I have had occasion to examine the written works in the field of physics of a number of authors on the Internet. The variety of ideas and theories presented covers a wide range. The works I wish to discuss have a common thread. They concern theories that are regarded as unpopular in the mainstream physics journals and media, or lead to conclusions that run counter to generally accepted wisdom.

I do not wish to analyze the relative merits of the panoply of theories and ideas, but rather to encourage, with reservations, those who would seek out this channel for the dissemination of their ideas, even though they may be unpopular. I also avoid the stereotyped and inaccurate generalization that dismisses all their work as rubbish.

One gets the impression of an active, challenging, questioning and questing group of minds. They have the approach that keeps many mental threads active simultaneously. Their focus at any one time does not extinguish other possible connections. This approach has the disadvantage in some cases of slow progress, but in others, there is the advantage of an overview that is wide and adventurous. Many threads are interdisciplinary.

Some may see this as a hopeless tangle, but I think they are mistaken. I rather see it as an environment of original thinking. Not always in the sense of "never been done before", but original in the sense of showing active minds at work. It is foolish to assume that all the authors have followed the same path in the development of their ideas. In addition, some of the ideas have general applicability and may find their way into mainstream physics.

This is vital in forming an atmosphere of new discovery. It avoids the slow but inevitable process of killing off unwanted conceptual strands that comes with a high degree of specialization. I do not wish to make the comparison with "small business development", but rather to a constant questioning of the axioms of physics. Some support for this comes from the historical development of science and mathematics. There is also some tenuous support from Gödel's theorem, by way of increasing or modifying the axiomatic base.

The assumption that all promising physicists are selected by the education system at the various levels is simply silly. In fact, most of these "underground physics dissidents" are not dissidents at all but devoted to the subject. They not saying, "If at first you don’t succeed, lower your standards", they are saying, "Continually question you assumptions". Specialists in the mainstream of physics have little time for this; they would never get any work done. On the other hand, there is a danger in leaving this up to the philosophers, metaphysicists, and social scientists. Today, these groups have their own agendas with their theories aimed right at the heart of science. The only reason you aim there is to kill.

Even worse would be to leave it up to governments, who, perhaps because of the presumed universality of scientific laws, may see a challenge to their absolute authority. The way governments have re-designed school curricula is an example of their methods. Many of these underground malcontents received their first bitter taste of the new science at school. They were given the gift-wrapped version, shown through the wonders of physics like tourists on a bus. The accepted view is that the students are there to get the most from their brief visit, not to ask embarrassing questions of the tour guide. That would spoil it for everyone else. The learners are supposed to gaze in awe at this dazzling new product and learn the equations in the textbooks that are now product icons in themselves (E = mc²)® . This is candy store science^,.

Therefore, the physics underground also has a role to play in helping science to reclaim ownership of its own principles, rather than allowing them to be obliterated and replaced by a set of principles that are simply the servants of some political or other idealism. History has shown that this has happened in the distant past and in recent times. It is not a figment of the underground’s imagination. Some of the dissident authors come from countries that adopt these policies, and know the realities of this stifling atmosphere.

One of these devoted underground physicists tries to talk to a mainstream physicist. The latter insists that all thoughts and words be translated into a specific language and set of precepts before communication can take place. This is very strange.

When two people who speak different languages meet, they usually try to establish communication by gestures, facial expressions or whatever. The mainstream physics specialist, on the other hand, seems incapable of switching to another channel. It is the other person’s responsibility to do all the adaptation.

Sometimes, just by chance, the mainstreamer picks up something valuable in the "noise" of what is being said. Then an amazing thing happens. The mainstreamer perceives that it was having a sensitive receiver that did the trick, and not that the other person was transmitting on as many channels as possible. The transmissions of the originator are still regarded as environmental noise.

When an underground physicist does make some headway, the establishment responds by discounting the contributions in advance. A common way of achieving this is to introduce the artifice of very strong, strong and weak theories of whatever it is. Thus if a dissident casts doubt on a long accepted theory, it is said that the dissident supports the weak version of this theory. The theoretical physicist is a zealous custodian of assets. Once they are on the books, they are never depreciated.

There are many different variations to this story, but without going into the details of any particular case, it is plain that in a variety of areas there is a strong feeling, (and a few say hard evidence), that the mainstreamers are ignoring alternatives. Let me make this point very clear. Assume that a dissident challenges a presumably indisputable conclusion. An analysis shows it is not necessary to make that conclusion, or that keeping this conclusion makes other solutions impossible, or that this conclusion, if weakened, will allow other facts to be explained. The results of existing experiments are not materially changed nor challenged. Should this be encouraged by the mainstream if many of the existing theories are based upon this conclusion?

I want to dispel the notion that all mainstreamers can be stereotyped as fitting into one box. Here are four oversimplified profiles of physicists. Real physicists have characteristics from more than one profile.

Profile 1.

They know exactly what the most complex mathematical gymnastics actually mean in physical terms. They may not say so publicly or in their published papers, and they certainly do not reveal when their ideas come from some simple geometrical or physical phenomenon, but they are well connected to the physical world.

Profile 2.

They immerse themselves in the beauty of mathematical structures and follow Plato’s idea that these structures have a reality or separate existence of their own. They ride the waves of psychic symmetry.

Profile 3.

They are good physicists facing the grim reality of losing tenure or their jobs. Their publications are down, rejection notices are more common, their field of specialization is losing popularity and new entrants challenge the security of their life and families.

Profile 4.

They are brilliant physicists and mathematicians. They think long and hard about physical and mathematical problems. They try many different approaches and new ideas, some of which may be initially regarded by their colleagues as weird. If you can get them to talk to you, and they say they have already tried your idea, they probably have. You might not be able to get them to explain why they abandoned it.

Let us assume that I am an aspirant member of the underground and want someone in the mainstream to listen. Two methods of approach will be discussed. The first one has not much chance of success, but it is instructive to go down that road anyway. The second takes a critical look at the way many of the underground ideas are presented and suggests a more constructive approach.

One method is to imitate Skokal (you will find him on the Internet). This self-proclaimed, leftist physicist sent a Trojan horse in the form of a paper into a part of the leftist establishment by having it accepted by a well-respected Journal. The paper was a masterpiece, and very funny in retrospect because he had used the words of central figures in the new left to support specious assertions of his own invention. It is plain that he was dissatisfied with the treatment and criticism given to science from the new left, and the never-ending meaninglessness of their writings. He has stated that his main motivation was political. He is not considered an underground physicist.

To do a similar thing to the physics establishment would be a fine achievement, but much more difficult. Joining the queue for any experiments at CERN would not be permitted because only specialists have the credentials. Fluency in group theory and familiarity with abstract algebras in multidimensional complex spaces would have to be demonstrated. One would have to research the literature thoroughly, and preferably propose something mathematically oriented (a difficult choice, since someone might test it by simulation). Sufficient references to the leaders in the field should be included, quoting the relevant results, flattering the editors and reviewers in a subtle way. The work would suggest an interesting approach that would progress some favorite theory of a reviewer or recognized leader in the field. Although it would be plain that it could not form the basis of an attack on the central problem in Yang-Mills theory, it might hold out some promise of deciding on some relatively minor side issue, which would be very difficult to evaluate before hand.

As you can see it is a lot of work because these specialists are not an easy target, and make no mistake, they are very intelligent. This is not a good idea unless one is an expert mathematical physicist under deep cover. Success in the plan would have as its consequences; banishment to academic limbo, ones name taken off the internal telephone directory, and computer privileges restricted to searching abstracts only. All hope of promotion would dwindle to zero, funding applications would receive the same negative replies that paper submissions do, and even best friends would have that "How could you!" look in their eyes. Attending conferences would become something one used to do, and it would be suggested that one seriously consider teaching as a career.

It is very instructive to point out that, at the time, Einstein’s theory had many of the characteristics of a Trojan horse. One might benefit from considering the question, "Where are the soldiers that were inside?"

Another method involves a similar amount of work, has the same benefit of honing the skills of scientific discourse, and provides some means of assessing the value of ones own work. There is a need to trace the origins of dissatisfaction with present theories, methods or interpretations. It may be necessary to go to basic questions in the theory, maybe even back to the first papers published, even further back into history. This can of course put one at a disadvantage immediately. As soon as experts suspect that elementary theory is being questioned, they switch off. "Another crank, more junk science" they might think. Dare I attack the very foundations of experimental physics? Sure, why not. The mainstream physicists attack them all the time. Some have metamorphosed physics into what can be described as an out of body experience, and this is one of its greatest weaknesses a present.

Physics has become a well-fortified belief system. Physicists with a common beliefs band together in tight but unofficial cliques. It is protected not only by some of the best minds on the planet, but by an exceptional record in experimental verification and prediction. If I would attack that, I have to provide the same or better accuracy. I have to agree with experimental facts, but provide a better explanation. I have to integrate the results obtained in different fields of physics, being very careful with the unexplained ones, into a more complete conceptual whole.

I have to do this using as many cases as I can in one argument, not just for one particular odd result of an experiment, and certainly not by providing a different explanation for every unexplained result. Probably the worse thing I could do is to force everything into my pet theory. If it needs forcing on many fronts, then it is not as good a theory as one that does not. Most known facts should just slip into place.

I would have a much stronger case if I concentrated on the predictive aspects of my theory. If I predict that something will happen, or that some result will be obtained and my predictions are correct, then my theory stands a better chance of sparking interest in some quarter of the physics establishment. This is so even if my theory is incomplete by lacking a formal mathematical proof. There are many mathematicians more than willing to produce a rigorous theory from one that is barely acceptable. Errors are not allowed, but ignorance of mathematical subtleties in the higher plane of consciousness is tolerated. The precious thing must be taken out of my sullied, tainted hands (they suspect it was stolen, of course). It must be polished, identified and, if it is worthy, carefully placed in the temple where it belongs next to all the other mathematical treasures.

There are some additional guidelines for new entrants into the underground. Do not be in too much of a hurry to rush into print without first having first developed a strategy and tactics for protecting the originality of your contribution. A willing listener may disguise a lion’s mouth. Many idea predators are prepared to "see you in court" rather than grant you the rights of precedence. The global reach of the Internet makes it more difficult to initiate legal proceedings. It may be that the organization for which the predator works will be willing to pay court costs and legal fees. The image that the world will automatically give acclaim to the originator is essentially false. The fact that many great contributions are only recognized after the originator is long gone did not warm Tesla in his chilly apartment, nor cheer up the embittered Heaviside, nor settle the arguments between Newton and Liebnitz.

The Internet is especially vulnerable to abuses of this kind, and to date no solution has been found. This is not to say that the standard distribution channels using the physics journals are immune to plagiarism, but they are less so.

If, like Einstein, you are not in the same mathematical league as Gauss, Euler, Newton, Maxwell, Riemann and Kelvin it may take you some time to present your theory in a language most of us can understand.

There is not much point in pretending that a great deal is known about this, and of course, there are many theories. I would like to concentrate on one aspect. Consider the question, "Does a better theory require that more than one person believes it?" Many would hesitate to answer, sensing Occam’s descending blade, and would weakly counter that the question was meaningless. There is a better theory, and it does not need more than one person to originate it. A better theory implies a poorer one, and these poorer scientific, social and political theories are those we suffer. Increasing the number of people who support a theory does not improve it. Those who believe otherwise may be confusing the pursuit of power over people with the pursuit of explanatory power. The primary concern of the first is the manipulation of people and the maintenance of power, that of the second is understanding.