New theories are hard to get right…but that’s OK
Theoretical physics is hard.
Or more to the point: coming up with workable new theories in physics is difficult. Partly that’s because of the vast successes of science: we are remarkably good with our current theories at describing, predicting, and otherwise characterizing a huge number of physical phenomena. Any new theory has to cover known phenomena adequately and do better at characterizing experimental or observational evidence than existing successful models. That’s hard to do, which is why big shifts in the way we do things — relativity, quantum physics, and so forth — are much rarer than smaller advances.
This is a recurring theme among scientists who have some exposure to the public — new “theories” arrive unbidden all the time, and these days anyone with an idea can start up their own website. I think Matthew nailed the characteristics pretty well — pretty pictures but no math, intelligent but little formal training, bold general predictions but nothing specific that could be tested, and the complaint that they are being ignored, or worse, censored.
The devil’s in the details, and these proposals generally lack detail. There’s also an observation about pop-sci books not giving you enough to actually do science, which people may not recognize. This reminds me of something that I’ve seen elsewhere (Physics and Physicists, IIRC): pop sci books don’t teach you science, they teach you about science.
“pretty pictures but no math” Theory drives observation – GR predicting twice Newton’s acceleration for EM grazing the sun. 40 years of quantum gravitation sums to nothing empirical. Observation drives theory. BCS theory is tightly wrapped though not predictive. Then, MgB2 and high temp supercons.
Grant funding driving theory driving observation is the streetlight fallacy. It is sterile. Outside comments threaten to be correct (Mpemba effect, from a Tanzanian teenager). Heresy plus test obtains apostasy.
No measurable observable violates the Equivalence Principle (EP), the origin of physics through Noether’s theorems. Geometric chirality cannot be measured and is external to Noether’s theorms. Do opposite shoes (excluded from physics – Green’s theorem) violate the EP? The universe is elegantly mirror-symmetric to photons and stubbornly parity-violating for matter. Physics assumes the former and curve-fits the latter.
Crystallography’s opposite shoes are visually and chemically identical, single crystal test masses in enantiomorphic space groups. This is gobbledygook to physicists, undergrad stuff to chemists. A geometric Eötvös experiment settles the matter within 90 days.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/epwhat
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/erotor1.jpg
Load the torsion balance with one vertical plane of right-handed quartz, the opposite (partially obscured) with left-handed quartz. 0.113 nm^3 volume/alpha-quartz unit cell. 40 grams net as 8 single crystal test masses compare 6.68×10^22 pairs of opposite shoes (pairs of enantiomorphic unit cells, the two vertical sides of the test mass array cube).
General Buck Turgidson, “Well, I, uh, don’t think it’s quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.” Dr. Strangelove The “single slip-up” sent 1400 megatons to bomb the USSR.