Should I submit an outlandish physics idea that feels right?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the submission of a novel set of coordinate transformations that differ from Lorentz transformations, presenting a coherent mechanical framework compatible with special relativity (SR) and reducing to Newtonian mechanics at low velocities. The author claims this theory predicts measurable phenomena at high velocities that have not been previously proposed. Despite having the necessary equations, the author expresses uncertainty about the theory's validity and its potential for publication, highlighting the challenges of facing criticism and possible dismissal from the scientific community.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz transformations in special relativity
  • Familiarity with Newtonian mechanics
  • Knowledge of theoretical physics and its publication standards
  • Ability to formulate and analyze physical equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of alternative coordinate transformations in physics
  • Study the principles of special relativity and its foundational postulates
  • Explore the process of publishing theoretical physics papers
  • Investigate the criteria for scientific theories to gain acceptance in the academic community
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the challenges of publishing new scientific theories will benefit from this discussion.

Ahmed1029
Messages
109
Reaction score
40
I'm curious to get people's opinions about whether this is interesting enough to write up for submission.

I arrived at a set of coordinate transformations that are different from the Lorentz transformations, but which produce a coherent mechanical framework. It gives a very beautiful physical picture, reduces to Newtonian mechanics at low velocities and is compatible with the postulates of SR, yet predicts phenomena that should be measurable at high enough velocities and that have never been proposed before.

I have all the necessary equations, yet I'm not sure if this can be published since the theory is based on an unsupported bold guess that seems to be right, and I'm not sure if it solves any current problem in theoretical physics. Should I submit an article?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
Physics news on Phys.org
Depends. Are you prepared to defend it against harsh criticism? Worse, are you prepared to have it ignored and not taken seriously?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark and Ahmed1029
DaveC426913 said:
Depends. Are you prepared to defend it against harsh criticism? Worse, are you prepared to have it ignored and not taken seriously?
Sure. I've been really looking to find something new about physics for a while now, but every idea I got was trivially wrong or inconsistent. This one I think is either true or too heavy for me to falsify. I'm generally however not afraid from embarrassment.
 
To clarify, I'm not saying those things will happen, simply that you should be prepared.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ahmed1029
Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...
 
Ahmed1029 said:
I'm curious to get people's opinions about whether this is interesting enough to write up for submission.

I arrived at a set of coordinate transformations that are different from the Lorentz transformations, but which produce a coherent mechanical framework. It gives a very beautiful physical picture, reduces to Newtonian mechanics at low velocities and is compatible with the postulates of SR, yet predicts phenomena that should be measurable at high enough velocities and that have never been proposed before.

I have all the necessary equations, yet I'm not sure if this can be published since the theory is based on an unsupported bold guess that seems to be right, and I'm not sure if it solves any current problem in theoretical physics. Should I submit an article?
As you know from your previous warnings, PF is not the place to try to discuss new personal theories. Thread will remain closed, and you should be sure to read through this Insights article: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: topsquark, Ahmed1029 and dlgoff

Similar threads

  • · Replies 190 ·
7
Replies
190
Views
16K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
734
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
25K