Curious if there's any renowned independent scientists producing research at home and sharing directly online (bypassing universities and journals)
For good reason in (Large percentage) of cases. But I do feel that there are a few that are getting marginalized. Often because they are semi related to stuff that is politically unpopular.
David Shaw is the poster child of rich people who succeeded at breaking through the elitism into the scientific establishment, but he went through the whole PhD process before "settling" for becoming a finance billionaire.
1) The tools available to an individual are always progressing.
By "tools" I mean all of direct physical tools and materials, computational, theories and understandings, services, etc.
2) Big funded labs have business owners, stockholders, academic department heads, and grant comittees that have specific goals and ideas and topics they are willing to pay for.
Many of the most important discoveries were never on anyone's list of things they will pay for (until after it happened some other way first).
They only happened either by accident in real labs despite all conscious intention to be working on something else, or by people who didn't need anyone's permission and were just satisfying their own curiosity, and couldn't be told to work on something more sensible by any boss or other funding source.
3) It is true that some large scale things probably won't be advanced in a garage.
Then again, a lot of times large scale things are up-ended specifically from a garage exactly because the garage researcher does not have the option to address problems with (expensive/large/dangerous) brute force.
They need to somehow make pressure of a zillion psi, but they can't build a zillion psi machine, so instead they figure out how to align sound waves to create a zillion psi just where the waves meet or something, and that goes on to obsolete a huge industry and now everyone's making MrFusion's in their spare bedrooms and selling them on Etsy.
The smallness of the operation is the very cause of the discovery and would not have happened in a normal funded lab.
I think the original team made like 100 samples using different metals and different oxygen proportion. Discovering the first one requires some brute force that needs a small team, and is too much for a single person. Anyway, it doesn't look too far away from something a single person can discover.
[1] That's 36 year ago. I'm feeling old...
The thing that makes that quote so incredible is that it's from Albert Michelson in 1903. The same Michelson of the Michelson-Morley experiment [1] that was completed in 1887. The experiment he performed 16 years prior set the stage for the period of exponential and revolutionary progress that was about to be discovered by some unknown guy writing scientific papers while working as a low level inspector at a patent office [2] because no university was willing to take him on board.
Humanity, at any snapshot in time, believes they are on the bleeding edge of human progress, and that's because they are! Yet invariably we look back marveling at how little they knew. There's zero reason to think this trend has ended, or that we're even near the end of time where knowledge can be simply 'thought up', especially given the vast free resources available to all. The problem is that 'thinking it up' is extremely difficult.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_exper...
"It may be well to reply to the very natural question: What would be the use of such extreme refinement in the science of measurement? Very briefly and in general terms the answer would be that in this direction the greater part of all future discovery must lie. The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote. Nevertheless, it has been found that there are apparent exceptions to most of these laws, and this is particularly true when the observations are pushed to a limit, i.e., whenever the circumstances of experiment are such that extreme cases can be examined. Such examination almost surely leads, not to the overthrow of the law, but to the discovery of other facts and laws whose action produces the apparent exceptions.
As instances of such discoveries, which are in most cases due to the increasing order of accuracy made possible by improvements in measuring instruments, may be mentioned: first, the departure of actual gases from the simple laws of the so-called perfect gas, one of the practical results being the liquefaction of air and all known gases; second, the discovery of the velocity of light by astronomical means, depending on the accuracy of telescopes and of astronomical clocks; third, the determination of distances of stars and the orbits of double stars, which depend on measurements of the order of accuracy of one-tenth of a second—an angle which may be represented as that which a pin's head subtends at a distance of a mile. But perhaps the most striking of such instances are the discovery of a new planet by observations of the small irregularities noticed by Leverier in the motions of the planet Uranus, and the more recent brilliant discovery by Lord Rayleigh of a new element in the atmosphere through the minute but unexplained anomalies found in weighing a given volume of nitrogen. Many instances might be cited, but these will suffice to justify the statement that "our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals." It follows that every means which facilitates accuracy in measurement is a possible factor in a future discovery, and this will, I trust, be a sufficient excuse for bringing to your notice the various methods and results which form the subject matter of these lectures."
Light Waves and Their Uses. By Albert A. Michelson. Published by The University of Chicago Press, 1903, pp 23-25.
Michelson was arguing exactly the opposite of the position you imply. In context, "the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote" is referring to the fact that new physics (e.g. relativity) tends not to invalidate the older physics which approximate it (e.g. newtonian dynamics) in common situations.
He was arguing that the all the important and fundamental laws of physics had been discovered. And so all that remained was to work out what was causing perturbations at increasingly esoteric degrees of precision. In other words that the future of science rested on refining previous discoveries, instead of the discovery of new revolutionary concepts. In the words of our OP here that, "all the science that is possible to do "at home" [is] already done."
Yet of course he made these comments just before physics would be completely revolutionized, and rapidly lead to revolutions in life as we know it. This was prior to relativity, prior to quantum mechanics, even prior to atomic models. The thing that makes it utterly ironic is making such comments at such a time after being an inadvertent key player in the discoveries to come.
Quantum theory didn't completely overrule how physics works at large length scales. Relativity didn't completely overrule how physics works at slow speeds & sub-planetary length scales. These are the 'apparent exceptions' to the laws of physics Michelson refers to, which lead to 'the discovery of other facts and laws whose action produces the apparent exceptions'. Validating both of those required 'extreme refinement in the science of measurement'. Look, for instance, at the 50 year effort required to validate the Bell Experiment.
Michelson further backs up this point in the next paragraph, where he provides several examples where precise measurements similarly lead to new science. Even more, look at his call to action: "Every means which facilitates accuracy in measurement is a possible factor in a future discovery".
His argument isn't dismissive of new science because it only leads to small differences in measurement. It's supportive of small measurements because it's required for new science.
all, always, none, never
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion#All-or-no...
It’s just such a clear term. Now that I think of it, it might be one of the least ambiguously defined terms I can think of.
closest thing is probably R&D at big companies, hence why so many academics joined Facebook, Google, etc. at least for computer science and AI related stuff
Genuinely new, very few. Maybe Wolfram, but they're still really academic culture but in industry
"Measuring Total Column Water Vapor by Pointing an Infrared Thermometer at the Sky
Forrest M. Mims III et al"
It provides a novel technique for surprisingly accurate measurement, useful in climate science, with a very cheap device available at home.
But in general the field is very mined out.