Most challenges to scientific orthodoxy are wrong, A lot of them are crank. But it happens from time to time that a challenge to scientific orthodoxy is actually right. And the people who make that challenge face a terrible situation.
— Murray Gell-Mann
Yes we do. And he said this before the age of internet trolls and quacks. They have polluted the landscape for serious, independent researchers like myself. However, let us not forget that Einstein was employed at the patent office prior to his Annus mirabilis, (although he did consult with others).
So now, if you have a serious theory arguing why there should be no singularities in General Relativity, then you are immediately grouped in with these people. It doesn’t matter that I have a PhD in physics and most or all of the quacks do not. Or that I have the equations, based on sound physics, to back it up while the trolls usually use word arguments only. Or even that I make specific predictions on exact numerical deviations of “red holes” from black holes, which are very similar. My statements are verifiable and refutable while “they” carefully avoid making claims that can be tested. No matter, I will still get lopped into that category.
On the other hand, it is ironic that if you are from a blessed institution like M.I.T., it is OK. String Theory. A one-dimensional object that is infinitely thin made out of what? And vibrating in what – 11 dimensions? Most of which are hidden by a convenient “compactification”. Not 8 dimensions, nor 16, but 11? And I forgot to mention – cannot be verified. And as far as a unified field theory goes, supposedly it is “the only game in town”. A well-known prior classmate of mine argues for an infinity of universes for the cosmological multiverse. Actually infinite. That means that one of them contains exact copies of you and me. In fact, an infinite number of exact copies of you and me – and an infinity of almost exact copies of us, etc. At least some physicists – Lee Smolin (The Trouble With Physics), Sheldon Glashow (physics is experimental) and George Ellis (infinities are not to be found) – see what’s going on. They are not considered cranks. But that’s the advantage of being well-known in the field.
Well, we’ll see. I suspect I will suffer Gell-Mann’s terrible situation.