Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Re: Forum Feedback and Posting Guidelines

  1. Aug 5, 2010 #1
    Hello,

    This is a post regarding forum rules around independent research. I went through the rules and guidelines carefully and my understanding is that they are quite sensible and reasonable. For instance, any new theory should be supported by some kind of experimental evidence - either conducted in the past or being proposed to be carried out in the future.

    But my question is as follows: Suppose, I submit a theory (which is essentially exposing the fallacies/mistakes of an established existing theory) based almost purely on mathematical & logical reasoning? The reasoning, in turn is founded on some rock-solid law of physics viz. conservation of linear momenta or conservation of energy?

    Will a paper qualify, assuming it conforms to formatting and other essential requirements?

    Thanks
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 5, 2010 #2

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    If it conforms to the IR forum requirement, then yes. However, from my point of view, if you think you have found such a thing, why bother with posting it on PF and not a peer-reviewed journal?

    Zz.
     
  4. Aug 5, 2010 #3
    Many thanks, Zz. The question was, to some extent (but not completely) hypothetical. But would you please suggest some such journals? Would they necessarily involve long delays?
     
  5. Aug 5, 2010 #4

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    If you are not aware of the relevant journals, then

    (i) how are you sure you have all the current state of knowledge to know what you're doing is "new" and "not wrong"

    (ii) you haven't been reading the development in that field of study, or else you would have noticed journal citations and the likes.

    So "hypothetically", I could say that there's almost a non-existent likelihood that you actually have something here. I strongly suggest that, before you fall further into your hypothetical situation, that http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html" [Broken].

    Zz.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  6. Aug 6, 2010 #5
    Thanks Zapperz, for your critical comments. You have some very valid points there and put quite logically
     
  7. Aug 6, 2010 #6

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    My opinion is that for a submission to qualify, you will have to:

    1. Review the literature for experimental verification of the existing model,
    2. Explain why it is able to agree with experiment as well as it does, despite the mathematical/logical errors that you believe it contains, and
    3. Show what happens to the agreement with experiment (on a case by case basis, if needed) upon fixing the errors in the logic.

    I can not speak for the staff here, but I think if you do this, the Mentors will find it hard to argue that you have not met the due diligence requirement that is the basis for the requirements in the Tier 1 stage of review.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Re: Forum Feedback and Posting Guidelines
  1. Posting guidelines (Replies: 8)

Loading...