True, but if you know how the editors usually act, you can deduce a lot about what they think of your paper based on how they reject it. I've published in PRA, and I can tell you that rejection without refereeing or specific qualification is practically unheard of. If it's clearly the wrong journal or you have major formatting issues, the editor might reject it without refereeing, but he/she will tell you exactly why your paper is wrong for PRA at first glance. Otherwise, the standard practice is to send it on to the referees, then include any necessary formatting changes with the referees' responses to be included in a second draft. If the editor rejected your paper for something as vague as "explanation", that means he/she thinks it doesn't meet the basic requirements for publishable science. Sorry. Research doesn't work like that. There are no "copyrights" for scientific theories. If a dispute arises over who gets credit for an idea, it's usually resolved through research by academic integrity boards, and an existing forum post would only help you in such a context. Worst case scenario: if someone else actually tries to publish your idea, I give you my word that I will use my academic connections to make sure you get the credit you deserve. Now please show us the math. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
To add to this: copyright applies to written work but not the ideas or theories that that written work describes. That said, if hansda were to post His Theory here and the mathematical proof (?) for it, I think the law is that he'd automatically own the copyright to the content of his posts. So if someone took hansda's ideas and published them under their own name, it wouldn't constitute copyright infringement but it would certainly be a serious case of plagiarism and breach of ethics (something that reputable journals take seriously). If that person were to copy parts of hansda's posts verbatim and without attribution, then as far as I understand things that could constitute copyright infringement in addition to the aforementioned plagiarism. Either way the publication would have to be retracted and if that "someone" were a scientist employed by an academic institution they could be facing the end of their career.
However if he goes completely off the rails and writes a non-useful, non-predictive, non-description of perhaps non-reality, then that would be fiction, and I think some elements of the fiction (plot) may be protected by copyright or limited forms of IP (recurring fictional characters might need to be licensed to be used in a play or movie) which in the US would not prevent quoting large parts of it for education elucidation on why it is fiction or nonsense rather than a scientific theory or lesser amounts to review it as fiction (Tedious and Awkward!). US: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html UK: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about.htm Scientific theories aren't covered by copyright because they are approximately precise descriptions of the behavior of phenomena which is their only value. Thus theories are more or less "discoveries" rather than creative expression. Einstein's 1905 papers were copyrighted but that's because they were a written exposition on the subject, not the theory itself. // Edit: prysk is right that in academic circles plagiarism (which is not a violation of law*) is likely considered worse than copyright infringement (where a single act could run civil penalties in excess of the greater of $150,000 or damages as well of the costs of the other side's legal fees and lawyers, which is not typical in US law). http://www.njsbf.org/images/content/1/1/11085/Plagiarism07_final.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html * IANAL (I am not a Lawyer) -- but I think this is generally true in the US although it may be a violation of various regulations to plagiarize while working for or with government funding. Most academic institutions have their own regulations ("Academic Code of Conduct" and similar) and this is treated as a major issue.
Congratulations!!! for getting published in the Physical Review A. I think there were serious formatting error with my paper. AND perhaps my explanations were also not very clear. I tried to publish this theory long ago. I heard some journals don't publish a paper, which is already available in the public domain in the internet Science-Forums.
Well, I guess you are on the horns of a dilemma. No reputable journal will print your work and you won't share your work unless it has been accepted by a Journal. Oh, well looks like we will never see it.:shrug:
Handsa, if you post your theory I promise I'll let everyone know about it. http://www.yourewinner.com/index.php?topic=14795.msg219852#msg219852
If worried you will not get credit and you have some connection with a university (not sure being a janitor there will qualify, but it might) you can stake your claim here: ArXiv.org, is NOT a reputable or pier reviewed physical journal ANYONE with a university affiliation can and many do publish pure crap there. Some others whose work is of high quality do publish here too if their field is in a rapid state of flux (For example: days old new results needs explaining) to stake their claim in this not delayed by review on-line "journal."
I wouldn't bet on that being the reason. As I've already pointed out, from things you've already said in this thread it seems you're operating under some confusion about what a scientific theory actually is and what would be needed to properly support one. For instance, the circumstances under which you originally came up with an idea are completely irrelevant and say nothing about its validity. I don't see that being an issue, since journals normally only require that work you're submitting hasn't already been published in the same or in a competing journal. The idea is that you should be free to discuss the details of your work as much as you want, but you should only ever get one publication in an original research journal out of it. There may be exceptions for the really prestigious journals like Science and the various Nature journals, but if you stood a reasonable chance of publishing there I don't think we'd be having this discussion in the first place. But whatever you're going to do, decide on it and actually do it. Because what you're doing now -- telling everyone you have a Theory but failing to actually divulge it -- is completely pointless.
Perhaps my explanation did not make enough scientific sense. I think only my math can validate my theory. The way maths of Newton and Einstein validates gravity, similar is the case with my theory. I am re-working with my paper and shortly will be submitting in some journal. Then it is all up to their decision.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Correct! The big 3: Newton, Einstein and Hansda.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am going to go out on a limb here; some journal is going to say, "no thanks". If you would just put it on line here we could help you by unmercifully tearing your paper apart and showing you that there is no need to submit it anywhere. The people here are quite helpful that way
You do not 'validate' a theory by mathematics. Also, don't delude yourself by thinking you're doing as Newton and Einstein. Mathematics provides a formalisation for physical concepts and principles put forth by the person developing the work. It allows a rigorous framework to deduce the logical implications of the assumptions/postulates of the work, particularly in regards to predicting the precise outcomes of experiments. Mathematics cannot validate a physical theory, it cannot prove "This is correct physics" since mathematics is abstract, it is a logical mental construct used by physics for logical deduction. I can write down a logically consistent mathematical framework which I can then claim describes kinematics in the universe, just as Newton had Newtonian mechanics and Einstein had relativity. My version would be as mathematically sound as Newton and Einstein. So which is right, given the mathematics is fine with all of them? In fact we don't even need to consider me, both Newton and Einstein had mathematically sound formalisations but contradicted one another. Which is right? Maths cannot tell us because mathematics allows us to formalise many more possibilities than physical reality manifests. Newtonian mechanics uses the Euclidean inner product, special relativity uses the Lorentzian inner product, mathematics allows us to explore infinitely many other possible constructs, each with different inner products. It also allows us to explore the properties which would be inherent to ALL such formalisations, regardless of the choice of inner product. This is part of the power of formalising ideas using mathematics, it allows us to quantify the implications of a huge number of possibilities. If someone were to do an experiment which is in contradiction to a property known to be inherent to ALL inner product formalisations then that would be a huge piece of information, as it would mean an entirely different mathematical construct would have to be used. Mathematical development and consistency is necessary for a physical model to be viable as science but it is not sufficient. Nothing is ever sufficient to validate a physical model. At best experiments allow us to refute those models which predict things contrary to reality but that isn't enough. Experiments work as a black list, not a white list. A model passing experimental testing, getting published, even being widely accepted as the dominant method, is not put on a white list of "These are definitely correct" but rather it is not added to a black list of "These are definitely wrong". When a model is shown to be self contradictory or experimentally invalid it is added to the black list. No amount of work, theoretical or experimental, would ever get a model added to the corresponding white list. "Not known to be wrong" is not the same as "Known to be right". Oh and the "This isn't formatted problem" and "Our journal is not the most appropriate place for this" are two responses often told to hacks as polite versions of "This is obviously bat shit crazy, you're a nut. GO AWAY". Ask Farsight, he's had plenty of rejections Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think you want to prove 'my math' for 'my theory' as wrong. Fine, no harm in it; if you can prove 'my math' for 'my theory' as wrong. In that case a better math for 'my theory' has to be developed. There are evidences of better math being developed in Science.
I think you want to know, if i carried out any experiment to develope 'my theory'. Basically i was trying to develope 'a mathematical theory of success' and doing research about how our mind works. My observation is that 'everybody's mind work in a unique way'. That's how i developed 'my theory'. After developing this theory i developed the math for it and found that it can be generalised for any action. My theory is quite different from their discoveries.
Pathetic. AlphaNumeric's discussion was entirely lost on you. Math does not improve theories; it is a means for making numeric predictions or more exact than words descriptions. Almost all the math used in physics was developed by mathematicians who demand high rigor, more than 100 years ago. The only possible exception* I know of is the Dirac delta function and it lacked rigor in Dirac's stage of development but was so useful that mathematicians soon supplied the lacking mathematic rigor. Pathetic as you seem to suggest that all your theory needs is some more developments in math. What it need is clear expression (even just in words) and some test of predictions it can make. *Probably that too was known long ago, but I just don't know the history of mathematics well enough to know. You should drop all pretense that you have a scientific theory - You have a faith based POV.
I already clarified about AN's discussion in my post #174. My math is only a mathematical explanation of my theory for better understanding of it. There is nothing pathetic about it, if a better math can be developed for it. For example take the case of "gravity". Newton developed a math for it. Einstein developed a better math for it. And still people are trying to develope a better math for it. So, there is nothing wrong, if a better math can be developed at a later on time. I already mentioned in my post #174 that, I had a observation that 'everybody's mind work in a unique way'. From this observation I developed my theory as: "Every action has got an unique technique". My theory can predict "success". It can be said that Newton and Einstein's 'technique of action' matched with the 'technique of action' to discover their respective discoveries. So, they achieved 'success' with their respective discoveries. Now, there is a 'technique of action' to discover the math of 'quantum gravity' but nobody's 'technique of action' matched with this. So, 'quantum gravity' is not yet discovered. If you see any action from 'technique' point of view, it can be observed that every action has a 'technique'. However way you term it, this theory is my discovery and i have a valid math for its explanation.
YOU already asked me questions about my theory, which I have answered also. Still you are saying that, I have not revealed my theory. I think you also facing the same problem of understanding 'my theory' without 'my math' for this theory. 'My Math' is based on the 'principles of set-theory' with the 'Newtonian concept of force'.
