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 magazines. 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 front. 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. Cheers -- *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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description: PGP signature