On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:55:47 -0700 John Ross wrote

> The problem is I do not know for sure whether or not my theory is
> correct.  I have tried without success to get my theory published in two
> very respected scientific journals and have been rejected out of hand.
> I have given descriptions of my theory to almost all of the scientist I
> know (and I know a bunch of them).  No one has pointed out any basic
> flaw in my theory.  I have submitted descriptions of my theory to this
> group (which is suppose to be especially interested in Theories of
> Everything) and have received no response on the merits, just criticism
> or skepticism for my bothering the patent office with my theory.  I and
> others have found many minor flaws and I have in each case modified my
> theory to correct the minor flaws.  In the process I have filed seven
> separate patent applications over a five year period covering the theory
> as it matured.  If any of you are interested in the development of my
> theory,  they can view my earlier patent applications on the PTO web
> site.

A few comments:

1) This list was originally established to discuss what might be
   called ensemble theories of everything, inspired by Max Tegmark's
   Annals of Physics paper. This is a very different subject to the
   unification of fundamental forces and particles theories that most
   physcists understand by "theory of everything". Whilst there are no
   restrictions about what can be posted on this list (aside from
   usual netiquette), it would explain why you have experienced little
   interest in your theories from this list.

2) Giving up after trying Science and Sci. Am. is, to put it bluntly,
   pathetic. Science rejects more than 50% of submissions without
   review. Nature does much the same. I would not be surprised if
   Sci. Am. or New Scientist were similar - although these latter
   jouurnals are not research journals, but popular science

3) The field of grand unified theories (to distinguish these physics
   theories from the sort of theory usually discussed on this list)
   has more than its fair share of cranks (I'm not implying your
   theory is a crank by this statement), so it is not surprising that
   the more highly esteemed journals will reject submissions on these
   topics out of hand. Phys. Rev. will probably tell you this up

4) I am horrified at the patent office being used to establish
   priority on scientific ideas. It is an abuse of the system, which
   is designed to protect inventors with an idea having commercial
   application. It also would set dangerous precedents that would
   further Balkanise our already fractured knowledge base.

   So what should a heretic (and I wear this badge with prde) do to
   get his or her ideas out there on the record, when no scientific
   journal will publish the work. Even arXiv is a little more
   selective about what gets into the archive, as we found out with
   Colin Hales recently. However, you say you already published a
   book. Presumably you got an ISBN with your book. In our country, an
   ISBN mandates that you must deposit a copy of your book into
   certain libraries, including the Australian National
   Library. Presto, your idea is on the record. The legal copy of your
   book testifies to when you had your idea, so you can use it to
   claim priority. You can self publish a book these days for as
   little USD 100 - this is vastly less expensive than obtaining a
   patent, which can run into thousands of dollars, even before paying
   patent lawyers to do the job properly.

   Of course people will ignore your book, just as they will ignore
   your paper (assuming you do get it past journal referees). Science
   these days is a very crowded kitchen. To gain influence, you need
   to market, market, market on top of having a sound scientific idea
   that is well expressed. Stories like Einstein's are the very rare
   exception. If it weren't for the influence of Max Planck, Einstein
   would have remained an unknown patent clerk. He got lucky (on top
   of being brilliant, of course).

5) Having a brief look at your post of the 4th of October, I can only
   comment that your theory looks a little skimpy. It does not
   predispose me to buying your book. For example, how do
   you explain the very different properties of bosons and fermions?
   Where does mass come from?  How does your theory compare with the
   incumbent (which would be string theory I suspect)? What are the
   compelling advantages of your theory? That you predict space to be
   Euclidean seems to be a decided disadvantage to me - curved
   manifolds are a more general mathematical structure than flat
   Euclidean ones, so if space is flat, there has to be a good reason.

   Incidently, here's my own theory on the origin of matter. (Special)
   relativistic quantum mechanics delivers the prediction of matter
   being in perfect balance with antimatter - this is well known from
   Dirac's work in the 1930s. However, if spacetime had a nonzero
   curvature, is this not likely to bias the balance between matter
   and antimatter, giving rise to the net presence of matter in our
   universe. It strikes me that "mass curves spacetime" is the wrong
   way of looking at General Relativity - causation should be seen the
   other way - curved spacetime  generates mass. As I mentioned above,
   it is not surprising that spacetime is curved, what is surpising is
   that it is so nearly flat.


*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.

A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                                    0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02

Attachment: pgpE81XzaUe1E.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to