"Min-Ke" is the abbreviation for "Civilian Scientist" (Amateur Scientist). Originally, no matter how you look at it, this term should have been a commendatory one, representing a group of people quietly conducting scientific research. In fact, astronomy enthusiasts like us could have used this beautiful term. However, "thanks to" the arrogance of certain Min-Ke (at least this is the case in China), the term has become a label for a different group of people. They part ways with orthodox physics starting from the most fundamental levels, such as Newtonian mechanics. The professional terminology they use differs entirely from that of orthodox physics. You talk about one thing, they talk about another, to the point where Min-Ke and professionals cannot communicate at all. There are also some Min-Ke who start from so-called philosophical principles like the I Ching or the Eight Trigrams to propose self-righteous, bizarre theories that are completely outside the track of physics. This group of people seems to consider themselves saviors; they are the "new" Min-Ke—both brand new and yet with long-standing origins. From this perspective, a vacuum of communication exists between Min-Ke and the field of physics.
I am inclined toward Dr. Tian Song’s definition of "Min-Ke." He points out that from a sociological perspective, many science enthusiasts we commonly know—such as those who enjoy astronomical observation, plant observation, or even building their own cars and airplanes—are not actually the "Min-Ke" currently under discussion. Let us call them "Amateur Science Enthusiasts" to distinguish them from "Civilian Science Enthusiasts" (Min-Ke). Tian Song believes the key criterion for distinguishing the two lies in whether they can communicate using the language within the scientific establishment.
"Min-Ke" are impossible to communicate with; this is the insight Tian Song summarized from years of dealing with them. Tian Song once made a special trip to Shenyang to meet a "Min-Ke," only to find that the person was completely incapable of listening to any opposing opinions.
Tian Song stated: "From the perspective of a social bystander, their behavior can be considered a form of performance art. But for them personally, I think it is more like a form of sorcery. If you look at the papers written by ’Min-Ke,’ they look exactly like our formal scientific papers, with abstracts, keywords, references, and so on. They are imitating this set of behavioral patterns from within the system, hoping to gain recognition from the scientific community. They hope to turn the fake into reality through this simulated ritual. For example, some Min-Ke have such expectations for their long-term self-promotion: over time, if their views are written into textbooks, won’t they become science?"
I believe (though I do not have a deep understanding) that in China, the number of people in this Min-Ke group is not small. A quick search on the internet reveals many Min-Ke theories: anti-relativity, anti-nuclear theory, and even anti-Hawking. This group possesses the aforementioned commendable spirit; however, they do not realize that science also requires a style of seeking truth from facts, a down-to-earth approach, and a rigorous, meticulous attitude. Consequently, Min-Ke have a very bad reputation. Nowadays, some academic conferences even refuse entry to Min-Ke (for instance, a condensed matter physics conference a year or two ago).
Regarding the characteristics of Min-Ke, my understanding is not comprehensive, but here I reprint six characteristics mentioned in an article:
1. Selective myopia;
2. An excessive number of new terms and chaotic logic;
3. Trapped by common sense, yet fond of publishing arguments that transcend specific problems;
4. Often exaggerating the significance of their conclusions, especially liking to express patriotic sentiments;
5. Often basing conclusions on future possibilities;
6. Often believing they are discriminated against and suppressed by "academic tyrants."
Here, based on my own shallow scientific literacy, I will "play the role of a Min-Ke" and talk about how to actually overthrow Einstein’s Theory of Relativity...
You must be extremely proficient in existing Relativity. (Even if you want to sue someone, you must first collect evidence; as the saying goes, "know yourself and know your enemy, and you will never be defeated.")
Please list the theoretical and experimental reasons why you oppose Relativity, rather than demanding that Einstein prove your viewpoint is invalid. (This is equivalent to when you sue someone: you must primarily present evidence to prove the defendant is wrong, rather than making the defendant prove their innocence.)
Propose a more complete, scientific, and rigorous theory. Remember: scientific theories are composed of symbols and formulas. Scientific theory = 99% formulas + 1% textual explanation. Do not publish a hundred-page paper without a single mathematical formula in an attempt to overthrow Relativity.
Prove the local equivalence and global difference between your new theory and Relativity. Although your physical perspective might be worlds apart from Einstein’s, Relativity is, after all, a theory of very high precision. From a mathematical perspective, your theory should merely be a correction to Einstein’s theory, because you must prove that the two are equivalent under certain conditions. At the same time, you must identify the differences between the two, and these differences must fall within the range of current experimental data and the error margins of Relativity!
Propose operable experiments or data so that others can verify that your theory possesses higher accuracy!
Perhaps any new theory that achieves the above points can be accepted by scientists. If you feel that "your theory is being suppressed by scientists," then please check whether you have achieved these five points. For many Min-Ke in China, they cannot even achieve the first point, so how can they talk about "overthrowing" anything? Strange indeed... (The above content represents personal views only.)
When reprinting, please include the original address of this article: https://kexue.fm/archives/848
For more detailed reprinting matters, please refer to: "Scientific Space FAQ"