Weird Science

July 10, 2008

"They laughed at Newton. They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
     -- Carl Sagan

For some reason, physics has more than its fair share of crackpots fringe scientists: those misunderstood tormented souls whose genius goes unnoticed by mainstream physicists. I once received a homemade "press release" from a guy who claimed the universe was made entirely of styrofoam balls. But by far the favorite target for such folks is the theory of relativity. The receipt of any missive beginning, "EINSTIEN WAS WRONG AND MY THEORY PROVES IT!!!" invariably causes most physicists to discard said missive in the nearest trash receptacle. But what about the rest of us? How do we know if Harry Brained's new theory is bogus, or a truly revolutionary piece of work?

Sure, if your neighbor claims he was abducted by aliens, and spent some time on Alpha Centauri learning the mysteries of that highly advanced civilization, it's easy to conclude that maybe it's time he upped his meds. But in an era when modern theoretical physicists are routinely batting around notions like extra dimensions, dark matter, dark energy, and parallel universes, the line between bona fide breakthrough and nonsensical physics-babble isn't so clear. To the average person, saying the world is made up of tiny styrofoam balls only seems slightly crazier than saying everything in the universe boils down to tiny vibrating strings.

Fortunately, a handful of enterprising physicists offer some helpful online advice. The best-known resource is John Baez's "A Simple Method for Rating Potentially Revolutionary Contributions to Physics," affectionately known around the science-minded  blogosphere as "The Crackpot Index." Baez is a mathematical physicist at the University of California, Riverside, known for his early work on loop quantum gravity (an alternative to string theory), among other research. I'm guessing he got so fed up with the constant barrage of fringe theories from armchair scientists -- "Surely you will understand! You are the cousin of songstress Joan Baez*, whose music has meant so much to me!" -- that he vented his frustration by creating the Crackpot Index.

Mis-spelling "Einstien," for instance, will earn you 5 points on the crackpot index, along with each word in ALL CAPS, although Baez is willing to make an exception if your keyboard happens to be malfunctioning -- perhaps after you spilled your can of soda over it in your excitement at finding that fatal flaw in relativity's Teflon (TM) armor. (Hey, it could happen to anyone.)

You'll garner 10 points for mailing your Very Important Theory to someone you don't know, and asking them not to tell anyone about it because another scientist could steal your ideas -- and hence your place in the physics pantheon. Personally, I think there should be bonus points for mass-emailing physicists and/or the media copies of your revolutionary work. That just screams desperation.

Add 20 points "for talking about how great your theory is but never actually explaining it." Any reference to the close-minded scientific establishment (better known to crackpots as "self-appointed defenders of the orthodoxy" or "hidebound reactionaries") won't help your cause, either. Finally, if you feel compelled to mention that your progress was interrupted by your extended stay in a mental institution, don't be surprised if Professor Big Shot Nobel Laureate never returns your calls.

Baez's list is pretty exhaustive, but there's, like, 50 items on it. Sean Carroll, a Caltech cosmologist who blogs at Cosmic Variance**, has drafted his own set of guidelines, reducing the number of items to three core principles. Physics is all about reductionism, after all! Like Baez, Carroll is also inundated with fringe theories from people with, shall we say, unorthodox approaches. But he is a bit more sympathetic to their plight. His "Alternative Science Respectability Checklist" is designed to advise them on how to get a professional scientist to take their work seriously -- even if said work involves discovering "a hidden pattern within the Fibonacci sequence that accurately predicts the weight that a top quark would experience on Ganymede, expressed in femtonewtons."

Despite all this thoughtful advice, there will still be plenty of fringe scientists convinced they are the exception to the rule. They're rebels, man, just like Newton and Galileo, who also bucked the scientific establishment in their day and were persecuted for their chutzpah. Carroll has a pithy rejoinder for that: "Don't compare yourself to Galileo. You are not Galileo. Honestly, you're not. Dude, seriously."

(* This is actually true.)
(** Full disclosure: He is married to your humble blogger.)

Illustration: xkcd (the incomparable Randall Munroe)

Comments

[Dave Mosher]

GREAT post! And love the xkcd reference :)
Once I found out about the famed Crackpot Index, I found myself using it a lot while writing for SPACE.com. You wouldn't believe some of the fan mail I got while I was there...

[Lori Cuthbert]

Oh man - I'm not even close to being a physicist (or being married to one), but my father-in-law is a physicist of sorts. The first time I met him he cornered me with this *theory* of his that had something to do with the Hubble constant (I think). Because I have some proximity to science writers, and to a media company, he explained his theory to me. From the sounds of the crackpot index, he was at the far end of desperate. It emerged that he wanted to be on TV. Erp - how embarrassing.

[Tom]

You can play Bingo, too
http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/296

[Jennifer West]

Jennifer, great post - I have to add that Warren Siegel, professor at Stonybrook, wrote a great page, called "Are you a Quack?" some time ago:
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html