Re: Forum Feedback and Posting Guidelines

royp

Hello,

This is a post regarding forum rules around independent research. I went through the rules and guidelines carefully and my understanding is that they are quite sensible and reasonable. For instance, any new theory should be supported by some kind of experimental evidence - either conducted in the past or being proposed to be carried out in the future.

But my question is as follows: Suppose, I submit a theory (which is essentially exposing the fallacies/mistakes of an established existing theory) based almost purely on mathematical & logical reasoning? The reasoning, in turn is founded on some rock-solid law of physics viz. conservation of linear momenta or conservation of energy?

Will a paper qualify, assuming it conforms to formatting and other essential requirements?

Thanks

ZapperZ

If it conforms to the IR forum requirement, then yes. However, from my point of view, if you think you have found such a thing, why bother with posting it on PF and not a peer-reviewed journal?

Zz.

royp

Many thanks, Zz. The question was, to some extent (but not completely) hypothetical. But would you please suggest some such journals? Would they necessarily involve long delays?

ZapperZ

If you are not aware of the relevant journals, then

(i) how are you sure you have all the current state of knowledge to know what you're doing is "new" and "not wrong"

(ii) you haven't been reading the development in that field of study, or else you would have noticed journal citations and the likes.

So "hypothetically", I could say that there's almost a non-existent likelihood that you actually have something here. I strongly suggest that, before you fall further into your hypothetical situation, that you might want to read this.

Zz.

royp

Thanks Zapperz, for your critical comments. You have some very valid points there and put quite logically

Gokul43201

My opinion is that for a submission to qualify, you will have to:

1. Review the literature for experimental verification of the existing model,
2. Explain why it is able to agree with experiment as well as it does, despite the mathematical/logical errors that you believe it contains, and
3. Show what happens to the agreement with experiment (on a case by case basis, if needed) upon fixing the errors in the logic.

I can not speak for the staff here, but I think if you do this, the Mentors will find it hard to argue that you have not met the due diligence requirement that is the basis for the requirements in the Tier 1 stage of review.