Re: Is it possible to be an important and influential amateur physicist?



PD wrote:
There's been much flambe flung about having to do with whether
scientists have institutions (like the scientific method) that are
specifically designed to keep outsiders away or to suppress valuable
contributions from amateurs, and on the other hand whether an amateur
has any hope of making a substantial contribution to physics without
formal training in physics at the hands of professional physicists.

It is certainly possible for outsiders or amateur physicists to make
notable contributions and to have their work published in reputable
peer-reviewed journals. There are a number of notable cases even from
the past century:
Alfred Loomis - electroencephalography, radar, spectroscopy, LORAN
Gustave Le Bon - light transport
Forrest Mims III - various

But it is plain that these folks did something different than the
cranks that populate this group. Clearly delineating what the
difference is would be instructive to all. Comments?

PD


Early physics was developed by amateurs, and I would like to think they can still make a contribution. They are, however, hampered by having a day job, and competing with folks that are paid to do physics all day. And those most likely to have the talent and the drive are most likely to find jobs that pay them to do it. So in a sense, those amateurs that could make influential contributions become self-selected professionals.

I don't know how those winners of the Intel (formerly Westinghouse) competition compare as amateurs. Some of their projects seem pretty ambitious to be done at home on a teenager's budget. But even the amateur experimentalist could find things to do. One example might be to measure the variation of g during an eclipse as a test of the superposition principle. Maybe a precision pendulum can be made to improve on the previous measurement, and that could probably be done on the same sort of budget that can equip a garage with a woodworking shop full of router tables, planars, and the like. Or moving atomic clocks around, if some can be borrowed from a university.

I've come to recognize the surest sign of the crank as having an attitude along the lines of "Why is everyone stupid except for me?" The obvious flaws in relativity, for instance-- the entire scientific community around the world must be delusional, but *I* know the truth. They're brainwashed by an orthodox education, they fear the loss of their jobs if they disagree with the party line, the explanation must be anything other than that they know something I don't. Some consider their ignorance to be an asset.

If you disagree with the theory, or have a theory of your own, that, in itself, doesn't make you a crank. But if you can't understand why such a theory has been widely accepted, then you don't even know what science is, or don't have the freedom of thought to overcome your presumptions about the way things have to be.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading