alternative theories about the origin of the universe...

ZapperZ

I, on the other hand, LIKE the fact that new theories are not accepted on the whim of popularity. This is a strenth, not a weakness. How would you like it if physics principles changes as often as diet fads?

And note that there IS a difference between an accepted theory versus an accepted experimental evidence. The latter can be VERY quick once it is independently verified. Example: high-Tc superconductors.

So no, physicists can act VERY quickly when it is warranted. The issue isn't speed. The issue is how CONVINCING something is. A reproducible experiment done by an independent group, to me, is very convincing. On the other and, a "theory" simply cannot JUST predict one thing to be accepted. This is not a good sign for a theory, especially if it can only agree with what has already been described by an existing theory. A new theory must also go BEYOND what an existing theory can describe, AND also make other new predictions that must then be verified empirically. Now think of how long of a process that would involve? The BCS theory, one of THE most successful theory of all time, was given birth in 1957, and it is only in 1972 that B,C, and S received their Nobel Prizes for it. It is a long, arduous process to verify ALL parts of a theory until it becomes convincing enough.

Zz.

Chronos

Tze, perhaps your theory was riddled with flaws . . my best guess.

SpaceTiger

Would it surprise you to learn that there are many, many such theories for each of the major unsolved problems in cosmology? How do you suppose we end up choosing between these theories (in the long run)? What do you think makes a theory more or less plausible?

Tzemach

I don't think my theory was "riddled with Flaws" as you put it, I think it was more a case of not chasing the grants. Most of the work has to be done in order to put forward a good presentation, so I thought I might as well just do it.
I have gained some reputable support and will be publishing a book and releasing some papers shortly. I had hoped to be ready within a week or two but my publisher emailed me and said it could be another 4 weeks.

Nereid

Has your theory been published in a peer-reviewed journal (say, ApJ)? If so, would you be so kind as to provide a reference?

If not, have you submitted a paper containing your theory, as a preprint, to ArXiV?

Tzemach

Not yet peer reviewed and as this will be my first post to ArXiV I need a sponsor to confirm that it is not just nonsense. I have asked someone to have a look at it and recommend it to ArXiV. Hopefully it will all come together in the next 3-4 weeks and I can get everything happening at once.

Chronos

Best of luck, Tze. I suspect you will have a difficult time finding a sponsor.

Tzemach

Probably as I am a bit out of the way and working in other areas, but I have some stuff almost ready to go and hope to prepare something for the IR forum here so that I can at least get some extra feedback. Who knows it might go somewhere. I am not challenging any existing concepts as a matter of fact I lean heavily on what we can already prove, but I am looking to combine a couple of existing concepts to provide a new perspective.

ratfink

How much does it cost to publish in ApJ these days?
Ratfink