *still be a uniform field inside the boundary*. and that, i believe, is what we call "background radiation".
the parallels are too similar to ignore, basically, and if there's one thing i will always stick to is: i will never remain silent about a hypothesis. if on the other hand, someone *demonstrates* to me that it's clearly false, i am absolutely fine with that, no i'm better than fine i will be *hugely relieved*... because i will no longer feel obligated to pursue that hypothesis
also if someone shows me that there are logical inconsistencies *in the hypothesis itself* then again i will be hugely relieved.
the other thing is: i came across a beautiful phrase recently, from a surprising source (bob podolski, son of boris podolski - EPR paradox and other famous things). bob told me, "Certainty is a PATHOLOGICAL state of mind". so if ever you hear me say "i am absolutely certain that this is right", please feel free to take a big baseball bat (preferably one covered in or made from foam) and smack me over the head with it, ok?