Understanding How to Gain Respect as a Scientist

As my presence on the internet has increased, many individuals have approached me to review their unconventional theories, models, and equations. This is a common experience for scientists. While some may find these amateur contributions frustrating, it’s essential to recognize that many individuals are genuinely trying to engage with science—a commendable ambition. As long as these individuals are sincere and open to correction, they shouldn’t face ridicule.

However, I believe scientists should not feel obligated to examine every claim that comes their way. In my experience, a significant number of these amateur theories are presented in bad faith, making extended discussions unproductive. To bridge the gap between amateur theorists and professionals, this article aims to guide aspiring scientists on how to present their ideas in a way that garners respect, while also providing professionals with criteria to dismiss unfounded claims.

A More Rigorous Approach

Scott Aaronson penned an insightful piece for mathematicians titled Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong, which outlines common pitfalls in papers that claim to be groundbreaking yet fall short. I recommend reading this to gain insight into the mindset of those who may evaluate your theory. Although many of the criteria in that article could inadvertently lead to dismissing valid theories, I will provide you with a checklist to determine if your model warrants serious consideration.

How to Use the Checklist

This checklist is not a trivial exercise. To be taken seriously, you must thoroughly engage with each question. By the conclusion of this article, you should understand the essential structure of a paper that could potentially transform scientific understanding.

1. What Experiments Could Disprove Your Model?

Science operates on the principle of verifying claims through empirical evidence. If you assert that light behaves as a wave, you must demonstrate interference patterns. If you claim that gravity bends light, you need to show how light behaves near massive objects. Each scientific assertion should clearly outline experiments that could potentially refute it. To gain credibility in the scientific community, you must demonstrate your commitment to verification.

Claims About Experimental Results

You can assert results from specific experiments you could conduct, such as the Double-Slit Experiment or the Michelson-Morley Experiment.

Predictions About Future Events

Einstein predicted observable discrepancies in star positions during eclipses, which were later confirmed by Eddington's observations.

Anticipations of Unrevealed Knowledge

John Snow theorized that cholera was spread through contaminated water, a hypothesis he validated during an outbreak by tracking cases to a specific pump.

A fossil of a rabbit found in Precambrian rock would fundamentally contradict the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, just as finding modern technology in ancient ruins would raise questions.

Addressing String Theory and Similar Concepts

String Theory aligns with all existing experimental evidence supporting Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. If any experiment disproved these theories, String Theory would also be invalidated. However, experiments needed to challenge String Theory are complex and not easily executed.

2. What Mathematical Framework Supports Your Model?

Here’s a list of propositions you might find questionable:

Gravity is a myth; it's merely a manifestation of electromagnetism.
The Earth is merely 6,000 years old.
Radiation pressure from luminous objects can bend light.
The Earth is flat.
The moon landing was staged.
Light loses energy traveling through space.
The MMR vaccine poses greater risks than measles.
You can only surpass the speed of light due to photon interactions.
Global warming is primarily a natural occurrence, not human-induced.

Do you believe any of these are inaccurate? Prove it! Attempt to disprove these claims without relying on mathematical arguments.

The Challenge of Non-Mathematical Proof

It’s a tough task, isn’t it? You may feel confident in your non-mathematical arguments, but I could counter by claiming your effect is negligible or by introducing a new concept that could negate your claims. Without a mathematical framework, our discussion lacks structure.

Your Model and Mathematics

Scientists prefer to avoid discussions that feel arbitrary. If you wish to collaborate, you need to establish that your model adheres to a consistent mathematical framework and won’t shift unexpectedly during discourse.

3. Does Your Work Reflect an Understanding of Existing Models?

This may appear odd, but grasping current models is crucial if you intend to challenge them. While familiarity with outdated theories isn’t necessary for practical applications, it is vital for theoretical advancements.

Rationale Behind Current Models

It is frustrating to hear claims that experts act without reason. Critics of Relativity often assume Einstein fabricated his theories without justification. In truth, he was driven by empirical findings and established principles in physics.

Learning Physics Requires Time

Mastering modern physics and its mathematics demands years of dedication. Few individuals invest the necessary time to truly comprehend these topics.

Possible Outcomes of Learning

By immersing yourself in the mathematics and science, you could either refine your model for publication, disprove your theory, enhance existing research, or even develop an entirely new model. Regardless, deepening your understanding will yield positive results.

4. Can Your Model Replicate Predictions of Existing Theories?

Creating a model that predicts the events within a black hole or the origins of the Big Bang is relatively straightforward. However, accurately predicting phenomena such as:

The Double Slit Experiment
Planetary Orbits
Mercury's Precession
Charged Particle Interactions
Gravitational Lensing
Isotope Decay Rates
Time Dilation

is significantly more challenging. Any theory aspiring to replace established models must replicate and predict these results with precision.

5. Does Your Model Reference Relevant Research?

Proper citation of relevant literature demonstrates your understanding of current models and experimental data. However, your citations must be integrated cohesively within your paper to enhance its credibility.

A "New" Method

In 1994, a method for calculating areas under certain curves was rediscovered, reminiscent of the Trapezoid Rule, which was previously utilized by ancient civilizations.

Acknowledging Prior Discoveries

While you cannot claim previously established concepts as your own, recognizing their existence is key to deepening your understanding of the subject matter.

Constructive Criticism is Essential

Critiquing flawed science is vital for progress. History shows that scientists often endorse superior models from their peers.

6. Why Has Your Model Not Been Established Before?

Many dedicated scientists have explored your field for years. To gain credibility, you must explain why your model was not previously recognized.

Have you uncovered a new phenomenon?
Have recent mathematical advancements opened new avenues for existing phenomena?
Did technological breakthroughs enable new discoveries?
Is the relevant data scattered across literature?
Is the solution elusive without trial and error?
Were there errors in prior experiments?
Is the problem not well-known?

Thorough research and citations will bolster your claims.

Why Previous Scientists Were Incorrect

You must also clarify why prior theories failed.

The Interest of Your Mathematics

Interesting mathematics can indicate novel pathways unexplored by others. If your math is simple, question why it hasn’t been discovered before.

Bonus Consideration

Even if your model falters, there may be a stripped-down version that holds mathematical significance or an alternative application in a different domain.

7. Does Your Work Utilize Standard Terminology and Concepts?

Modern mathematics has evolved, offering standardized concepts for various applications. Employing established terminology allows reviewers to appreciate your insights without deciphering your language.

The Importance of the Lagrangian

Every physics theory should have a Lagrangian to derive the equations of motion. This framework facilitates analysis of conserved quantities and other essential characteristics.

8. Is There a Practical Advantage to Your Model?

Demonstrating a tangible benefit of your model could overshadow its shortcomings. Historically, approximations based on flawed assumptions have been widely accepted due to their utility.

Examples of Useful Approximations

The Born-Oppenheimer Approximation
The Hartree-Fock Approximation
The Metropolis-Hastings Algorithm
Density Functional Theory

These approximations, despite being based on inaccuracies, serve critical roles in their respective fields.

Bonus: Difficulty of Questions

If more than two of these questions are easy for you, reconsider your understanding. If all seem simple, you may be misled.

Future Plans

I’m contemplating a live-streaming event on my YouTube channel where individuals can present alternative theories for discussion. Suggestions for content that require minimal production would be appreciated.

Self-Promotion

If you found this article valuable, please share it with others who might benefit. Support for my work can also be offered through donations or by referencing me as a new Medium member.