If you want to know what is required to publish in a journal, you need to go to that journal and read their requirements.bugs007 said:Your suggestion to use a lawyer is interesting but would like to follow whatever the normal accepted procedure is for lodging papers such as this for publication.
Yes, but it is too easy and tempting to ask for and give hints about what the subject is. That's what turns such threads south (north?).bugs007 said:I assume anyone with a serious original idea can seek advice on here on how to best manage such ideas without revealing them.
Sure, but securing proof of ownership and publication are separate issues and securing proof of ownership comes first. It would not interfere with publication to use a lawyer (or notary) for that purpose.Your suggestion to use a lawyer is interesting but would like to follow whatever the normal accepted procedure is for lodging papers such as this for publication.
I do not think I am that good and merely study these subjects privately not in any academic capacity whatsoever. Not interested in working in this field. So yes I expect you to take my word for the fact that I have a simple solution to a problem because that is why I am here but not to divulge details of such solution only to seek opinion on how to best manage something of this nature.ZapperZ said:This is your own self-evaluation of your knowledge and skills. No field of study, be it in science or not, uses such evaluation. You think you are good. That isn't enough to get you a job in anything. So why should we simply take your word for it? Would you take MY word that you aren't that good?
So my question still stands. How do you know?
Zz.
bugs007 said:You do not need to know calculus and only need basic math in this solution. I admit not knowing most math is, I do know some algebra what I recall from year 10 and barely recall some trigonometry as I had no ambition in this field then.
This solution will actually be described as an extension of an existing very well accepted theory. One that Einstein seriously overlooked. So I wish to treat this with a lot of respect especially for those whose discoveries this relies on and in the professional manner that it deserves.
bugs007 said:I do not think I am that good and merely study these subjects privately not in any academic capacity whatsoever. Not interested in working in this field. So yes I expect you to take my word for the fact that I have a simple solution to a problem because that is why I am here but not to divulge details of such solution only to seek opinion on how to best manage something of this nature.
For the purpose of offering advice we can assume you have a real idea, but for the purpose of having it evaluated, nobody worth talking to will be willing to talk to you on that basis alone...bugs007 said:So yes I expect you to take my word for the fact that I have a simple solution to a problem because that is why I am here but not to divulge details of such solution only to seek opinion on how to best manage something of this nature.
PeroK said:Yes it is. Wave-particle duality is explained by QM. If you have been reading popular science books or youtube videos then you may get the strong impression that the riddle of wave-particle duality is alive and kicking. But, as far as the professional science of QM is concerned, wave-particle duality was explained in the 1930's by "modern" QM. And you have the whole development of QED and QFT since then.
Many thanks Russ. I haven't put the whole 30 years into it, just thought of the basic concept 30 years ago which I could not resolve completely then and quite honestly had forgotten all about it until more recently where I decided to attempt to resolve it again and think I have hit an actual bulls eye in doing so. If this does pan out you will 100% find it jaw dropping and the consequences for QM are enormous.russ_watters said:It never ceases to amaze me how unwilling the people we see on PF who say they believe they have discovered something are to put any real money or effort into their idea (even after years or decades!). This tells me they don't really believe in it (or maybe their belief is not stronger than their fear). If you watch a TV show like "Shark Tank", you'll see the majority of the people who are on the show go all in on their idea, investing enormous amounts of time and money into it before it gets to the point where it is ready to be presented to billionaire investors. A patent application alone probably costs upwards of $10,000. Then there's prototyping and if it goes well, setting up manufacturing and distribution. People with even small, simple ideas often spend a $100,000 or more developing an idea to get it far enough that it is ready to sell - and therefore invest in.
For someone who has a scientific idea, here's all it takes to get a quick review: $600 and an afternoon. Find a random physicist at a nearby university and offer him/er $150 an hour to spend the afternoon with you at a coffee shop to read your paper, review and discuss.
Don't trust the answer you got? Go get another opinion.
I'm a mechanical engineer, not a physicist, but if someone local made me that offer to review their perpetual motion machine idea, I'd do it. I bet you can find a physicist who would too.
@bugs007, you say you've put 30 years into this idea. I urge you to take just a little bit of time and money and find out if your idea does or doesn't have merit. The worst case outcome from that is just that if you find the idea doesn't have merit you save yourself any further waste of time. So even that would be a win.
Thanks ZapperZ this should be quite easy to accomplish and shall make some inquiries. Hope your knives are sharp enough to cut open the double-slit experiment lol.ZapperZ said:@bugs007 : Before proceeding any further, and before proclaiming the amazing feat that you have accomplished, please contact a physicist and have him/her review your work. Even the best and most brilliant physicists on Earth often sought advice/opinion from their colleagues, so why shouldn't you? This is the ONLY means for you to verify the validity and importance of your work.
Otherwise, you are asking us to take your word for it, and again, I have my kitchen knives ready whenever you need to be cut open!
Zz.
I interpret the current explanation as quoted from the current wikipedia page "Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum entity may be partly described in terms not only of particles, but also of waves. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behaviour of quantum-scale objects." If so it does not explain why this occurs and as such is not incorrect but incomplete.PeroK said:Yes it is. Wave-particle duality is explained by QM. If you have been reading popular science books or youtube videos then you may get the strong impression that the riddle of wave-particle duality is alive and kicking. But, as far as the professional science of QM is concerned, wave-particle duality was explained in the 1930's by "modern" QM. And you have the whole development of QED and QFT since then.
bugs007 said:Thanks ZapperZ this should be quite easy to accomplish and shall make some inquiries. Hope your knives are sharp enough to cut open the double-slit experiment lol.
bugs007 said:I do not think I am that good and merely study these subjects privately not in any academic capacity whatsoever. Not interested in working in this field. So yes I expect you to take my word for the fact that I have a simple solution to a problem because that is why I am here but not to divulge details of such solution only to seek opinion on how to best manage something of this nature.
bugs007 said:This solution is so damn simple it is quite frankly laughable and in my opinion they should have figured this out easily. With the double slit experiment results as a definitive proof here this will be extremely hard to refute. As far as I know double slit wave function collapse during observation has not been explained and if so not to anyone's satisfaction.
OK handy to know which are the preferred methods in use today.ZapperZ said:The double-slit experiment is so 1900s. We have moved on to interferometers.
Zz.
Perok I love your analogy ! And I expect you to doubt me very much ! That is what science is all about. In this case it is all about perspective. I viewed the problem from a whole different perspective which it seems nobody has considered. If I am misguided I need to find out and am happy for someone to scientifically prove this wrong.PeroK said:Here's a rough analogy of why we are inclinded to doubt that you have anything of value. Imagine, instead of physics we were talking about chess. By your own admission, you are an amateur player that knows the rules of the game and has been studying it. You have also been looking at the games from the recent world championship. You noticed that in many cases you saw "obviously good" moves for one player that both players, and all the expert commentators missed. To you it was "laughable" that the best players in the world could not see what you saw. Simple, obviously winning moves that were overlooked by the players and that they should "easily have seen".
Now, there are two possibilities. First, you may indeed be seeing moves the the rest of the chess world overlooks. And, you might be asking our advice about how you go about entering the next world championship. Or, what I would tend to believe, it is you that are overlooking the problem with the moves that you consider to be obviously winning; problems that the top players - and indeed any professional chess player - can see. What you think are clear winning moves are simply not. The top players and all the analysts can see them and can see why they are not the best moves.
So, if you were asking us to believe that, as a casual chess player, you have found aspects of the game generally or moves in specific cases that all the experts have missed, then we would all be inclinded to doubt this very much.
Likewise, if you claim that you can see a simple solution to the double-slit experiment that has been overlooked by several generations of physicists - and, as a result, hold their efforts in disdain - then again we are inclinded to believe that it you who has misunderstood the experiment, and the existing solutions. And that it is you who are misguided in your beliefs.
bugs007 said:Perok I love your analogy ! And I expect you to doubt me very much ! That is what science is all about. In this case it is all about perspective. I viewed the problem from a whole different perspective which it seems nobody has considered. If I am misguided I need to find out and am happy for someone to scientifically prove this wrong.
Fair enough. I sincerely wish you good luck however it goes.bugs007 said:Many thanks Russ. I haven't put the whole 30 years into it, just thought of the basic concept 30 years ago which I could not resolve completely then and quite honestly had forgotten all about it until more recently where I decided to attempt to resolve it again and think I have hit an actual bulls eye in doing so. If this does pan out you will 100% find it jaw dropping and the consequences for QM are enormous.
True had not really considered that.ZapperZ said:This is assuming that your idea is falsifiable.
Zz.
Thanks Russ seems I shall need it. I look forward to the day I can reveal details, but I believe I cannot do that on this forum due to its rules.russ_watters said:Fair enough. I sincerely wish you good luck however it goes.
Well, you could just put it out and maybe someone would tell you why it's wrong (assuming it is) before the thread is closed due to personal speculation. And if, by chance, your idea has merit, it's possible the thread could stay open. In any case, given the length of this thread, you are not going to get banned for putting it here when several people in the thread have basically asked you to do so.bugs007 said:Thanks Russ seems I shall need it. I look forward to the day I can reveal details, but I believe I cannot do that on this forum due to its rules.
Well if you're right and your idea gets published, it will no longer be against the rules to post it here. Heck, if your idea is correct but you weren't aware that someone had already thought of it, it would still be an impressive accomplishment worth sharing!bugs007 said:Thanks Russ seems I shall need it. I look forward to the day I can reveal details, but I believe I cannot do that on this forum due to its rules.
bugs007 said:Because wave/particle duality is not explained by QM
I don't know what you studied these 30 years, but you have shown a few times in this thread (not limited to these quotes) that you are unaware of even very basic results and developments in quantum mechanics. In the chess analogy: You haven't heard of the concept of Zugzwang yet.bugs007 said:OK handy to know which are the preferred methods in use today.ZapperZ said:The double-slit experiment is so 1900s. We have moved on to interferometers.
Zz.
If you want to ensure that it isn’t stolen then you can simply publish a cryptographically secure hash of it in some public place like a newspaper classified ad. Then you can share it in the usual peer review process and if it is stolen you can prove that you had it first.bugs007 said:how does one proceed cautiously to publication and retain credit for their discovery without their idea being stolen ?
Hard to see how explaining an already explained experiment would have any consequences. The results of the double slit experiment and all of the many modifications of it are completely in accordance with standard QM already. Scientifically, that means QM already explains it.bugs007 said:the consequences for QM are enormous.
Me too, but I would definitely get payment in advance since I am going to deliver bad news.russ_watters said:if someone local made me that offer to review their perpetual motion machine idea, I'd do it
He is actually claiming even more than this. He is claiming not only that he can do surgery but that he invented a new surgical technique which is both obvious and undiscovered and which will cure congestive heart failure.ZapperZ said:Will you take my word for it that I can perform surgery, even though I'm not certified as a surgeon? After all, I've looked at various text on surgery, and I even teach Pre-Med students! So will you let me perform a surgery on you the next time you are in need of one?.
ZapperZ said:The double-slit experiment is so 1900s. We have moved on to interferometers.
Zz.
@bugs007 Just be aware that vixra is considered a depository for crackpottery, that's what happens when "anyone" can post there. But it would definitely be a place for your work.mitchell porter said:@bugs007, have you heard of vixra.org? It is like arxiv.org, the preprint server that academic physicists use, except that anyone can post there. If you write something, and don't want to host it on a personal website, you can place it there. Your name, and the time you uploaded the essay, will be preserved there, and meanwhile you can go about submitting to journals.
I agree with the skeptical response you are getting, and I would add that there is already a vast literature of people proposing alternative explanations of quantum mechanics; if your idea is so simple, it has probably been anticipated decades ago e.g. in a "Foundations of Physics" paper, or possibly even a philosophy paper if it doesn't involve calculation. However, if you are still determined to just get it out there, then vixra is the simple answer.