Freedom of Science

Tommaso Dorigo advises to approach orthodoxy on a negotiation basis. (See comments to this post.)

This is great advice.

One possible problem with it is that holders of orthodoxies usually would not be open to negotiating their orthodoxy.¹ This is compounded by the fact that the only exchange a Doctor will have with a non-doctor is teacher-student relationship. No physicist will negotiate physics orthodoxy with an amateur. Fortunately for physics, this appears to be changing due to the free flow of information now made possible by this medium. Dorigo himself states that he is “happy to host both orthodox and unorthodox ideas” in his blog and puts that in practice by letting very interesting guest bloggers write about their theories. 

In general, though, if orthodox physicists were open to negotiations they would question their own orthodoxy. Still, it is better to have an attitude showing that you are open to negotiate with the orthodox physicist even if he does not share your collaborative approach.

The real problem orthodoxy has is not with amateurs questioning it but with experiments questioning it. Which one comes first? Orthodoxy or experiment?

orthodoxy
experiment

or

experiment
orthodoxy

As far as I know every physicist, even the most orthodox, will say that experiment comes first. In fact it is a fundamental orthodoxy in physics that when it comes to experiment orthodoxy loses.

Viewed from outside of physics we can tell with confidence that this is not correct. Keeping to the negotiating spirit, I don’t suggest that physicists are lying, but that, they are forced, due to orthodox hierarchical bureaucracy of physics, to compromise their work to satisfy the demands of the bureaucracy. This is understandable because nothing less than careers are at stake here.

In academic physics, somehow, orthodoxy always wins and physicists must overrule the results of experiments, by various methods, to save the orthodoxy.

Things are not as simple as this, though. Some thoughts:

1. Physicists design experiments to save the orthodoxy.

This is easily done. All experiments are the measurements of the excursion of an oscillator. If you know the result you want to obtain, i.e. if there is a previous measurement, you can build an oscillator that will give that result. In that case, your result reduces to a discussion of the error of the apparatus. That’s why most experimental papers consists of an extensive discussion of errors.

2. Physicists have no say on the result of the experiments.

In Big Physics experiments hundreds of physicists play bit parts with no knowledge of what’s happening with the experiment. In such experiments theorists do not even have an understanding of the apparatus and how it works. The experiment itself is decided by statistical methods buried in computer programs. And Big Physics is controlled by funding governments and they order physicists to find what they want to find. The state of the experimental Big Physics is bleak.

3. In academic physics experiments are not duplicated by hostile parties.

Experiments enter physics on the sole authority of the experimenters. No measurements of G, for instance, were ever duplicated. As far as I am concerned these measurements of G are nothing more than the opinions of the authors. (Can we say that repeated measurements of G by subsequent experimenters constitute duplication? I would say No.)

So, how to negotiate the issue of orthodoxy and its relation to experiment with physics? In my humble way this is what I have been trying to do regarding the Cavendish experiment. The question I am trying to answer is: Did Cavendish pendulum move under the influence of the occult Newtonian force?

The orthodoxy says Yes. The experiment says No. The experiment is overruled by orthodoxy. 

Occult does not exist therefore my answer too is No. Cavendish pendulum did not move under the influence of the Newtonian force. This is my opinion. I’ve as yet to show this in the language of physics.

An important question is If force is occult how come physicists can compute G from the Cavendish experiment data?

A possibility is that the pendulum is built to give the known value of G. This is most clear in the Cavendish lab used in first year physics. The popular Pasco apparatus ships factory set to give the value of G. The pendulum cannot oscillate with any other value than its natural period. Cavendish pendulums cannot give any other value for G than the known value. This fixed Cavendish experiment is the crucial experiment which shapes the understanding of force of every physicist. They believe they measured the occult in a laboratory experiment therefore it must exist.

I hope to discuss this issue with physicists and make use of their professional expertise on this subject. Per Dorigo’s advice my approach is on a negotiations basis. In fact, let alone negotiations, as long as the objective is met, namely, a scientific answer is found to the question whether or not Cavendish pendulum moved under the occult, that would be great. There is a discussion going on in sci.physics.research. I also have a discussion forum here, at present with no activity.

 Thanks for your contribution to a revisionist interpretation of the Cavendish experiment!

1. But the more important issue is to find a negotiating party that has the authority to change physics orthodoxies. There is no such person or institution in physics. [↩]

ShareThis