Possible to publish a paper that contradicts Einstein's special relativity?

[georgechen]

Summary:: Is it possible to publish a paper contradicting Einstein's special relativity in any high-ranked Journal? Which Journal is the best, i.e. open minded, for such a paper?

I plan to publish a new theory of electromagnetics in a Journal. The findings are purely through strict mathematical derivation without any disputable assumptions and also supported by most experiments. However, the findings clearly contradict special relativity.

The concern is that the editors may simply throw it out due to the deep-rooted belief in Einstein and special relativity. I only hope that the paper can get a chance for a thorough review. I am so sure of the correctness and significance of the results.

Does anyone know any high-ranked journal that may be more open-minded? Any suggestion or comment is really appreciated.

 

[russ_watters]

...also supported by most experiments. However, the findings clearly contradict special relativity.

I am so sure of the correctness and significance of the results.

Does anyone know any high-ranked journal that may be more open-minded? Any suggestion or comment is really appreciated.

It is extremely unlikely to be correct, and extremely unlikely to be published. SR is extraordinarily well tested, so the idea that your idea could contradict SR without also contradicting experiments is slim-to-none, unless your idea actually doesn't differ from SR in its predictions.

We've had a lot of discussions about that issue. The typical cause of this problem is over-confidence in ones' own understanding of the existing theory. The bottom line is that unless you've completed a PhD (at least) or honestly duplicated a PhD learning effort on your own (which never happens), you're very unlikely to understand SR well enough to have a unique and correct idea about it and publish any paper about it.

[edit] Here's a recent thread on the subject:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-to-get-your-work-published.997913/

 

[berkeman]

Does anyone know any high-ranked journal that may be more open-minded? Any suggestion or comment is really appreciated.

How long is the list of your citations? Your references would surely include articles in the appropriate journals, no?

 

[russ_watters]

Mod note: this thread has been placed in moderation status "Awaiting approval before being displayed publicly." It is likely to generate a lot of harsh criticism. For at least a start, moderators can reply here.

Mod note: I've moved this to career guidance and approved it since we've had similar threads in the past. Let's try not to let this go down a bad road, thanks...

 

[PeroK]

Summary:: Is it possible to publish a paper contradicting Einstein's special relativity in any high-ranked Journal? Which Journal is the best, i.e. open minded, for such a paper?

I plan to publish a new theory of electromagnetics in a Journal. The findings are purely through strict mathematical derivation without any disputable assumptions and also supported by most experiments. However, the findings clearly contradict special relativity.

Any suggestion or comment is really appreciated.

What open question of modern physics does your theory answer?

The concern is that the editors may simply throw it out due to the deep-rooted belief in Einstein and special relativity.

Physicists use SR not because they have a religious devotion to it, but because it produces well-tested results that form the bedrock of modern physics.

 

[Dale]

Is it possible to publish a paper contradicting Einstein's special relativity in any high-ranked Journal?

Yes. The CERN team did so relatively recently. Of course they later found their mistake.

The findings are purely through strict mathematical derivation without any disputable assumptions and also supported by most experiments. However, the findings clearly contradict special relativity.

Then you made a mistake because these are mutually contradictory statements.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Is it possible to publish a paper contradicting Einstein's special relativity in any high-ranked Journal?

Yes.

The findings are purely through strict mathematical derivation without any disputable assumptions and also supported by most experiments. However, the findings clearly contradict special relativity.

Then they're wrong.

Special relativity is mathematically consistent. That doesn't mean it describes the universe we live in, and one could publish the results of an experiment that show that. But the only way you can show SR is wrong mathematically is by making a mistake.

Does anyone know any high-ranked journal that may be more open-minded?

It's not being closed-minded to not want to publish something wrong.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes. The CERN team did so relatively recently.

Actually, by the time they published, they found the problem. See https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/JHEP10(2012)093

 

[Keith_McClary]

supported by most experiments

You have to agree with experiments better than conventional theory.
Have you considered viXra.org ?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

A solid experimental paper would have a much better chance.

A theory paper has the challenge of needing to show significantly better agreement with accepted experimental data. I doubt your paper does that.

 

[PeroK]

A solid experimental paper would have a much better chance.

The problem is that you can't do ground-breaking experiments from the comfort and isolation of your armchair. Whereas, you can revolutionise theoretical physics easily enough.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm still not sure why the mods put it here. I guess writing wrong papers has an impact on one's career. (Hasn't seemed to have hurt mine any, though. )

Why is it always relativity (or QM)? Why don't we ever see, I dunno, a new approach to electron pairing in high-temperature superconductors?

 

[Drakkith]

Why is it always relativity (or QM)? Why don't we ever see, I dunno, a new approach to electron pairing in high-temperature superconductors?

It's not as fundamental or 'flashy' as QM or Relativity. I mean, who really cares about electron-pairing (get a room!) when you could talk about spacetime shenanigans or how all of reality is one giant probability wave (well, probably, maybe).

 

[fresh_42]

I'm still not sure why the mods put it here.

Moved.

I guess writing wrong papers has an impact on one's career.

I am less optimistic by what I have seen been published.

Why is it always relativity (or QM)?

Because you need a) a certain level of ignorance and confusion to doubt established results, and b) the illusion that you know what it is about.

Why don't we ever see, I dunno, a new approach to electron pairing in high-temperature superconductors?

It was and is the same in mathematics. Everybody thinks, i.e. condition a) holds trivially, he can approach the 3 classical problems, FLT or RH, since they all fulfill condition b). Even the popular P=NP seems to be already too technical, which by the way makes me wonder why people think RH is not. It is never, "I dunno, a new approach to" nilpotent groups of degree $n$.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Math did have the ABC conjecture and Mochizuki. Not exactly the same thing, since Mochizuki has published extensively, although as far as I know, not his claimed proof of ABC. (The similarity with the OP)

Also, and I am not an expert in the field, my understanding is that the hide-bound defenders of the orthodoxy community's concern is not the proof is wrong but that it is hard to understand, and that Mochizuki is not making it easier.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Why is it always relativity (or QM)? Why don't we ever see, I dunno, a new approach to electron pairing in high-temperature superconductors?

I've seen a few crank papers on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There are a few other fields that seem to attract the cranks.

 

[Rive]

The findings are purely through strict mathematical derivation without any disputable assumptions and also supported by most experiments. However, the findings clearly contradict special relativity.

That's a bit of a problem, since the very root of SR (Lorentz transformation) is strict mathematical derivation (based on the Maxwell equations). If you contradict it that means you are bugged against the whole classic electromagnetics (while writing this on a computer and through the internet: both nicely proves that electromagnetics works).

You may want to find something what contains SR and expands its validity to new areas, like GR did: or like the mechanical aspects of SR did with the Newtonian mechanics. That might work.

Also, it is possible to invent alternatives, but the common point with alternatives is, that a 'real' alternative is actually something mathematically equivalent since it still has to comply with Maxwell.

 

[Algr]

The concern is that the editors may simply throw it out due to the deep-rooted belief in Einstein and special relativity.

Even Einstein himself once had a paper rejected. And this was 15 years AFTER he published special relativity and became famous. So don't assume that any rejections you get are about faith. Wanting to disprove Einstein is a noble goal... if you can actually do it.

 

[Rive]

Wanting to disprove Einstein is a noble goal... if you can actually do it.

You can't disprove anything what's working. That's just the complete misunderstanding of how science works.

The best you can do is to extend or redefine it. But then you need to prove that within the (proven) old frames your new approach is mathematically equivalent with the old theory.
To get anything 'revolutionary' approved it's just one of the first steps to prove this kind of equivalence.

Just as like to get the SR based mechanics accepted it was necessary to prove that with low speeds it works exactly like Newtonian mechanics: just as like SR was redefined (accepted) the 'reality' based on the transformation long known before. Just as like as if somebody proposes any 'general theory of everything', he/she needs to prove first that within the validity of the quantum mechanics it works like quantum mechanics: within the validity of GR, it works exactly like (the proven part of) GR.

 

[Algr]

The best you can do is to extend or redefine it. But then you need to prove that within the (proven) old frames your new approach is mathematically equivalent with the old theory.

But Special Relativity is NOT mathematically equivalent to Newtonian mechanics. They just deliver similar results at low speeds. You can't dismiss a new theory simply because it yields a different result then SR - if the results are something that has yet to be tested. To argue if Einstein redefined or disproved Newton is to some extent an issue of semantics. Ask Newton what .8c + .8c is.

 

[PeroK]

Ask Newton what .8c + .8c is.

You can't ask him, but I'll answer. $0.8c + 0.8c = 1.6c$ That's simple algebra.

 

[Algr]

And what would Einstein say about 1.6x the speed of light? Is that extended? Or wrong?

 

[PeroK]

And what would Einstein say about 1.6x the speed of light? Is that extended? Or wrong?

$1.6c$ is a speed. The theory of SR restricts speeds as measured in inertial reference frames to a maximum of $c$ (and $c$ itself only for massless particles or radiation).

 

[Rive]

But Special Relativity is NOT mathematically equivalent to Newtonian mechanics.

Within the area of validity of Newtonian mechanics it is.

 

[Algr]

Ask Newton what .8c + .8c is.

A reasonable person should recognize that as a reference to how speeds are added in SR vrs Newton. If an observer sees two bodies approaching each other at .8c relative to the observer, what will each body observe the other's speed as? In Newtonian mechanics, you simply add the two speeds. Einstein observed that to do so is wrong.

But then you need to prove that within the (proven) old frames your new approach is mathematically equivalent with the old theory.

Which SR isn't.

Within the validity of Newtonian mechanics it is.

Within the validity of twice a day, a broken clock is accurate. ANY theory is right if you exclude the situations where it is wrong.

========================
Edit: It is commonly observed that Newton was "Wrong" in a ridged scientific sense, and yet his contribution to science is widely celebrated and his equations remain highly useful to this day. That is what I was talking about when I said disproving Einstein is a noble goal. It is what Einstein did to Newton. What Rive said above could easily confirm the original poster's worst fears about science.

 

[Rive]

It is commonly observed that Newton was "Wrong" in a ridged scientific sense...

It is wrongly observed, then. Newtonian mechanics is not 'wrong'. It is limited, by its own area of validity, which is now part of the theory itself.

ANY theory is right if you exclude the situations where it is wrong.

Right. That's half of the process of 'proving' something in scientific sense.
Limiting the theory to an area where it's actually right.

Just as GR is limited too: it does not includes quantum mechanics (and a lot more we do not even know about, likely).

But the moment you claim to have a 'general theory of everything', you need to prove that it does have an area of validity, and it is valid both for QM and GR.

 

[Dale]

Which SR isn't.

You should pay attention to what @Rive is saying. He is correct here and above. The very first test that any new theory must pass is equivalence with the old theory within the domain of validity of the old theory.

It is commonly observed that Newton was "Wrong" in a ridged scientific sense,

Actually, it is a rigid philosophical sense, famously described by Popper. Scientifically Newton remains right in the experimentally established domain of validity.

 

[PeroK]

A reasonable person should recognize that as a reference to how speeds are added in SR vrs Newton. If an observer sees two bodies approaching each other at .8c relative to the observer, what will each body observe the other's speed as?

You mean that: $$u' = \frac{0.8c + 0.8c}{1 + (0.8c)(0.8c)/c^2} = \frac{1.6c}{1.64} \approx 0.976c$$
In that calculation, clearly $0.8c + 0.8c = 1.6c$.

If, however, we let $v$ be the separation speed (as measured in the original frame), then: $$v = 0.8c + 0.8c = 1.6c$$

 

[Jarvis323]

Summary:: Is it possible to publish a paper contradicting Einstein's special relativity in any high-ranked Journal? Which Journal is the best, i.e. open minded, for such a paper?

I plan to publish a new theory of electromagnetics in a Journal. The findings are purely through strict mathematical derivation without any disputable assumptions and also supported by most experiments. However, the findings clearly contradict special relativity.

The concern is that the editors may simply throw it out due to the deep-rooted belief in Einstein and special relativity. I only hope that the paper can get a chance for a thorough review. I am so sure of the correctness and significance of the results.

Does anyone know any high-ranked journal that may be more open-minded? Any suggestion or comment is really appreciated.

It appears there is a journal called Physics Essays, which accepts all kinds of papers challenging established physics theories. Some seem to not look at the journal so favorably though. It has been discussed here before.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/crackpot-physics-journal.111647/

 

[russ_watters]

I'm still not sure why the mods put it here. I guess writing wrong papers has an impact on one's career. (Hasn't seemed to have hurt mine any, though. )

I moved it to career advice because I wanted to emphasize that in my estimation (as an engineer, not a scientist), publishing a paper is the domain of professional scientists. So not career advice per se, but professional advice. I can see some potential quibbles to that, but the point was to emphasize the seriousness of the endeavor.

Also, I'm the one who originally flagged the post and it sat for a day with nobody else acting on it...

Also noteworthy; the OP hasn't been back since posting this thread.

Why is it always relativity (or QM)? Why don't we ever see, I dunno, a new approach to electron pairing in high-temperature superconductors?

Because most people have heard of them, and they're weird.