inflector

2010-Dec-23, 04:47 AM

In the ATM forum, I recently presented a quantum gravity idea (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/110692-Everything-is-One-Interconnected-Tree-of-Strings) which I believe has some potential for further research.

I presented what I believe to be a complete definition of the idea. Other forum members disagreed vociferously.

I made the specific claim that I thought it was plausible that General Relativity is a statistical approximation to the new theory I was discussing, I was challenged to prove that assertion through formal mathematical proof and told that until I had such a formal proof, I was not prepared to present my theory in the ATM forum by another forum member (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/110692-Everything-is-One-Interconnected-Tree-of-Strings?p=1833001#post1833001).

I had previously made it clear that:

A) Such a criterion was not something that the most popular mainstream research ideas for quantum gravity can currently meet; not any of the various formulations of LQG or String Theory.

B) If I had any such formal proof, I wouldn't be presenting in ATM, I'd be trying to get a paper published in Nature or Science.

The Advice for ATM Advocates post says:

Be prepared to defend your ideas. You are going to be challenged to defend them with evidence and you are expected to do so. Doing your preparation and your research before you even start your thread is an excellent idea. The ATM forum is not intended for you to develop your idea, it is for you to present your idea.

It does not mention having formal mathematical proofs for your ideas. It says "evidence."

It seems to me that if BAUT is going to require, or even expect, that any quantum gravity ideas meet standards which not even one of the current quantum gravity candidates can meet, then this just ensures that no one will ever present any quantum gravity ideas here, or even the germ of one.

I know many, perhaps most think it highly unlikely that any good ideas will come from the ATM forum, but I do know from reading old threads on the history and changes to ATM that Fraser and even the Bad Astronomer himself have hopes that BAUT might offer a means for amateurs to forward ideas that might turn into serious research and perhaps develop into accepted mainstream theory. I don't see how this will happen if the expectations are set beyond anything that even the professionals are able to achieve after years of work.

This leaves the question for this forum: "What level of mathematical formalism should be expected for an idea to be presented in ATM?"

I presented what I believe to be a complete definition of the idea. Other forum members disagreed vociferously.

I made the specific claim that I thought it was plausible that General Relativity is a statistical approximation to the new theory I was discussing, I was challenged to prove that assertion through formal mathematical proof and told that until I had such a formal proof, I was not prepared to present my theory in the ATM forum by another forum member (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/110692-Everything-is-One-Interconnected-Tree-of-Strings?p=1833001#post1833001).

I had previously made it clear that:

A) Such a criterion was not something that the most popular mainstream research ideas for quantum gravity can currently meet; not any of the various formulations of LQG or String Theory.

B) If I had any such formal proof, I wouldn't be presenting in ATM, I'd be trying to get a paper published in Nature or Science.

The Advice for ATM Advocates post says:

Be prepared to defend your ideas. You are going to be challenged to defend them with evidence and you are expected to do so. Doing your preparation and your research before you even start your thread is an excellent idea. The ATM forum is not intended for you to develop your idea, it is for you to present your idea.

It does not mention having formal mathematical proofs for your ideas. It says "evidence."

It seems to me that if BAUT is going to require, or even expect, that any quantum gravity ideas meet standards which not even one of the current quantum gravity candidates can meet, then this just ensures that no one will ever present any quantum gravity ideas here, or even the germ of one.

I know many, perhaps most think it highly unlikely that any good ideas will come from the ATM forum, but I do know from reading old threads on the history and changes to ATM that Fraser and even the Bad Astronomer himself have hopes that BAUT might offer a means for amateurs to forward ideas that might turn into serious research and perhaps develop into accepted mainstream theory. I don't see how this will happen if the expectations are set beyond anything that even the professionals are able to achieve after years of work.

This leaves the question for this forum: "What level of mathematical formalism should be expected for an idea to be presented in ATM?"