These folks are cleverly mixing some legitimate ideas (such as the work on what amounts to creating much more efficient solar cells or tapping geothermal energy) with complete nonsense (like anything that Tom Bearden does).
You need several shakers' worth of salt for any of the schemes based on supposed new physics. And bear in mind, I say this not because their ideas clash with everything I've learned in my physics education but because their writings betray a profound misunderstanding of the conventional physics they purport to overthrow. Their "explanations" and "radical new theories" are full of jargon and buzzwords that sound impressive to the uninitiated but are literally meaningless. For instance, I read Bearden's web pages and what he says of the relationship among classical electromagnetic theory, gravitation and quantum mechanics as conventionally understood is hopelessly wrong. I admire his energy and dedication but his work is ignored not because it challenges orthodox physics but because it is sheer gibberish.
My "sniff tests" for crackpottery include the following:
- Conspiracy theories about why their work is ignored/suppressed
- Conspiracy theories that the government is hiding magical technologies for various nefarious reasons
- The person is hawking (usually self-published) books, tapes, etc. to support their work
- Evident lack of conventional formal education in the field of their "breakthroughs" (Many of these folks are clearly quite bright and often accomplished in some field such as medicine, but usually do not hold advanced degrees in physics or electrical or mechanical engineering. True, there are a few who have done great work without a PhD in their field, but these people are remarkable because they are the exception.)
- Connections with unconventional religious/spiritual movements (For instance, Steven Greer, described by the PES site you list as "One of the most knowledgeable and best people to coordinate the funding, promotion and release of zero-point energy," holds his PhD from Maharishi University, the Iowa school devoted to Transcendental Meditation and home of frequent "Natural Law Party" presidential candidate John Hagelin. I see from the school's
web site that it's PhD is offered either in Management or "Maharishi Vedic Science" in a program that seems more about TM than science. Hagelin is an interesting guy, too. He has a PhD from MIT and evidently did some very good work in theoretical particle physics early in his career, but is really more into Eastern spirituality and TM than anything recognizable as good science. Also, I want to clarify that this "sniff test" category is not anti-Eastern or New Age religion/spirituality; I'm just as skeptical of the credentials of someone who went to Liberty University or any of the other Christian fundamentalist schools. The issue is the whole approach to science. If you come to your scientific work with a predetermined set of answers based on your religious beliefs, you're a lot less likely to let the "reality therapy" of experimental data properly inform your understanding of the world.
- "Theories of Everything" It's very hard to advance knowledge even within one fairly narrow field. That's why scientists specialize. Crackpots are far more likely to make highly extravagant claims about their pet theories. For instance, Tom Bearden doesn't just put forward a radical new theory of electromagnetism. He also has an elaborate reading of 20th century history based on secret science. He purports to explain a huge array of cataclysms (hurricanes, sinking submarines, the Challenger disaster) as the result of Soviet (or, more recently, Japanese organized crime) use of this suppressed science to create magical weapons.
- Emphasis on their work being contrary to conventional wisdom. Members of physics departments often receive unsolicited mail from "lone geniuses" regarding their pet theories and these usually include a proclamation that "Einstein was wrong." Well, no kidding - Einstein was wrong about a lot of things. Most scientific ideas don't pan out. Einstein is an iconic figure because of what he did right, not because he was infallible.
Yes, I've read Kuhn. I understand that scientific revolutions, by definition, entail a radical overthrow of the previous scientific orthodoxy. But the architects of these revolutions have always been perfectly capable of understanding the science their insights would overthrow. Pretty much every "lone genius" I run across either completely omits a detailed critique of the orthodox science or provides one so riddled with misapprehensions that they literally do not know what they are talking about. People who can scarcely give a coherent account of the "old science" are not the vanguard of a new science. They are simply wrong - or, to quote the all-time best science insult ever, "not even wrong."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(19 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
