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

In summary: Have you considered viXra.org ?It's not being closed-minded to not want to publish something wrong.I haven't looked at viXra.org yet, but I doubt my paper would have a good chance there.
  • #1
georgechen
21
4
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.
 
  • Haha
Likes CallMeDirac and davenn
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
georgechen said:
...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/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes CallMeDirac, davenn, Evo and 2 others
  • #3
georgechen said:
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?
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier, davenn, Evo and 2 others
  • #4
russ_watters said:
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...
 
  • #5
georgechen said:
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?

georgechen said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes davenn, Astronuc and russ_watters
  • #6
georgechen said:
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.

georgechen said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby, davenn and russ_watters
  • #7
georgechen said:
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.

georgechen said:
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.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes CallMeDirac, Evo, russ_watters and 1 other person
  • #9
georgechen said:
supported by most experiments
You have to agree with experiments better than conventional theory.
Have you considered viXra.org ?
 
  • #10
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.
 
  • #11
Dr. Courtney said:
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.
 
  • #12
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. :wink: )

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?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Nugatory, davenn, Evo and 4 others
  • #13
Vanadium 50 said:
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).
 
  • Like
Likes Evo and sysprog
  • #14
Vanadium 50 said:
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##.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo, Klystron and PeroK
  • #15
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.
 
  • #16
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 
  • #17
georgechen said:
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.
 
  • #18
georgechen said:
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.
 
  • #19
Algr said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby, davenn and Dale
  • #20
Rive said:
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.
 
  • #21
Algr said:
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.
 
  • Haha
Likes vela
  • #22
And what would Einstein say about 1.6x the speed of light? Is that extended? Or wrong?
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #23
Algr said:
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).
 
  • #24
Algr said:
But Special Relativity is NOT mathematically equivalent to Newtonian mechanics.
Within the area of validity of Newtonian mechanics it is.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #25
Algr said:
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.

Rive said:
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.

Rive said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Algr said:
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.

Algr said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Dale and davenn
  • #27
Algr said:
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.

Algr said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo and PeroK
  • #28
Algr said:
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: $$v = 0.8c + 0.8c = 1.6c$$
 
  • #29
georgechen said:
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/
 
  • #30
Vanadium 50 said:
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. :wink: )
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.
 
  • #31
Rive said:
Right. That's half of the process of 'proving' something in scientific sense.
Limiting the theory to an area where it's actually right.

But in the case of Newton, it was Einstein who did this.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #32
Algr said:
But in the case of Newton, it was Einstein who did this.
Yes. It was OK for Newton, though: but in this age we are already a bit more careful with 'all creation included' type of theories, so some initial work from the author is a requirement.
Even if the 'edges' are not visible yet, at least to prove that within the limits of the 'old' theory it works at least just like the old one is the basic courtesy.
 
  • #33
@Algr and @Rive I think there is a fair amount of talking past each other here, but as it reads I agree with the statement that started it, and later logic discussing it via comparison to Newton:
Algr said:
Wanting to disprove Einstein is a noble goal... if you can actually do it.
[separate post]
Ask Newton what .8c + .8c is.
Rive said:
You can't disprove anything what's working. That's just the complete misunderstanding of how science works.
IMO, it's fair to speculate that Newton would answer 1.6C and it is fair to call that "wrong". Broader, it's fair to say that Newton's theory "works" in its domain of applicability and in a handwavey way "works" in the domain in which we use it. But when you do that I think you need to acknowledge that Newton didn't know what that domain of applicability was and almost certainly didn't have a clue as to just how limited/wrong his theory was. Scientists only realized it later when their measurements got more accurate. Newton probably would have said his theory was "working", because as far as he knew, it was -- but he'd have been wrong. And he probably believe his theory was The Correct One.

I do not think it is fair to call Relativity an "extension" or "redefinement" (refinement?) of Newton's laws; it's a replacement (for the purpose of theory; practical use is different). The domain of applicability of Newton's laws is very, very small and we mostly use them today in areas known to be outside their domain of applicability because the math is easier and the error is small enough not to worry about. Their domain are very limited, even single-point special cases at best.

Einstein's theory is much more advanced, with much better experimental data/observation to back it up. But that data isn't infinite in its coverage or precision. There exists the possibility, however remote, that somewhere in those error margins, an experimental result will contradict Relativity. And if that happens, Relativity will be "wrong" and "disproven". Maybe not completely, but within the bounds of the experimental result. In that case, a boundary will need to be drawn or a new theory that matches Relativity's results up to that limit but deviates outside that limit will be needed. Yes, it's extremely unlikely, but if the possibility was absolute zero, then there's be no point in pushing the accuracy of the experimental verification any further. The expectation is that Relativity is 100% accurate in its domain, but it is recognized that it isn't 100% proven, nor can it ever be (though perhaps someday scientists will stop bothering to try to disprove it).
Rive said:
But then you need to prove that within the (proven) old frames your new approach is mathematically equivalent with the old theory.
In my opinion, this is a common statement but an over-statement, and contradicts your previous judgement of the velocity addition example: The velocity addition formulas are not mathematically equivalent. Newton's is wrong, full stop. This is binary. The fact that we use it anyway doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

Extending, the statement then assumes that Relativity is completely accurate instead of acknowledging that by nature experiments can only provide very good approximate verification. I don't think it's hairsplitting because, again, if Relativity were accepted to be 100% accurate, there'd be no need for further testing and the...non-mainstreamers...would be right to point out that we're considering something 100% accurate without 100% accurate experimental verification. A new theory must agree with the existing body of evidence, not the existing theory (except where the two theories and the evidence overlap).

All that said, it's likely the OP doesn't know the overlap and so doesn't know their theory actually does contradict existing experimental evidence.

Note: I define "domain of applicability" as the domain where a theory is believed to be accurate/correct. It does not include the domain where it is known to be wrong but we just don't care because it's close enough. In that sense, as far as I know, Newton's laws of motion have no domain of applicability at all. There is no speed where the Galilean velocity addition formula is believed to be accurate. No speed where it and Einstein's formulas give exactly the same result.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby and Algr
  • #34
Since the OP hasn't returned I don't feel bad about hijacking the thread, but if need be we can split part of this off into a new thread discussing "What does 'Domain of Applicability' Mean?" I feel like there are three different definitions people use:

1. The domain in which we use it.
2. The domain in which it is proven accurate.
3. The domain in which it is believe to be accurate.

The definition used will impact how one interprets the statement "correct in its domain of applicability".
 
  • #35
russ_watters said:
In my opinion, this is a common statement but an over-statement, and contradicts your previous judgement of the velocity addition example: The velocity addition formulas are not mathematically equivalent. Newton's is wrong, full stop. This is binary.
I disagree with this. Newton's velocity addition formula is mathematically equivalent to the SR velocity addition formula for ##v<<c##. In fact, it is critical that the SR velocity addition formula reduce to the Newtonian formula in the limit ##v<<c## precisely because we have a lot of data in that limit that supports the Newtonian formula.

russ_watters said:
I define "domain of applicability" as the domain where a theory is believed to be accurate/correct. It does not include the domain where it is known to be wrong but we just don't care because it's close enough.
As far as I know, that is not the usual definition. I believe that the usual definition is that the theory's domain of validity is the domain where there is experimental data which validates the theory. There is a lot of experimental data that supports Newtonian physics, including the Newtonian velocity addition. In that domain Newtonian physics is valid (hence domain of validity). SR, to be valid, must also match the established correct predictions of Newtonian physics in that domain.

Note that the precision of an experiment is an important characteristic of the experiment. So the issue is not "we just don't care because it is close enough" but rather than with a certain experimental precision the theories are indistinguishable. They both agree with the data equally. The domain of validity includes not only the experimental velocity but also the experimental precision.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
<h2>1. Can a paper that contradicts Einstein's special relativity be published in a reputable scientific journal?</h2><p>Yes, it is possible for a paper that contradicts Einstein's special relativity to be published in a reputable scientific journal. However, it would need to go through a rigorous peer-review process and provide strong evidence and reasoning to support its claims.</p><h2>2. Has a paper that contradicts Einstein's special relativity ever been published before?</h2><p>Yes, there have been several papers published that claim to contradict Einstein's special relativity. However, these papers have often been met with criticism and have not been widely accepted by the scientific community.</p><h2>3. What kind of evidence would be needed to support a paper that contradicts Einstein's special relativity?</h2><p>The evidence would need to be substantial and based on well-established scientific principles and experiments. It should also be able to withstand scrutiny and be replicable by other scientists.</p><h2>4. Would publishing a paper that contradicts Einstein's special relativity change our understanding of the universe?</h2><p>If a paper were to successfully contradict Einstein's special relativity, it would certainly challenge our current understanding of the universe. However, it would require a significant amount of evidence and support from the scientific community to overturn a well-established theory like special relativity.</p><h2>5. How would the scientific community respond to a paper that contradicts Einstein's special relativity?</h2><p>The response would likely be a mix of skepticism and curiosity. Scientists would carefully examine the evidence and arguments presented in the paper before making any conclusions. If the paper were to hold up to scrutiny, it could potentially spark a paradigm shift in our understanding of the universe.</p>

1. Can a paper that contradicts Einstein's special relativity be published in a reputable scientific journal?

Yes, it is possible for a paper that contradicts Einstein's special relativity to be published in a reputable scientific journal. However, it would need to go through a rigorous peer-review process and provide strong evidence and reasoning to support its claims.

2. Has a paper that contradicts Einstein's special relativity ever been published before?

Yes, there have been several papers published that claim to contradict Einstein's special relativity. However, these papers have often been met with criticism and have not been widely accepted by the scientific community.

3. What kind of evidence would be needed to support a paper that contradicts Einstein's special relativity?

The evidence would need to be substantial and based on well-established scientific principles and experiments. It should also be able to withstand scrutiny and be replicable by other scientists.

4. Would publishing a paper that contradicts Einstein's special relativity change our understanding of the universe?

If a paper were to successfully contradict Einstein's special relativity, it would certainly challenge our current understanding of the universe. However, it would require a significant amount of evidence and support from the scientific community to overturn a well-established theory like special relativity.

5. How would the scientific community respond to a paper that contradicts Einstein's special relativity?

The response would likely be a mix of skepticism and curiosity. Scientists would carefully examine the evidence and arguments presented in the paper before making any conclusions. If the paper were to hold up to scrutiny, it could potentially spark a paradigm shift in our understanding of the universe.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
965
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
368
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
61
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
83
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
831
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top