Question
Asked 8th Apr, 2019

Where best to publish Unified Theory of Everything?

To publish a Unified Theory of Everything, which includes a series of papers describing and proving its Astrophysics, Electromagnetics & Optics, Gravitation, Weak Force, and Strong Force counterparts, what would be the best Scientific Journal to publish it altogether, or is it better to publish it as a book with chapters covering individual proofs in different physics disciplines? If submitting to a Journal, how can the intellectual rights be protected in the peer-review process? If published in a book, what would be the pros and cons in comparison to being published as an Academic Journal Paper?

Most recent answer

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
1 Recommendation

Popular answers (1)

Asli Pinar Tan,
I think Juan Weisz suggested a realistic solution. I think it is Amazon (but there are others too) that has a utility for writers to publish their own book. So it is you who write the text, add drawings, the titel page, etc. You even decided the price of the book. It gets registered (IBAN) so you have all the rights.
The other way around will cost you many, many years and - just like Juan Weisz wrote - nearly nobody succeeds.
By the way, if your theory is right, don't be afraid others will copy the contents. They simply cannot understand your theory. Otherwise there was no stagnation in theoretical physics for about 50 - 70 years. That's why I suppose you have created a hypothesis that will cause a paradigm shift.
So the real problem is not publishing. The real problem is finding one of the few people who have more insight in theoretical physics than all the other physicists around (the foundations of physics and mathematics). At the moment "the big names" are incapable to solve the theoretical problems so draw your conclusions and choose a way that will not spoil your life.
With kind regards, Sydney
3 Recommendations

All Answers (22)

8th Apr, 2019
Juan Weisz
formerly conicet and universidad nacional del litoral
In theory Foundations of Physics, but doubt anyone would get this far.
A piece of it might be better.
If not in a private book.
1 Recommendation
9th Apr, 2019
Christopher Nock
Nock & Associates
If you've done what you say you've done it has to be a book. High quality university press. Oxford maybe, Harvard perhaps? Your problem then will be referees, but there's less potential for leakage than a journal review process.
You need a lawyer to help protect your copyright in the publication process. You can negotiate to retain more control than you'd get with a journal. You can negotiate on future value, ie a popular version of the work may generate a lot of money at some point. You want your share of that.
Christopher NOCK
1 Recommendation
Asli Pinar Tan,
I think Juan Weisz suggested a realistic solution. I think it is Amazon (but there are others too) that has a utility for writers to publish their own book. So it is you who write the text, add drawings, the titel page, etc. You even decided the price of the book. It gets registered (IBAN) so you have all the rights.
The other way around will cost you many, many years and - just like Juan Weisz wrote - nearly nobody succeeds.
By the way, if your theory is right, don't be afraid others will copy the contents. They simply cannot understand your theory. Otherwise there was no stagnation in theoretical physics for about 50 - 70 years. That's why I suppose you have created a hypothesis that will cause a paradigm shift.
So the real problem is not publishing. The real problem is finding one of the few people who have more insight in theoretical physics than all the other physicists around (the foundations of physics and mathematics). At the moment "the big names" are incapable to solve the theoretical problems so draw your conclusions and choose a way that will not spoil your life.
With kind regards, Sydney
3 Recommendations
I think the "standard" steps would be: register the author according to the law, publish it in arxiv or equivalent and then in a scientific journal with peer review
9th Apr, 2019
Asli Pinar Tan
Dear Juan, Emanouil, Christophe, Sydney, and Sergio,
Thank you very much for your suggestions and advice, really valueable and appreciated.
I understand that Foundations of Physics is probably the most correct address for publication of such a theory, and maybe Annals of Physics as a second resort, but I am talking about 18-20 papers of 10-30 pages each, with proof and insight analysis. So, the impression I get from you all is that, before it is known and accepted, it is hard to publish such a comprehensive content in those journals, maybe as a special issue of a series of papers, but even more difficult to prevent partial leakage. I agree that it would be hard for any single physicist to fully digest at once and leak the whole thing, because even if the idea is known, it has no meaning without proof and understanding of consequences, which is not obviously apparent to everyone, as you have stated Sydney.
I have also considered arXiv, but can you publish anything you publish in arXiv first elsewhere later? Not in any Scientific Journal that prints novel discoveries, I believe.
So, it seems that book is the best option.
Christopher,
Thank you for suggesting about the potential future material return. You are right that the Author deserves their share of it more than any Journal :) After all, it is the Author’s effort. Do you think a Local Notary registration of the original script prior to publication would legally help to protect intellectual rights?
Sydney,
I am considering self publication options as a book. On the other hand, can you be more explicit about “a way that will not spoil your life”? I may try and take my precautions.
Best Regards,
Pınar
" I have also considered arXiv, but can you publish anything you publish in arXiv first elsewhere later? Not in any Scientific Journal that prints novel discoveries, I believe. "
I think that arxiv is considered as a non-commercial pre-print server and is accepted by all journals, however, if you want to see the conditions of each journal:
1 Recommendation
9th Apr, 2019
Asli Pinar Tan
Thank you for sharing this link Sergio,
It seems really useful to search the pre-print and post-print policies of major journals 👍🏻
9th Apr, 2019
Emad Kamil Hussein
Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University
Asli Pinar Tan,
Spoiling your live…
Suppose you have discovered the TOE. That means it is the TOM too (Theory of Mathematics). Moreover, our universe is non-local so at every moment the whole continuous changing configuration that we call our universe creates reality. In other words, it is not you who have found the TOE (and TOM). It is the whole universe that creates – on the planet Earth at a certain point and a certain moment – something we call in physics the theory of everything. You are the point of creation but it is the whole universe that’s the creator of the TOE (just QFT).
Newton has spoiled many years of his live because he claimed to be the first one who discovered the calculus (instead of Leibniz). And he is not the only one who tried to claim “all the honor” and/or all the revenues. There are many tragic stories in science. So be careful, if we loose happiness it is mostly because of self created illusions.
With kind regards, Sydney
9th Apr, 2019
Asli Pinar Tan
Thanks for clarifying what you meant Sydney,
I had wondered if you had meant something else. If this is the case, no problem. I am aware of how much so many people craved with an ambition to find a Unified Theory in vain, and why people are skeptical when they hear someone claims to find a Unified Theory.
I have no intention of claiming something based on some imagination. Rather, I am willing to share a description of a bigger perspective I see, allowing a better picture of the observed macro and micro scale Universe in a joint form, based on mathematical proof, also in agreement with existing physics theories at the scales they are observed to be or accepted valid.
However dynamic and relative reality is, there is an underlying consistent pattern all the same, and I think that pattern itself is more deterministic than the probabilistic quantum possibilities it enables.
In the worst case, it will be a step towards discovering more ;)
Asli Pinar Tan,
Reality shows that most scientists who have done a really important (foundational) discovery will struggle nearly their whole career before someone understands the importance. At ResearchGate an experimental physicist have tried to convince other physicists about the importance of his experiments (published in a peer reviewed scientific magazine). Experiments that show that the force of gravity is a push force and electromagnetic waves can partly block the force of gravity.
But nobody is interested and the only comments suggested the experiments must be flawed. That’s really awkward because “every” theoretical physicist should be exited if he/she can incorporate gravity in QFT. A new experiment that describes more details about the properties of gravity is like a gift. (I have tried to convince the others so I made it an RG discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_astonishing_experiments_of_Louis_Rancourt_and_Philip_J_Tattersall).
I don’t want to influence your decision but I think it is wise to divide the publication in smaller parts/books. If you are disappointed by the comments at the first release (or the lack of comments) you can decide to try it another way (e.g. sending a paper about the other topics to a peer-reviewed scientific magazine).
With kind regards, Sydney
9th Apr, 2019
Asli Pinar Tan
In fact, I think that experiment is very exciting and also supportive of my theory Sydney Ernest Grimm. Every time I read a paper or news about an experiment or observation in recent years that is said to conflict with prediction, I find it quite in compliance with my theory, which increases my confidence.
I think the problem with the scientific community, and people in general, is that they stick so much to a theory or an idea in a dogmatic sense that they come to the verge of denying a reality in front of them when faced with it, if it doesn’t support what they chose to believe. I am surprised about so expensive experiment setups such as the ones held at CERN to prove imaginary theories that people do not even give the benefit of doubt that the theory they have set out to prove may have flaws or be wrong in the first place. Majority vote has no meaning when it comes to wieghing the truth. However, each effort is a step in discovery and observations in colliders such as CERN will certainly open way to more discoveries in time, even if not the ones intended in the first place.
I think I will not have to worry about acceptance if I publish in a book rather than a journal. It will speak for itself, and whoever wishes can put it to the test. If there happens to be an experiment which indicates a conflict in the future, it would only point out an area open for improvement.
I have been suggested publishing in pieces as you have also suggested and I have considered it a couple of times, but the pieces by themselves would not make the overall impact and give the whole connected picture.
Regards,
Pınar
Asli Pinar Tan,
Acceptance depends partly on the way you describes and explain the topics. Although nearly all the leading theoretical physicists in the past have stated that our universe has a limited set of rules (properties) everyone tries to impress the others with very complicated papers. A bit like super string theory ;)
Anyway, the other way around don't work either. I always had the opinion that I have to describe the underlying reality with the help of images and sentences instead of non-adequate mathematics. So laymen can understand the contents too. Just follow your intuition.
However, if you succeed, I will grinning for weeks and weeks! A woman that outperforms the white males like me. Splendid!
With kind regards, Sydney
9th Apr, 2019
Asli Pinar Tan
Images, sentences, and math, of course, alongside data. I also plan an overall summary of the result for laymen, to demostrate the beauty & symmetry in the simplicity of nature’s rules :)
Making humour of it, I don’t have to remind a scientist like you that Intelligence Gene is independent from Gender Chromosome and that intelligence is statistically distributed by a Gaussian curve in society and within respective genders, and that cultural & social biases are not the subject of this discussion. But I agree with you that not all men might be happy with the outcome :)
Asli Pinar Tan,
I was joking, teasing the others.
It was a joke because not you, not me or any other living person will create the TOE. Simply because a number of individual scientist have done it some 2500 years ago.
It was the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides who observed the motion of objects in the air and concluded that motion is impossible without an underlying creating reality. So he concluded that “nothing” cannot exist in the whole universe. Others argued that all the processes in nature show that the underlying reality must have the same properties and structure everywhere otherwise there must be far more differentiation between the observable phenomena. But if a unit is constructed by smaller units it cannot be the elementary unit of the underlying reality. In other words, the unit of the structure of the underlying reality must be elementary and couldn’t be divided into smaller units: the atom (“that what cannot divided”).
Other Greek philosophers discussed the nature of the underlying reality and argued that it only could be a mathematical reality so everything depends on its mathematical structure and mutual mathematical relations. The last important contribution (as far as I know) was done by Aristotle. He “coined” the concept of the “unmovable mover”. The underlying reality is in rest and the observable change of all the phenomena is done at the same time (synchronous and conserved).
That’s nearly the same as QFT. However, QFT is constructed by importing parts of Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Gauge theories (local field conservation). In fact, it is still phenomenological physics although the concept is about the field structure that creates everything in the universe.
Therefore, you can publish a more detailed TOE. You can add all those observations and experiments that confirm the concept. But the TOE itself – the right interpretation of phenomenological reality – is done by the ancient Greek philosophers, about 2500 years ago.
Don't think I am a philosopher who tries to "sell" his branch of science. It was because of research on QFT that I discovered that the Greek philosophers had already done the job before I did it.
With kind regards, Sydney
10th Apr, 2019
Asli Pinar Tan
I do not knot what you mean by “creating a theory of everything” but what I am talking about is ”asserting a concise explanation consistent with observation as a whole“, I am not talking about creating something that does not exist.
Humans must have been underlying principles to describe the phenomena they observe for as long as humans existed, so it does not just date back to 2500 years ago. To what extent the description is correct is another issue. Some may have imagined ether though which fields travel, you may choose to describe phenomena via QFT excited states but even the structure of photon is not understood fully in the physics community yet, classical mechanics may have attributed an entity called “mass” to clumps of what we call “matter” and Relativists may have imagined it as a form of stored “energy”, etc. The bottom line is, people have tried to formulate theories which they suppose would describe things to an extent, but all of these altogether or some of them or just one of them do not simply describe the phenomena as a whole, consistently. However, a precise description of nature as a physics theory must be as concise and compact as possible, simple and consistent, like “conservation of energy” as it is called. The more complicated a theory becomes, the more we must suspect the existence of some error in that theory.
Asli Pinar Tan,
I agree with your opinion but the term TOE has a slightly other history. About 35 – 40 years ago particle physicists were trying to “get the standard model”. So there was euphoria and there were suggestions that it must be possible to create “one formula” that envelopes everything in our universe. The media – popular scientific magazines – wrote about it and in this way the public got knowledge about the idea. There were objections too because some “opinion makers” argued that the proposed “formula” could only be an all-inclusive model, an approximation of reality. Therefore it was supposed that the TOE will be some kind of a theoretical construction. I think that a lot of physicists have the same opinion nowadays.
Anyway, don't bother about it because you have a lot to do if you want to publish within about a year.
With kind regards, Sydney
You put the same question that I put myself many years ago..:-)
I will tell you how I did (even now I not sure that is necessary anymore):
- you can write and publish an article about this (I done). Is not sure that people will understand what you want to communicate... but you will have the PROVE
- you can create your own website about this or wherever else and promote it. Same situation as above... but need prove before!
- you can even.. try on researchgate... maybe .. who knows...
Concerning about unified theory you can find it in my very summary article.
7th May, 2019
Asli Pinar Tan
Dear Balseanu,
Thank you very much for your response. I have read your summary on your profile based on gravitons. I am going to read your full pdf as well, but from what I understand in your summary statements, I have a totally different approach in my theory, and definitely we have some conflicting conclusions. I have based my proofs on compliance of theory results with observation. To state more correctly, I have derived my theory based on observation, and not the other way around, and it doesn’t involve quantum theory at all, although it is not conflicting with it as far as observation is concerned.
Best regards,
Pınar
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
1 Recommendation

Similar questions and discussions

Related Publications

Article
Over the last forty years, turnaround times of economics journals increased from 1-2 months to 4-5 months. Although refereeing a paper probably takes more hours today, it still requires only a few hours and therefore the significant increase in turnaround times is puzzling. A longer turnaround time, however, has the benefit of deterring submissions...
Article
The three of us devote a significant portion of our research time to publishing in peer-reviewed practitioner accounting journals, in addition to our focus on traditional academic journal publishing. In this article, we first discuss overall considerations when publishing for practitioners, including finding topics, writing, statistics, and implica...
Article
Debates about the asymmetries in global scholarly production have highlighted the problems that hound African scholarship, ranging from the political economy of publishing to epistemological bias among peer reviewers. Surprisingly little research has, however, been devoted to the views of the journal editors who play such a central role in the proc...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.