Should I Copyright or Publish My New Theory of Quantum Gravity?

[JaredJames]

Just look at it like this, you're trying to get a paper published/out there with a completely revolutionary idea. Yet, you don't have any prior papers out there (work in the field) and neither (from the looks of it) have any formal qualifications in the area. So why is anyone going to look at you and think "hey, he might just be on to something"?

You can argue about how you shouldn't need these things, but the fact is, this is how the science community operates and for good reason.

Anyone who thinks they have a good idea should have no problem with people taking a look at it and trying to tear it to pieces.

You only want to discuss it directly with some big names? Why? Bear in mind that if there is a problem they wouldn't hesitate for a second to destroy you. To be torn to shreds by them is a lot worse than having a university PhD student point out the errors.

 

[twofish-quant]

This is it. E-mail is the perfect way to have an idea stolen. And as I have worked on this for two years, I really don't want to risk that.

I try to be nice to newbies, but at some point you just have to give up.

The whole point of physics is to have people steal your ideas. You *want* people to copy your ideas. The important thing is not the idea but the person that comes up with the idea, and if you come up with decent ideas, then people will come back for more.

Also, if you are worried about people stealing your ideas, I doubt that anyone will want to talk to you. The whole reason that physicists talk to each other is so that people can steal each others ideas. If you get annoyed if someone takes your idea, then more than likely no one will want to talk to you because they are going to be worried that you are going to be upset if something that you thought of ends up in print. It's safer for them if they just don't talk to you so that you can't accuse them of anything later.

 

[Pengwuino]

Also, why do you think science is done through books? Few scientists ever write an actual book. Even when they do, they have references. I have a text on my desk by Robert Wald. In the back are references. Over 100 references. The book is less than 200 pages. That's 1 reference for every 2 pages.

 

[cbd1]

I try to be nice to newbies, but at some point you just have to give up.

The whole point of physics is to have people steal your ideas. You *want* people to copy your ideas. The important thing is not the idea but the person that comes up with the idea, and if you come up with decent ideas, then people will come back for more.

Also, if you are worried about people stealing your ideas, I doubt that anyone will want to talk to you. The whole reason that physicists talk to each other is so that people can steal each others ideas. If you get annoyed if someone takes your idea, then more than likely no one will want to talk to you because they are going to be worried that you are going to be upset if something that you thought of ends up in print. It's safer for them if they just don't talk to you so that you can't accuse them of anything later.

Well played sir. Thank you.

 

[DivisionByZro]

I think I can summarize this thread a little:

Re-start your paper. Condense it to just a few pages.

Get a lot of qualified people to read it. Have them be harsh. This is good. IF you actually are on to something, then there is definitely at least one thing wrong with it. You want people to spot your mistakes, your fallacies and your abuses of physics.

People aren't interested in a Tolkien-length book/article.

Mostly you should seriously go over your paper another dozen times and ask yourself, does this make sense? Did I actually do something useful? Is this junk? What if people think this idea is crap? What will I do after?

 

[hitmeoff]

Just upload the paper here. Then there will be no doubt that on 4/1/11 (or 4/2/11), cbd1 presented this idea to the world.

Or don't, because the Admin will steal your idea, pull down your post and shut down physicsforums.com and run away with your idea...

Im not trying to be a dick about this, but in order to establish your name to your idea to the world, you got to show it to the world. You could easily create your own website, publish your book on the site and there can be no arguing when the idea was made public and who is attached to the idea.

 

[JaredJames]

Just upload the paper here. Then there will be no doubt that on 4/1/11 (or 4/2/11), cbd1 presented this idea to the world.

This I agree with. It also gives the benefit that you'd get feedback.

You could easily create your own website, publish your book on the site and there can be no arguing when the idea was made public and who is attached to the idea.

I wouldn't advise this. It wouldn't serve to prove anything.

You need it on an independent site / area that will date stamp it in a way that cannot be altered (or won't be) by anyone.

 

[jtbell]

Just upload the paper here.

The only place here where he can do that is our Independent Research forum, and then only if he can meet the guidelines for that forum (posted in a sticky there).

 

[Manchot]

Yes, I did compare SR and GR to what I'm doing, in that they didn't require citing a bunch of other works, because they were pioneering, like this would be IF it works out in the equations, as I believe/hope it should.

Wait, are you implying that your theory is *not* in mathematical form? If so, I can tell you right now that absolutely no one will take it seriously.

 

[JaredJames]

Wait, are you implying that your theory is *not* in mathematical form? If so, I can tell you right now that absolutely no one will take it seriously.

Ooh, well spotted. I suppose it answers why it takes 90 pages to explain it.

 

[ZapperZ]

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

"My theory doesn't need any complicated math."

Then how do you calculate anything? Science is not just knowing "what goes up must come down", but when and where it comes down.

Zz.

 

[cristo]

Ok, I think this thread is done.