How can I publish my own Physics Theories ?

[SBC]

How can I publish my own Physics Theories ? or Where can I Publish my theories ? Officially to the scientific community ??.. so, that they can accept it.if it's correct and than give me copy right ??
How 2 get my theory registered ?
I have lot of awesome ideas that can change our world of understanding physics .. I am just a student of undergraduate ?? so, please help me.

 

[Joydivining]

While I do not doubt that an exquisite elegance and symmetry has emerged from your work that ties together many of Physics' current problems, from my understanding, you might find some difficulty in convincing Nature of as much.

This might help. http://www.anu.edu.au/BoZo/Scott/Publishing.html

 

[SBC]

While I do not doubt that an exquisite elegance and symmetry has emerged from your work that ties together many of Physics' current problems, from my understanding, you might find some difficulty in convincing Nature of as much.

This might help. http://www.anu.edu.au/BoZo/Scott/Publishing.html

yes, it's difficult.

 

[eri]

In order to publish your 'theories', you need to back them up using math and/or experimental or observational evidence. Wild speculation is not welcomed in journals. Peer-reviewed scientific journal articles are the way scientists present their work to other scientists. You'd have to write a paper detailing your ideas and the evidence that supports them and submit it to a journal, which would either reject it outright or send it to at least one reviewer who is familiar with the field to determine if your paper is worth publishing.

Once you submit a paper to a journal, the copyright is theirs, not yours. If the theory does become accepted, you'll get credit for it, but there's no copyrighting or registering a theory - you submit the paper and if it's right they might start calling it after you. There is no money to be earned from theories, and many journals will ask you to pay for your paper to be published.

I suggest you go to your campus library and start reading up on the topics of your 'theories'. Chances are very good either someone proposed the same thing years ago or there's evidence that refutes it. At the very least, you'll become familiar with how papers are written, the evidence that needs to be in them, and the journals you might consider sending a paper to. Also talk to professors before sending in anything - having someone review your work before sending it to a journal is always a plus.

 

[twofish-quant]

How can I publish my own Physics Theories ?

You can get an account at www.arxiv.org and upload. Other than that, you can go into any library and the first page of any journal will have the e-mail and submission addresses for that journal.

I have lot of awesome ideas that can change our world of understanding physics .. I am just a student of undergraduate ?? so, please help me.

The trouble that you'll have is that it takes a *LOT* of work to go from "awesome idea" to something that is publishable. It's really easy to come up with an awesome idea, and any competent physicist will have half a dozen awesome and interesting ideas that they have no time to work on.

What you need to do is to get yourself into some sort of community where you can bounce ideas off of. You'll find that 90% of the awesome ideas that you come up with are stuff that someone has come up with before, and that either they have some big flaw or else there are 100 people working on something similar.

 

[Choppy]

The first thing I would suggest is to start reading journals that publish in the fields you're interested in. By the time you're ready to publish your work, you should be intimately familiar with as much recent literature in the field as possible. This will also help you to gauge what aspects of your material are important, and what background your scientific peers will have.

If you don't know where to start, I would suggest talking with some of your professors. Tell them that you're interested in reading some journals and ask for recommendations.

 

[twofish-quant]

In order to publish your 'theories', you need to back them up using math and/or experimental or observational evidence. Wild speculation is not welcomed in journals.

But disciplined speculation is. The rule in theoretical papers is that you can invoke the tooth fairy once.

Peer-reviewed scientific journal articles are the way scientists present their work to other scientists.

In astrophysics, that's not true in most cases. For the latest results, people in astrophysics use the Los Alamos Preprint Server. Journals are still important for archival purposes, but they aren't that important in scientific communications within astrophysics (except in some rare situations). The problem with peer review is that the three months that it takes to peer review an article may make that article obsolete.

The only situation were I can imagine you *not* sending a paper to Los Alamos is if you find something really, really big (i.e. aliens have just contacted you). In that case, you probably want to publish in Nature and Science, and have a big news conference to announce those results. That happens *very* rarely.

Also talk to professors before sending in anything - having someone review your work before sending it to a journal is always a plus.

Also talk to professors about *how* the process works. One thing that you'll find in talking with professors is that professors will talk to each other a lot about a new idea before it gets published. Also publishing a formal paper is usually the last step in presenting results. Most professors will talk with other people informally for a while, and then maybe do a poster or conference talk.

 

[eri]

In astrophysics, that's not true in most cases. For the latest results, people in astrophysics use the Los Alamos Preprint Server. Journals are still important for archival purposes, but they aren't that important in scientific communications within astrophysics (except in some rare situations). The problem with peer review is that the three months that it takes to peer review an article may make that article obsolete.

True (I'm also working in astrophysics) but simply being on astro-ph doesn't mean the paper is necessarily publishable. Not every paper submitted to journals is up to the standards of the journal. I'm reviewing a paper right now that was posted on astro-ph when it was submitted, but I won't be recommending for publication based on the sloppy work. Probably most of the stuff on astro-ph is good, but there's enough crap that's slipped into make me wary of accepting the results, especially if it's not in my field and I can't evaluate it myself - I might need to use the results, but I need someone to evaluate the work for me, and that's what the journals are for. So I talk astro-ph papers with a grain of salt until they say they've been accepted somewhere, or I can evaluate them myself. And as a grad student, that's not too many.

 

[SBC]

The first thing I would suggest is to start reading journals that publish in the fields you're interested in. By the time you're ready to publish your work, you should be intimately familiar with as much recent literature in the field as possible. This will also help you to gauge what aspects of your material are important, and what background your scientific peers will have.

If you don't know where to start, I would suggest talking with some of your professors. Tell them that you're interested in reading some journals and ask for recommendations.

I understood what all you people meant.
I just what to know .. How the process goes on ??

so that I can prepare my self accordingly.

thank you every one !

 

[SBC]

You can get an account at www.arxiv.org and upload. Other than that, you can go into any library and the first page of any journal will have the e-mail and submission addresses for that journal.



The trouble that you'll have is that it takes a *LOT* of work to go from "awesome idea" to something that is publishable. It's really easy to come up with an awesome idea, and any competent physicist will have half a dozen awesome and interesting ideas that they have no time to work on.

What you need to do is to get yourself into some sort of community where you can bounce ideas off of. You'll find that 90% of the awesome ideas that you come up with are stuff that someone has come up with before, and that either they have some big flaw or else there are 100 people working on something similar.

thank you sir or DUDE ...LOL

I understood every thing you said.I noted all things that you said.

I am still working on it so I don't want to mess up every thing.

I am waiting to do experiments and get some results satisfying my theory.

And for some Ideas I discovered some stuff.

There is one small flaw in sir.Isaac Newton's equation of gravitational force.
but I need to conform it. it's not speculation but it's a fact most of us failed to discover.

 

[Borek]

How 2 get my theory registered ?

Email the president of physics.

http://xkcd.com/675/

 

[SBC]

Email the president of physics.

sir, can you tell who is president of physics??

 

[SBC]

But disciplined speculation is. The rule in theoretical papers is that you can invoke the tooth fairy once.



In astrophysics, that's not true in most cases. For the latest results, people in astrophysics use the Los Alamos Preprint Server. Journals are still important for archival purposes, but they aren't that important in scientific communications within astrophysics (except in some rare situations). The problem with peer review is that the three months that it takes to peer review an article may make that article obsolete.

The only situation were I can imagine you *not* sending a paper to Los Alamos is if you find something really, really big (i.e. aliens have just contacted you). In that case, you probably want to publish in Nature and Science, and have a big news conference to announce those results. That happens *very* rarely.



Also talk to professors about *how* the process works. One thing that you'll find in talking with professors is that professors will talk to each other a lot about a new idea before it gets published. Also publishing a formal paper is usually the last step in presenting results. Most professors will talk with other people informally for a while, and then maybe do a poster or conference talk.

thank you very much I will follow every thing...

this is very useful for me.
I am still working on all my stuff.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Email the president of physics.

http://xkcd.com/675/

sir, can you tell who is president of physics??

Caution: Borek is a known joker!

 

[jtbell]

There is one small flaw in sir.Isaac Newton's equation of gravitational force.

Um... physicists have known for a long time now that Newton's law of gravitation is not completely accurate. A fellow named Einstein came up with a theory to replace it, which has been rather extensively tested, and is still being tested experimentally.

Choppy gave good advice in post #6. A lot of physicists have studied gravitation, both from the theoretical (General Relativity and competing theories) and experimental (precision measurements) point of view. Before you even begin to think about publishing your own ideas, you need to be familiar with what others have done already.