Skip to main content

On receiving strange theories

Part of a visual proof of Fermat's
Last Theorem I was sent
One side effect of writing science books is that people send you their ideas and scientific theories. Some science writers, I'm afraid are very dismissive of this, but I consider it a compliment. Most of the times I can't understand their theories, and if they run to any length I haven't got time to read them in detail, but it at least shows an interest in thinking about how the world works.

It's also true that just occasionally someone has a real, significant idea that they send to a scientist or writer. The physicist Satyendra Nath Bose famously sent Einstein a few pages of scribbled thoughts on the way some particles behave like gasses. Einstein must have received vast quantities of rubbish in the mail, so the fact that he spotted Bose's work was interesting and responded implied that he must have at least glanced at this stuff.

As I'm a writer not a working scientist (and certainly no Einstein) I'm the last person to be able to spot something exciting among the odd and the hair-raising that does make up the majority of such mail, but it does show that being totally dismissive is not the right response.

A diagram I was sent linking my book on light
with Mayan Prophesies and Atlantis
What started me down this line is a couple of emails I've had about a new fundamental theory of physics. I have no doubt whatsoever that this theory is wrong, but it is a real theory rather than a bit of new age handwaving, mentioning 'quantum' to try to give it scientific credibility. Although, as I say, I am totally convinced it is wrong, I think it is worth thinking about because this is a great way to exercise the mental muscles - and because I believe the scientific community should be more open minded, rather than instantly dismissing ideas just because they are 'obviously wrong.'

So here we go. The idea is this. Physics has real trouble with integrating gravity with the other forces. But what if gravity doesn't exist? Let's assume there is no attraction between lumps of matter. But, you say, it's obvious there is attraction because things fall to the ground and planets orbit. Okay, says this theory. Let's imagine that all matter is always expanding. If everything expands at the same rate, you wouldn't notice the change in size. But the gap between objects would naturally shrink - things would fall towards each other. You can also, in a rather strained way, argue for orbits. (See more about it here.)

Now your natural inclination might be to dismiss this instantly - but the fun thing is to think 'Okay, imagine this were true. How would things be? What differences would there be between the theory and what we actually observe.' And as soon as you do that, you are doing real science - and can discover just how stimulating it is.

I'm not going to give away my simple demonstration that the theory doesn't work (though I will say my first attempt failed because I didn't properly shift into an expanding frame viewpoint - you have to remember that you, the observer, and anything you use to make measurements are expanding) - I'm sure, if you give it a try you can come up with one.

I know many scientists and science writers regard these kind of ideas as a waste of time and get quite unpleasant about how stupid they are - but this isn't a very scientific viewpoint. No one has time to explore every single theory in detail. The vast majority are total rubbish. But we ought to glance at them before giving them the brush off, and should not dismiss a theory simply because it takes a very different and eyebrow raising approach. I think the balance should move a little, if only out of common courtesy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope