Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the challenges of proposing a new theoretical framework that contradicts established theories in physics, specifically the Carnot theorem. Participants explore the platforms available for publishing such theories and the requirements for gaining acceptance in the scientific community.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Technical explanation
- Exploratory
Main Points Raised
- One participant seeks advice on suitable platforms for publishing a theoretical paper that contradicts the Carnot theorem, expressing frustration with traditional journals that favor experimental work.
- Another participant argues that without experimental support, a conjecture cannot be considered a theory, suggesting that reputable journals will not accept purely theoretical claims.
- A later reply questions whether experimental support is needed for the assumptions or for the consequences of the proposed theory.
- Some participants reference the challenges faced by scientific dissenters, noting that established theories often resist new ideas, and suggest strategies for gaining recognition.
- One participant cites an article emphasizing the importance of peer-reviewed journals in balancing scientific progress and conservatism in the field.
- Another participant claims that their proposed theory, which involves an increase in the universe's entropy, is serious and feasible, but acknowledges material limitations in its construction.
- Several participants provide lists of journals that have published theoretical articles related to the Carnot engine, suggesting avenues for submission.
- There is a suggestion that the proposed theory may resemble a perpetual motion machine, which raises concerns about its validity in light of established physical laws.
- One participant emphasizes the need for presenting ideas in a conventional scientific format to increase the chances of publication.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the necessity of experimental support for theoretical claims. While some assert that experimental validation is essential, others suggest that theoretical contributions can still be valuable. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the feasibility and acceptance of the proposed theory.
Contextual Notes
Participants highlight the limitations of traditional publishing avenues for theoretical work and the potential biases against unconventional ideas in the scientific community. There is also mention of the need for adherence to established scientific conventions in writing and presenting new theories.