Dean's World

Not long ago, I mused in one of our comments threads here on Dean's World (The Big Question in Star Formation) my view that a lot of the mysteries that have astronomers scratching their heads are probably due to the fact that Einstein (or, I should have added, Newton) was wrong about something somewhere. That's not a prideful or sneering remark, by the way; anyone who understands science would probably take no great exception to it. The rule of thumb is that if a theory presents paradoxes, there's probably something wrong with it. It may be that the data which presents the paradox is wrong, but if multiple paradoxes start showing up, then likely the theory is either incomplete or flawed in some manner.

Well no sooner had I made this unremarkable observation than before my eyes was placed a link to something called "The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy" by one Mark McCutcheon. Reading the book's web site, I was intrigued. This book claims to offer pretty much the Holy Grail of physics: not only a working and complete theory of gravitation (most people don't realize it, but we don't really have one) but also to fully unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, basically by suggesting both were based on flawed assumptions which the author offers to correct and resolve.

The book's promotional materials smelled nothing like some sort of new agey-mystic crap, so I read the first chapter (available online by clicking right here) and at first glance it looked promising: a pretty good explanation of some of the bigger, more challenging issues in physics, as well as some of the puzzles beginning students in physics face.

Problem #1: nowhere does he state clearly and succinctly what his alternative theory is. Bad sign.

Problem #2: He's got no credentials. That's not necessarily a killer; amature and non-credentialed scientists have made major contributions, especially in areas like mathematics and astronomy. Hell, Einstein was a clerk working in a patent office when he published his first major theory. Still: not a good sign.

Problem #3: He has no publications in any peer reviewed journals that I can determine. Such a groundbreaking thesis should at least be able to make it into a minor journal of astronomy, physics, or at least mathematics, even if it's just a highly refined, technical version of it.

Problem #4: The book's been out for a while now, and despite the many "reviews" presented on the book's web site, not one was by anyone--anyone at all--identified as having a PhD in in any related field. After a year or two, some math professor, physics professor, or astronomy professor should have been willing to at least say, "This McCutcheon fellow has some interesting ideas worth exploring." Not even one? Hrrrm.

Problem #5: He references "scientific articles" on his web page, but if you look carefully, even though his book's apparently been out for while now, not a single one of the sources he points to references his theory. Instead, he references papers that describe scientific mysteries and apparent paradoxes so that he can say "Yes, and my Final Theory solves these paradoxes!" (while, once again, not telling you how--you must read the book to find out!).

Problem #6: The only public interview/debate I could find with this would-be genius of the ages was with an engineer. On the other hand, engineers are smart folks who understand math and sharp thinking, so maybe it would be a profitable discussion? Alas, it was clear that our would-be New Newton could not even make an engineer fully understand his theory. Yet supposedly his theory is much simpler and less arcane than existing theories in this area. Despite his theory's apparent simplicity, he expects that unless you purchase and read his entire book from cover to cover, you won't really understand it. Read the discussion by clicking here.

By this point my interest snapped past the breaking point. Any single one of these alone might not have been a show-stopper; successful scientific mavericks often have one or maybe two or the above characteristics. But at some point you have to stop taking what you're reading seriously.

Someone let me know if or when this brave McCutcheon fellow gets at least one physicist, astronomer, or even a mathematician to back him up on at least some major part of his thesis. Or when he gets even some small piece of it published in a peer reviewed journal. It doesn't even have to be a big one.

Otherwise, I'll save my 30 bucks.