Unified Field Theory: Presenting a Mathmatical Formula

[Reuben Smith]

I have a mathmatical formula that ties gravity to the electromagnetic force,how can I present it without someone with more credentails stealing the credit

 

[dx]

Write a paper and send it to a physics research journal.

 

[Reuben Smith]

I have been trying to wrtite a book,the only part that is in finnished form at the moment is the chapter contaning this formula ,do i need to send a copy to the library of congress before I let anyone see it ,also if yopu would be so kind as to suggest which jouirnals I should send it to ,at the moment I am bedridden because of illness

 

[bcrowell]

In the U.S., everything you write is automatically copyrighted. The only advantage of formal copyright registration is that if you sue somebody for infringement, you can collect punitive damages.

Realistically, the chances are very slim that you have come up with something important and useful while working in complete isolation. Rather than worrying about someone stealing your work, you should be focusing more on acquainting yourself with what's going on in the field.

 

[Reuben Smith]

Thanks for the reply and I have read all kinds of preposterous theory,but I will post my formula after I send it to be copyrigted,its like sitting on a winning lottery ticket ,the odds are slim to none of winning the lottery ,but it does happen,for now I can only give hints.

[personal theory deleted]

 

[arkajad]

You should be aware of http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_181.htm" :

"35 U.S.C. 181
Secrecy of certain inventions and withholding of patent.

Whenever publication or disclosure by the publication of an application or by the grant of a patent on an invention in which the Government has a property interest might, in the opinion of the head of the interested Government agency, be detrimental to the national security, the Commissioner of Patents upon being so notified shall order that the invention be kept secret and shall withhold the publication of an application or the grant of a patent therefor under the conditions set forth hereinafter.
..."

Similar laws probably, even if not clearly stated, apply to papers submitted to scientific journals.

 

[Dale]

You should be aware of http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_181.htm" :

Similar laws probably, even if not clearly stated, apply to papers submitted to scientific journals.

Yes, but laws of nature are not patentable, so it doesn't really apply here anyway. Even if Reuben Smith has discovered a TOE and is correctly credited for it he will not be able to patent it.

 

[arkajad]

Yes, but laws of nature are not patentable, so it doesn't really apply here anyway. Even if Reuben Smith has discovered a TOE and is correctly credited for it he will not be able to patent it.

Nevertheless a discovery of a new law of nature may constitute a danger to national security and, as such, should be tightly guarded and classified. Isn't it obvious? And whether it is the case or not will certainly not depend on what pure scientists may think about it.

 

[Dale]

I suppose that could happen, but the law you cited wouldn't be the one the government would invoke since it only applies to "inventions". Inventions specifically exclude laws of nature.

 

[JaredJames]

Don't even consider a book until you get it checked.

Submit it to a journal as pointed out above and allow others to check your work.

Assuming you're genuine then you should be very happy to do this and get your work approved. Journals won't rip you off or steal ideas, you are covered by their regulations to protect your work.

I have noticed a common issue with crack-pots is that they want maximum secrecy and appear to not want (through distrust) anyone else with knowledge in that field to see their work.

I'm not saying you're a crack-pot, but unless you get it checked and approved by other scientists, everything you've done is pointless. If you don't do this, it will never be used (aside from by yourself) and would be an epic waste of time.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm not sure that copyright law will matter in this case. The OP cannot be worried that copies of this theory will be published without monetary recompense. He is more likely to be worried that it won't be copied at all. His concern is merely that when it is copied, he gets credited for the discovery. There are no guarantees here. It is not unusual for the wrong person to get credit for a discovery. There's nothing you can do to prevent it and there's nothing you can do about it if it happens.

 

[arkajad]

Journals won't rip you off or steal ideas, you are covered by their regulations to protect your work.

There are lot of regulations in the world around us. And they are continuously being violated by parties motivated to do so. Reality is different from dreams, however beautiful these dreams are. We should learn from our experiences and do not rely on our wishful thinking.

 

[JaredJames]

There are lot of regulations in the world around us. And they are continuously being violated by parties motivated to do so. Reality is different from dreams, however beautiful these dreams are. We should learn from our experiences and do not rely on our wishful thinking.

If they publish clear guidelines to protect your work and it gets ripped off through them, you have a clear course of action.

I do agree with Jimmy though, copyright may not apply here and I don't know how you would protect such a work.

The key here is getting the work checked asap to see if it holds water or not.

 

[arkajad]

If they publish clear guidelines to protect your work and it gets ripped off through them, you have a clear course of action.

Another example of wishful thinking that does not take into account real world mechanisms. Do you really think that those who are motivated do not know how to avoid such "clear course of action" effectively?

Quoting from David Ruelle in his "Chance and Chaos", Princeton University Press (1991), p. 180:

"I myself have worked in some areas in which I could freely discuss ideas with colleagues, and other areas in which it was unwise, because of the risk that the ideas would be stolen."

Ruelle is also elucidating how scientific journals work, and if you think they always work the way you would like to have them work - you are a dreamer.

 

[JaredJames]

Another example of wishful thinking that does not take into account real world mechanisms. Do you really think that those who are motivated do not know how to avoid such "clear course of action" effectively?

Ruelle is also elucidating how scientific journals work, and if you think they always work the way you would like to have them work - you are a dreamer.

This doesn't mean the mechanisms aren't in place. Like those who "avoid such clear course of action", if you do things properly you can reduce the possibility of plaigerism as much as possible.

Are you saying he shouldn't get his worked checked? There are many ways to get it checked. It doesn't matter which one you choose, they all involve giving your work to someone else to study. They all have inherent risk of someone taking it and passing it off as their own.

If the OP does nothing, their work means nothing. The risk has to be taken.

 

[Reuben Smith]

The thing is I have a math formula that does not use imaginary numbers and am able to factor down both sides to values you would recongnize easly and would kick yourself fot not seeing it just as Newtons laws,but I am not an author ,I have had the math for a few years and have spent 15 years in research ,I consider myself smart but am not a genuis but a simple technician who would say he's a electrician by trade,I therefore relize that I will have to present my work in book form hoping my poor literary work does not pull my math down with it ,If only I could spend fifteen minutes with a scietific author to convince them to help put words with my ideas and coauthor a book with me,right now the book I am righting is only 32 pages .

 

[JaredJames]

Quality not quantity. Don't fool yourself into thinking you need hundreds of pages of technical jargon.

Let the maths do the speaking for you. If it really is that simple you won't need to explain it.

Why a book? The cost would be far greater than simply publishing it in a journal.

You really should get this checked before you try to publish it in book form. If you have made a mistake you will become an overnight crack-pot, something you really don't want to happen. Once people lose faith in you it isn't easy to get them to believe any future claims you make.

 

[Mentz114]

The safest way to ensure your work is not stolen is to publish it immediately. Or send it to at least 5 people who don't know each other. Or just keep it locked in a cupboard where those ***** academics can't get it.

 

[Newai]

I suppose you could encrypt your paper and register that with the copyright office, keeping the key to yourself. Might be a long print-out, but at least it's a starting point to protect your claim.

 

[Evo]

The thing is I have a math formula that does not use imaginary numbers and am able to factor down both sides to values you would recongnize easly and would kick yourself fot not seeing it just as Newtons laws,but I am not an author ,I have had the math for a few years and have spent 15 years in research ,I consider myself smart but am not a genuis but a simple technician who would say he's a electrician by trade,I therefore relize that I will have to present my work in book form hoping my poor literary work does not pull my math down with it ,If only I could spend fifteen minutes with a scietific author to convince them to help put words with my ideas and coauthor a book with me,right now the book I am righting is only 32 pages .

Writing a book will not gain you any credibility. Nor will it likely be read by any scientists. Most of the cranks that get rejected by peer reviewed journals turn to self-publishing their "work".

Submit it to a journal and you'll soon know if you should continue to waste your time on it. If you are lucky, you'll get a critique instead of an outright rejection.

Good luck.

 

[arkajad]

Submit it to a journal and you'll soon know if you should continue to waste your time on it.

I suggest to the contrary - not to submit to a journal. Quoting again from the book "http://books.google.fr/books?id=zJ9...d ruelle "chance and chaos princeton&f=false"" by David Ruelle (p. 180):

"Reasonable-looking papers are accepted, obviously bad papers are rejected, and good papers that are a bit original and out of the norm tend to be rejected too."

Since we are talking about something that is 'a bit original and out of the norm' (whether good or bad - we don't know) - such a paper will probably be rejected. Such a rejection, only because the referees are human beings and have their human weaknesses and prejudices) may cause a severe psychic stress and health problems for the author.

 

[CharmedQuark]

The thing is I have a math formula that does not use imaginary numbers

Did you know that the so-called "imaginary" numbers are no more imaginary than the real numbers, or the rationals, or the integers. Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

More on topic though, please don't listen to arkajad, you need to have your work peer-reviewed. Although many journal submissions are rejected, they are usually sent back with advice on how to make the paper better, or on where the science is wrong, it can only help you to send in your work.

 

[arkajad]

This is what can happen:

" In a subsequent letter to Kaluza of 5 May 1919 Einstein still was impressed: “The formal unity of your theory is startling.” However, on 29 May 1919, Einstein became somewhat reserved:

“I respect greatly the beauty and boldness of your idea. But you understand that, in view of the existing factual concerns, I cannot take sides as planned originally.” Kaluza’s paper was communicated by Einstein to the Academy, but for reasons unknown was published only in 1921.

...While towards the end of May 1919 Einstein had not yet fully supported the publication of Kaluza’s manuscript, on 14 October 1921 he thought differently:

“I am having second thoughts about having kept you from the publication of your idea on the unification of gravitation and electricity two years ago. I value your approach more than the one followed by H. Weyl. If you wish, I will present your paper to the Academy after all.”105 (letter from Einstein to Kaluza reprinted in [49], p. 454) It seems that at some point Einstein had set his calculational aide Grommer to work on regular spherically symmetric solutions of Kaluza’s theory. This led to a joint publication which was submitted just one month after Einstein had finally presented a rewritten manuscript of Kaluza’s to the Berlin Academy."

From: H. Goenner, "On the History of Unified Field Theories".

 

[inflector]

The thing is I have a math formula that does not use imaginary numbers and am able to factor down both sides to values you would recongnize easly and would kick yourself fot not seeing it just as Newtons laws,but I am not an author ,I have had the math for a few years and have spent 15 years in research ,I consider myself smart but am not a genuis but a simple technician who would say he's a electrician by trade,I therefore relize that I will have to present my work in book form hoping my poor literary work does not pull my math down with it ,If only I could spend fifteen minutes with a scietific author to convince them to help put words with my ideas and coauthor a book with me,right now the book I am righting is only 32 pages .

Reuben,

There are other places on the net where you can put your idea forward and have others look at it. This might be a brutal process as most of the people doing this sort of thing—posting their radical solutions to the big problems—don't have any idea what they are talking about. In particular, they usually know nothing about the theories they are trying to replace or how those theories fit into known science.

I wouldn't worry about getting credit by copyright etc. If you post your idea to a public forum it will be there for all to see in the future and if it really works, you'll get the credit, because it will be obvious where the idea came from.

I'd try the BAUT (Bad Astronomy/Universe Today) forum since they are a respected forum and have knowledgeable members and they do allow people to post ideas that are not mainstream science as long as they relate to astronomy or cosmology and a theory the contains gravity certainly qualifies. There are many other places that are mainly for people who are proposing crazy ideas. Don't post there. It won't help you and the only people who will respond are likely not to know much about the science. There may be some good ones, but I haven't seen any.

BAUT has very specific rules you'll need to follow but they are nowhere near as stringent as the ones here. Check out the Against the Mainstream Forum there. But please read over their rules and the threads which discuss how to post a new idea if you decide to do this. You will get at least a few people who know about gravity and quantum mechanics to point out any mistakes, or bad assumptions, if there are any. You might as well find this out before you go to the trouble of writing a whole book.

Here's the link:

http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php/17-Against-the-Mainstream

If you decide to post there. Join first and get yourself at least 10 posts first, otherwise you won't be able to respond in a timely manner since they run all posts through moderators before they appear on the forum. They do this to keep down spam until you get a certain number of posts. But if you post an idea and then have to wait for moderator's approval, it may look like you aren't answering questions in a timely manner. So wait until your posts go straight to the forum first, to avoid this problem.

A few months ago, after 10 posts, the posts went straight to the forum like they do here. They change the number required from time to time, and don't list the specific number, so verify that your posts are clearing immediately when you reach 10 to make sure. The number was 10 a few months ago when I signed up.

 

[JaredJames]

arkajad, are you saying he shouldn't get his work checked or do you just dislike journals?

He needs to have it checked somehow. He either approaches some scientists, posts it openly on the internet or submits to a journal.

To the OP, I would recommend you do as much as possible to have your work checked by as many as possible. This way you'll know you got it right (hopefully) and it will be far more believeable.

 

[The Geoff]

As far as protection goes, you can mail it to yourself in a well sealed package and don't open it. The postal mark registers the date of creation. More formally, you can hire a lawyer. You give it to the lawyer, s/he signs for it and locks it away in a safe somewhere, so if there's ever any question about authorship you've got some legal backup.

Then there's always arXiv.org - it's a pre-publication archive in effect, you submit a paper and whilst it's not "proper journal" peer-reviewed it does get it out there for casual review by knowledgeable parties. It does need to be a well rounded paper though - for example they reject umpteen amateur "proofs" of the Reimann hypothesis every month.

 

[Chi Meson]

I have a mathmatical formula that ties gravity to the electromagnetic force,how can I present it without someone with more credentails stealing the credit

Man, has it really been a month already since the last time?

 

[arkajad]

It does need to be a well rounded paper though ...

This will be of no help if the author is already blacklisted.

 

[Evo]

This will be of no help if the author is already blacklisted.

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?

 

[inflector]

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?

"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.

 

[Evo]

"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.

 

[arkajad]

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?

 

[Reuben Smith]

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