Outside the Mainstream Forum

[sweetser]

Unifying gravity and EM

Hello:

I will try to meet the terms of the 8 guidelines.

[deleted]

 

[ZapperZ]

You did not follow the submission guideline. This is NOT the place to submit it. Read the form letter below:

****************

Dear PF member,

The post has been deleted because it contains opinions that are contrary to those currently held by the scientific community. This is against the Posting Guidelines of Physics Forums. If you would like to discuss your ideas, we invite you to submit a post to the Independent Research Forum, subject to the applicable guidelines, found here.

We appreciate your cooperation, and hope you enjoy the Forums.

Best regards,

The Staff of Physics Forums

 

[sweetser]

Hello ZapperZ:

Please consider modifying the start of this forum, "Outside the Mainstream". I wrote my post based on those 8 guidelines, which are also the ones in the Independent Research Forum. My post was delete because it did not match the more general guidelines, "Physics Forums & mkaku.org Forums Guidelines".

Thanks,
doug

 

[ZapperZ]

Hello ZapperZ:

Please consider modifying the start of this forum, "Outside the Mainstream". I wrote my post based on those 8 guidelines, which are also the ones in the Independent Research Forum. My post was delete because it did not match the more general guidelines, "Physics Forums & mkaku.org Forums Guidelines".

Thanks,
doug

We are not modifying anything. You submitted it to the WRONG forum. Submit it to the IR forum, not THIS forum.

Zz.

 

[jtbell]

Please consider modifying the start of this forum, "Outside the Mainstream".

I think you're confused about terminology. "Outside the Mainstream" is not a forum. It is a thread within the forum "Physics Forum Feedback and Announcements."

"Independent Research" is a separate forum with its own special rules that apply to non-mainstream physics topics.

(added later)
OK, now that I've gone back to the thread list for this forum, I can see that the name of this thread is potentially confusing. It literally says '"Outside the Mainstream" Forum', making the thread look like a forum. Also, the name of the new forum changed after it was first proposed. Is it possible to edit the thread title and at least the first posting to reflect this? Perhaps change the title to read 'Proposal for...' or 'About the "Independent Research" Forum', and add a simple parenthetical comment about the name change to the first posting.

 

[sweetser]

Thanks JTBell, that clarifies my error.

 

[Tom Mattson]

Thanks JTBell, that clarifies my error.

Hi,

Yes, you submit to the IR Forum. Your post disappears into a Moderation Queue, where it is discussed by the reviewers. We've got your submission, and are reading it with interest. I'll get back to you soon via Private Message.

Thanks!

Tom

 

[Tom Mattson]

Any news on this? I can discuss my "outside the mainstream" idea on many physics sites, but not here on PF. On the other sites I've linked to the paper;

I've looked over the PF & MKaku policy, and from the wording it seems that if copyrighted material is posted here the copyright does not transfer to PF. I've PM'd Greg about this just to make sure. Our guidelines forbid posting copyrighted material in excess without citing the source, but if the copyright holder is the author then I don't see a problem with you posting your stuff at PF and retaining the copyright. Let's wait until I hear back from Greg to make sure though.

Also I was thinking: what about images? If a paper is put into a post, images will still be a link, won’t they?

CarlB brought this up too. Another concern is derivation of equations. Posts with lots of LaTeX tend to make PF choke when the "send" button is hit. I am proposing the following modification to the guidelines: Derivations and figures will be allowed in external links, but the rest of the discussion should be posted here at PF. The external links should be placed at the appropriate places in the post so that they can be viewed in the flow of the discussion.

Now, if Greg affirms what I am thinking about the copyright thing, would that settle your anxiety about posting in the IR Forum?

Anyone else?

 

[Tom Mattson]

I've heard back from Greg. PF's claim to copyright on what is posted here is actually been rescinded. There is no risk of losing any of your ideas.

 

[Nereid]

I've heard back from Greg. PF's claim to copyright on what is posted here is actually been rescinded. There is no risk of losing any of your ideas.

Suggestion for the cautious: print the page on which Tom's statement appears, have it notarised (as I believe the practice is called in the US), make copies, keep one with your off-site backup.

Periodically, take a string of text in your (copyrighted) material - of at least a dozen words - and enter them into Google (exact phrase). If anything looks suspicious, print the page.

 

[Moonbear]

An additional caution regarding posting of theories here...if there is any component of your theory that you believe could be patented or used in development of a patented product, method, idea, etc., once you release that information to the public (such as here at PF), the clock starts ticking. In the U.S., you will only have 1 year (I think...check with a patent attorney or the patent office, don't take my word for it) to file with the USPTO before you lose the ability to patent what is released as public knowledge. While you may retain the copyright, that only protects your words, not the use of your ideas.

 

[Watts]

Recent Post

You're not off the subject at all. You can submit your work to the Independent Research Forum, which is the subject of this thread.

The forum is located here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146

Please do read the guidelines and make sure that your submission conforms to them. If you have any questions about that you can ask me.

I was just curious concerning any resent submission I didn’t not receive some kind of reply. I suspected some kind of reply saying was being reviewed and is pending approval or some kind of confirmation. I submitted twice to the forum because I sent the moderator an email requesting conformation and didn’t receive a reply. Any information concerning its status would be appreciated.

 

[Tom Mattson]

Hi Watts, sorry I didn't see this before. As I told you via PM, your submission is being read as we speak.

 

[Tom Mattson]

FYI, the IR Guidelines have been updated:

Summary:

Note: The Guidelines were updated today.

Guideline 2 was updated to accomodate submitted theories that are empirically equivalent to existing theories.

Guideline 4 was updated to allow equations that were not typed in LaTeX, provided that they are legible (eg: "E=mc²" is acceptable).

Guideline 9 was added to allow external links for limited purposes.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=765493

I've noticed that some people have expressed some irritation with our Guidelines. I assure you that we are still working on addressing everyone's concerns, while at the same time doing everything to maintain the scientific and academic integrity of Physics Forums. In the mean time, please remember: We've never done anything like this before, and we are still trying to figure out how to do it right.

 

[CarlB]

My only problem with coming over here is that there is no restriction on who can post. That makes threads on PF tend to fill up with garbage posts by random people.

As an example of this, take a look at what happened to this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=88338

It would really be an improvement to physicsforums if the person who starts a thread were allowed to restrict who can post to it. I hoped to learn a little about density matrices. What I got was a fairly useless discussion between two individuals that eventually degenerated into SHOUTING, followed by sliding into pseudo-science.

If it were hopeless for physicsforums to contribute to science this wouldn't bother me. But there are at least some hints that this website can be of use. For example, I earlier mentioned that this website was referenced in an Arxiv.org published paper:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0505220

There was a response to the effect that just because something was published on Arxiv is not an indication that it is useful, and that nothing ever written on physicsforums had ever been of any use. However, the above paper has already been referenced 4 times (in a positive manner) in the Arxiv literature, only once by an author of the paper (a fifth refernce is a typographical error.):
http://www.arxiv.org/cits/hep-ph/0505220

So here again I suggest that physicsforums have a forum where those who begin a thread are allowed to moderate it.

Carl

 

[Evo]

As an example of this, take a look at what happened to this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=88338

It would really be an improvement to physicsforums if the person who starts a thread were allowed to restrict who can post to it. I hoped to learn a little about density matrices. What I got was a fairly useless discussion between two individuals that eventually degenerated into SHOUTING, followed by sliding into pseudo-science.

That should have been split off into a separate thread. You do have control of your thread, to a certain extent. When something like this happens, notify a mentor, either via the "report post" button or pm that your thread has gone off topic and you would like the posts removed. The mentor can then decide if the posts should be deleted or if they are worthy of becoming a separate thread.

 

[Tom Mattson]

That should have been split off into a separate thread.

I've just taken care of it. Carl, I'm sorry that we missed that abuse of your thread. PF is getting so big that it makes it difficult for the Staff to read every thread. Also, we've recently lost one of our resident physicists from the Staff (Gokul), and we are presently working on bulking up our moderation team.

You do have control of your thread, to a certain extent. When something like this happens, notify a mentor, either via the "report post" button or pm that your thread has gone off topic and you would like the posts removed.

Absolutely. Carl, your idea of self-moderated threads is interesting to me, and we can certainly look into it. But at the moment that is not a feature that we have. So if you want to avoid this type of thing in the future, you need to use the features that we do have, which is the "Report Bad Post" key. If you had reported the first post that started to get the thread "going south" then it would have been stopped before it got started.

 

[Moonbear]

Also, we've recently lost one of our resident physicists from the Staff (Gokul), and we are presently working on bulking up our moderation team.

You lost him?! Have you looked everywhere? Maybe he's just hiding under the bed or in a closet. I guess he didn't have enough time to juggle PF and grad school? Sorry to hear that he no longer moderating...I hadn't even noticed he faded from green to yellow; I guess he blended in with the fall leaves turning color.

 

[CarlB]

Back in July 2005 ZapperZ seemed pretty sure that Physics Forums could never result in advances in physics. I gave him an example of an arXiv paper that quoted a thread here on Physics Forums.

That thread introduced me to Koide's charged lepton mass formula. I rewrote the formula as an eigenvalue equation and "published" it on the thread a few weeks after I read it. My equations were referenced by the arXiv paper a month or so later. I guess that it didn't impress him that this was an example of Physics Forums being useful in physics research because he wrote:

I disagree. Arxiv has NO refereeing. I could post a paper on there tomorrow and it'll get through since I have already submitted several of them. I could cite the National Enquirer in my references and it will still be online.

Then I gave examples of yahoo forums that "real" physicists ran in order to discuss new physics ideas and he responded:

However, I haven't seen ANY of them produced anything to expand the body of knowledge of the field. Can you point to important published paper that actually CAME out of such discussion?

I continued to think about Koide's formula. Around March 2006, I figured out how to generalize his formula to the neutrinos. This was an extension to the knowledge in the field because it was previously believed that Koide's formula could not be used with the neutrinos. I published the equations here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=934041&postcount=187

Of course I could not have done this if Alejandro Rivero had not put the formula up on that thread the year before:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=541835&postcount=111

It has now been only 15 months since I found the neutrino mass formula, but there are already four citations to it (by four authors other than myself) in physics journal articles that have passed peer review:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1376238&postcount=40

For those unfamiliar with the typical rates at which physics papers get citations, see the tables towards the bottom of this site:
http://www.in-cites.com/analysis/03-third-phy.html

I think that this is pretty good evidence that Physics Forums has been useful in extending "knowledge in the field" of physics. The changes I suggested that would make it even more useful still come to my mind. Namely, [Q]we should have threads where posting is allowed only at the agreement of the person who started the thread.[/Q] Time and again I've had threads that I was interested in taken over by one well meaning know-it-all or another who had nothing useful to contribute to the discussion.

If the general community is allowed to contribute to a research thread the level of noise is too high. General knowledge is not enough to contribute to research. Research threads need to be exclusive in order to be useful. This is exactly what the physicists who use Yahoo groups do and the same ability here will make Physics Forums more useful for research.

 

[ZapperZ]

Er... sorry, but I don't buy it.

A while ago, in this thread

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=143604

I asked if anyone knows anything about the quantum efficiency of Te and Mo. I had responses, including a few via PM. Since then, I've used what I got from here in my work, and then published papers on it. Now, according to you, this is "proof" that a discussion in PF can actually result in a significant contribution to physics. I find that to be stretching it quite a bit. We could easily extrapolate it further by arguing that many of the students here will inevitably be affected by what they learn from PF (especially if the seek HW help), and if they become physicists later on and make an impact in their field, then PF discussion has just the same thing!

No one denies the value of PF here. If I find this whole endeavor to be useless, I wouldn't have stuck around. But what you are arguing is that research front work can, as a rule, be done on an open, public forum and can typically result in a significant contribution to physics. That is what I argued against. I also run a private Yahoo group for the research project that I am involved with, where memberships are by invitation only because we are discussing yet-unpublished data or future projects that we will be doing. Many of these have resulted in publications, and in fact, one such work that we discussed resulted in one of our group members to give an invited talk at the last particle accelerator conference this past June in Albuquerque. But you don't see me running around proclaiming that Yahoo Groups as a valid "research" avenue or source, do you? We could have easily done it via e-mail distribution (which, for some people, was what it was if they subscribe to the Yahoo group that way). But the fact that it was highly contained and heavily moderated means that this isn't your normal, open forum. PF is the latter, but you are using your "evidence" to suggest that it turns into the former.

Furthermore, I don't quite see what the point to all of this is. We already have the BTSM forum for people to discuss such things, and anyone who wants to try out their personal theories that haven't been published can do so in the IR forum. It's not as if we use the IR forum to publish crackpottery.

I still maintain that what you describe occurs extremely infrequently in an open, public forum. When when it appears to have occurred, I find it a real stretch to actually attribute it the way you have made it to be, and certainly does not justify the creation of a whole forum.

Zz.