Physics cranks
I got assaulted today. Not by a mugger or even a door-to-door salesman. It was a crank. I was presenting a poster on my work modelling the role quantum mechanics in biological systems. This guy was an experimentalist (I won’t name him, but he’s doing work on the magnetic properties of kidney stones…not a promising start.) who also teaches quantum mechanics. He then basically told me that I need to go back and redo my model because it didn’t include the zero-point energy. This refers to a result in quantum mechanics which says even in a vacuum there is always fluctuations in energy, possibly even infinite amounts. It’s the subject of a lot of experimental research, but a lot of the time, we can just ignore it - treat it as a sort of base line from which all other energy starts (like giving everyone 10 points to start a game of table tennis and going to 31 points instead of 21). Anyway, despite my attempts to explain why it was irrelevant in my model, he insisted that the zero-point energy was the most important result of quantum mechanics, and since he taught it and since I was just a student that I had to listen to him and go back and redo my flawed model. In the end I just agreed with him for the sake of peace.
Perhaps you’ve been sheltered from the world of physics “cranks”. Either you can read on (click “More”) and hear my thoughts on who, what, why and how cranks come about, or you could visit Crank Dot Net and read about some of the cranks on the web today. Either way, remember that these are all just opinions, and, however unlikely, one of these theories might really have some truth in it. If nothing else though, they make a fun read!
So what are we actually talking about?
It’s an unfortunate fact that science, physics and mathematics particuarly, attracts a number of, well, “cranks”. The usual definition of a crank is someone who claims to have discovered a new, usually sensational, theory (explaining quantum gravity, predicting prime numbers, etc) or compeletely disproves an old and well established theory (special relativity, gravity, etc) and insists that they’re right despite momumental evidence and arguments to the contrary. Many become bitter and resentful to the scientific community, who refuse to acknowledge their brilliant discovery. They are sometimes called “crackpots”, but I don’t like this term - they’re not really crazy (most of them!), just a bit misguided.
Among the best known cranks are those who believe the moon landing was a fake or that still insist the Earth is flat, although I think has pretty much died out. Plenty of flat Earth sites though, which I think are jokes! But as a physicist, I see more of the subtle ones. People who claim to have united general relativity and quantum mechanics in a Theory of Everything (TOE), the holy grail of particle physics, in a manuscript 5 pages long containing no mathematics. Or people who claim to have used the zero point energy I mentioned above to power cars. These are the ones that are hardest to deal with, because their theories are often so bizaare it’s hard to explain why they’re not right.
And here’s the catch, of course. What if they are right? Wasn’t Galileo persecuted for his claims that the sun went around the Earth, contrary to what was “known”? If he was right, why can’t I be? We do need people exploring the boundaries, constantly checking what we believe to be true and trying to find experiments that might contradict and change the way we view the world. That’s an essential part of science. But some people cross the line, ignore experiments that refute their theories, become vehement in defending them - and become cranks.
What drives them? I think that part of it is that it’s easy to come up with a theory that “explains” our universe if you don’t know or use any high level mathematics, and make analogies to springs and spinning tops and the like. It’s probably a great feeling to know you’ve outwitted all those “brainiacs”, bested Einstein and Schroedinger and all the rest, and this is certainly something that comes through when you read or listen to these guys. Unfortunately, it’s becoming increasingly unlikely for someone with no formal training in fundamental physics to be able to produce new results.
So what’s the moral of the story? For the budding scientist, by all means - if you think you’ve got an idea, then work on it! But be prepared to listen to your scientific peers and take on board their advice. If nothing else, you’ll need to calmly and rationally refute all their objections if you want people to believe you. For everyone, it’s to take things with a grain of salt - even the best physicists can be wrong. But if everyone believes something, there’s probably a good reason, and theories these days are more likely to evolve than suddenly change. But then again: I could be wrong.