Can Outsiders Contribute to Breakthroughs in Fundamental Physics?

I was intrigued by this post and took to reading it. There are interesting ideas, in particular about the differences of specific disciplines with respect to the possibility of outsiders to contribute significantly. My initial score on the main theme was -8, mainly because although I think it very unlikely that an outsider will make a breakthrough, it is not logically impossible. My final score was -5, essentially because the author meant "contribution" in a much wider sense than I thought. Why do I find it unlikely? True, fundamental contributions were made by outsiders in the 18th century (e. g. Lavoisier) and even in the 19th (e. g. Faraday). But I know of no such contribution, not only in physics but also in chemistry and biology, being made after 1900. I would be happy to hear about any counterexamples. What about Newton and Einstein? True, they worked largely alone, at least in the beginning. But they were by no means outsiders. Einstein had an advanced university degree, and ... Read more

-8/0 Again, an excellent article by Nick. May main qualm with this piece is that the question heavily hinges on the definition of "outsider". A complete outsider would have almost no chance to make contributions, but an outsider in the sense of someone that understands the basic principles but does not conform to the politics of academia may have no less chance of contributing than a traditional scholar. I actually believe that the people best poised to making breakthroughs in fundamental physics are those that are neither inside nor outside, but at the "boundary of academia", precisely as Newton and Einstein, as the article remarked.

Very interesting! It makes a good case that outsides *can* make an important contribution. I’m not a physicist though, so my view is just my view 😊

I think the ideas are definitely plausible—at least from a highly theoretical standpoint. History shows us that outsiders have contributed to breakthroughs in science before, so it's not impossible. Sometimes, coming from outside the traditional system means you're not bogged down by the same assumptions, and that fresh perspective can lead to innovation. That said, the big challenge is recognition. Academia has its own ecosystem, and credentials act as a kind of quality control. Without them, it’s hard to get your work taken seriously, especially if your ideas are really innovative or seem to go against the grain. You could have the most brilliant insight, but if it's too unconventional and you're not part of the academic "club," it might get dismissed outright. So, while it's possible for outsiders to make significant contributions, especially in theoretical areas, the road to having those ideas accepted (or even noticed) is much harder. It’s not just about having a great idea; it’... Read more

Very interesting, brilliant, comprehensive, meaty, convincing, etc. etc. My score to the title question would be even +10 (I’m an outsider, after all :D); however, since the definition of +10 is “to believe that (progress/breakthrough) MUST COME from outside” – which is slightly illogical given that title question starts with CAN, and not MUST – my score is a bit lower, say +8. The author is right that putting all outsiders in the same sack labeled “crackpots” is stupid and unfair; I would add – just as making the same with all professionals, labelling them e.g., “narrow-minded conformists”. Nowadays, the knowledge (thanks to internet, wiki, email etc.) is incomparably more accessible to “outsiders” than few decades ago; in result, the boundary between professionals and non-professionals is, to some extent, blurred. Let us also think about differences between physics' education at, say, Caltech or Cambridge – and this at small universities in poor countries (with due respect). An outs... Read more

-5/-5 I agree that creativity is highly correlated with new ideas. But correlation is not 1.0 and correlation is not cause and effect. Certainly, creativity takes a different shape depending on the domain and type of effort being engaged in. New thinking, lateral thinking, and even vertical thinking can all lead to creativity in any domain. Teaching physicists creativity. Some of the best teachers I know on creativity Dr. Andrew Van De Ven and Edward De Bono have taught people from all walks of life to be more creative. > "Similarly, disciplines like gymnastics, swimming, rowing, and platform diving rarely see amateurs win over professionals, while it’s much more common in boxing, sailing, poker, chess, programming, investing, photography, or other creative fields." Disagree vehemently here. I think it is also rare in any of the other mentioned fields for an amateur to beat a professional. Muhammed Ali had already won the Golden Gloves and a Gold Medal in the Olympics when ... Read more

Really great arguments and discussions in defense of outside contributions to physics. Because of the wording of the question, and given that I am already biased in favor of outsiders/amateurs (Einstein was only 26 when he wrote about special relativity, an idea which made him an outsider to his own field as you indicate; in fact, most of the big names in a lot of fields were amateurs back in their day when they came out with new ideas) and aware of the hampering effect of institutions, I was both initially and at the end of reading the article, slightly over neutral, although the author's arguments helped clarify the question. My position is that outsiders can very much directly inspire physicists to make contributions (an indirect contribution), or usher in a new paradigm in another field that impacts the world and physicists (another indirect but closer to a direct contribution), and even contribute to the field of physics (although, to make such a contribution, it's likely that the... Read more

My initial score was -8 and the final one -5. I think the author did a great job in spelling out the considerations that might in fact help the outsider to narrow the gap between insiders and outsiders when it comes to possibilities for making fundamental breakthroughs in physics. Even though the text was illuminating and even convincing on many points, my evaluation remains firmly on the minus side. Admitting my nearly total ignorance about what is being done in physics workshops (including theoretical ones), it seems to me that one has to make tremendous intellectual investments to even recognize what are the criteria of scientific breakthrough in physics. Anyone not recognizing those criteria is simply unable to establish whether he/she has made a major discovery or invention. This obvious state of affairs puts the score on the minus side. von Neumann, Turing and Gödel were hardly outsiders. So, they cannot really be deemed illustrations of the outsiders' possibilities of making b... Read more

0/0 That a broader social context is important to progress is reasonable, as is the notion of the value of cross pollination, as it were. That is, there are often fruitful insights to be had by getting outside our limited research bubbles. That, of course, doesn't negate the value of those research practices. But it does underscore that a kind of collective myopia can set in when our engagements are limited only to those smaller discourse communities. I'm not sure my before and after shifted much. I didn't want to add points for things I've already thought about. Basically, I started at a neutral position, and stayed there. So much depends on what we mean by a contribution. Do the rest of us have more impact that we give ourselves credit for, yes. That science fiction, for example, has had influence is clear. But, of course, there's a difference between the nature of various kinds of contributions too. Interesting approach to helping the general public, or non-physicists, think more... Read more

-10/+5

-5/+6 Insightful!