Unified Field Theory: Presenting a Mathmatical Formula

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the presentation and protection of a mathematical formula that purportedly connects gravity to the electromagnetic force. Participants explore concerns regarding intellectual property, the process of publishing research, and the potential risks of sharing original ideas in the scientific community.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses concern about presenting their formula without the fear of having it stolen by someone with more credentials.
  • Another suggests writing a paper and submitting it to a physics research journal as a way to share the work.
  • There are discussions about copyright, with some stating that in the U.S., everything written is automatically copyrighted, while others argue that formal registration is only beneficial in cases of infringement.
  • Some participants caution against excessive secrecy, suggesting that sharing the work with knowledgeable peers is essential for validation.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for ideas to be misappropriated, with some asserting that there are no guarantees of credit for discoveries.
  • One participant mentions that laws of nature cannot be patented, which complicates the discussion about protecting the formula.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of getting the work checked by others to determine its validity.
  • There are differing views on the effectiveness of journal regulations in protecting intellectual property, with some expressing skepticism about their reliability.
  • The original poster shares their background and expresses a desire for collaboration with a scientific author to help present their ideas more clearly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to protect and present the formula. There are competing views on the effectiveness of copyright and journal regulations, as well as differing opinions on the necessity of secrecy versus collaboration.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions about copyright law, the nature of scientific discovery, and the potential risks involved in sharing original work. There is also an acknowledgment of the challenges faced by individuals without formal credentials in the scientific community.

  • #31
inflector said:
"Would" be a wake-up call or "Should" be one?

I'm really open to whacky ideas and the possibility that even a crackpot might have a germ of a new idea that might be useful. So I probably dig more into obviously wrong ideas than most, and spend a lot of time learning to understand the rebuttals of experienced scientists.

I've been looking around the net researching for the last several years, and from what I've seen, crackpot's have the faith of a religious fundamentalist and don't listen to anyone. Even if Einstein, Wheeler, and Feynman arose from the dead to show how a pet crackpot idea was wrong, I don't think many would listen.
I agree that a true crackpot will not likely give up, I was just responding to arkajad's post.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Evo said:
As in prevented from submitting papers to a journal? If a person became such a notorius crackpot that submissions were routinely rejected, it would be a wake up call to the submitter, no?

I guess so. But from the fact that several papers have been rejected does not follow that the next paper is not a real pearl. As Wikipedia is warning us:

Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, or educated guess in colloquial English, is a kind of reasoning that allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false even where all of the premises are true.

All of the ice we have examined so far is cold.
Therefore, all ice is cold.

or,

The person looks uncomfortable
Therefore, the person is uncomfortable.

From the probability theory we are learning that rare events are now being taken into account in insurance, finance, engineering, hydrology, in risk analysis (the law of small numbers). Perhaps they should also be taken into account in the administrating of science?
 
  • #33
What I meant about imaginary numers is that you must use a J, I'm sorry to say that my mind is now fogged by pain and powerful pain killers
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K