The contrarian physics podcast subculture

I agree with you on this one. It’s a symptom of scientific illiteracy, that people can’t see that a work of creative writing that makes no testable predictions about the world isn’t science.

The problem isn’t that Weinstein is too creative or his math is too impenetrable. The problem is his paper doesn’t make testable predictions. It’s a complicated exercise in world building, not science. A physics paper has well-defined terms and equations. Things that can be tested.

He said himself that it’s entertainment. He isn’t being suppressed by the DISC (“distributed ideas suppression complex”), it just turns out that fiction is a tough industry, readership is declining, and it’s a little too involved for an airport bookstore.

I don’t want him to abandon his work, I want him to engage with its critics in a serious way, not claim to be the victim of some kind of institutional conspiracy. But that would require work.

> Wouldn't a fair criticism of the work itself be "it's too impenetrable and inventive for the majority of the field to show much interest or spend much effort on it."

The problem isn’t that it is inventive or impenetrable. The standard model has plenty of unintuitive aspects as a theory. The difference is that those theories made very accurate predictions about the world which explained empirical results much better than prior theories. Weinstein’s does not.

If you make an unfalsifiable claim about a teapot orbiting Jupiter, you’re not a genius whose theories are being ignored by the establishment.

> Why does the existence of his paper make you feel this obligation

It doesn’t. I was responding to your suggestion that there might be some salvageable bits from his talk/blog post, despite your belief that it isn’t correct.

> I think there's a "cult of physics personalities" that don't appreciate when /any/ public attention is given to fringe ideas from outsiders like Eric

It’s not up to Neil DeGrasse Tyson what makes it into the Standard Model, and if I had to guess he’s probably not up on cutting edge research anyways. The relevant question is whether a new theory can explain empirical results better than existing theories. The fact that Weinstein’s paper doesn’t even attempt to do that puts it into the category of creative writing, not science.

No, it isn't. It's determined by whether the models make accurate predictions. The fact that in our society, science is viewed as an authority, where Scientists can pontificate as "experts" without having to back up their claims with a predictive track record, is a bug, not a feature.

> "The public" has a level of science literacy that is somewhat medieval

The public doesn't care about "science literacy" in terms of understanding the models. Nor does the public have to. If the models make good predictions, that will be obvious to the public if it's something the public cares about.

A good example is GPS. "The public" has no clue how GPS actually works, and doesn't understand all the nuances that had to be carefully considered in order to get it to work as accurately and reliably as it does. Building and maintaining the system requires experts, yes. But knowing that GPS works is simple: does your smartphone show you where you are accurately? The fact that it does is strong evidence that GPS works, since GPS is what your smartphone uses to do that. (Yes, I know there are other things involved as well, like your smartphone having access to accurate maps. Your smartphone being able to tell you accurately where you are is also strong evidence that the people who produced those maps were doing it right.) And "the public" can make this simple observation without having to know anything about the details of how GPS does what it does.

> it's not reasonable to expect Joe Schmoe to be able to track the latest experimental results from CERN.

Nor does Joe Schmoe have to. Joe Schmoe doesn't care. The cutting edge physics experiments being done at CERN have no practical impact on anything in anyone's daily life, unless you're one of the people who has to analyze the data.

But if you come and tell Joe Schmoe that hey, this new discovery they just made at CERN means everyone has to suddenly turn their entire lives upside down, then Joe Schmoe is going to want to see the predictive track record that backs that up. And it better be a strong track record, of predictions that affect people's daily lives, not just what tracks are going to be observed in CERN's detectors.

Here's another example: prediction of possible impacts on Earth by comets and asteroids. Astronomers have an extensive track record of being able to predict, years in advance, the trajectories of such objects, with an accuracy much smaller than one Earth radius--i.e., accurately enough to be able to distinguish an actual impact from a close approach. So if astronomers ever come out in public and say, we're tracking this comet and it's going to hit the Earth 29 years, 3 months, and 7 days from now, and here's the region where it's going to hit, and we'd better start planning to either alter its trajectory or set ourselves up to withstand the hit, yes, they can make that claim credibly because of their track record. But most public claims by scientists, even "experts", don't achieve that high bar--and that means the public is perfectly justified in just ignoring them.

A contradiction! Some system.