Where to formally submit a theory?

[Fraggle Rocker]

Does anyone know where I would formally submit a theory I have about the Universe? How do people get proper credit for such theories if they prove to be validated? I'm mean, if you throw a unique theory on the Internet is that just inviting people to take it and run away with it? How does science keep track of who thought of what?

Make an appointment, in the nearest university, with the dean of the department in which your theory belongs. He can set you up with a graduate student who can evaluate it for you.

 

[Dean64]

Does anyone know where I would formally submit a theory I have about the Universe? How do people get proper credit for such theories if they prove to be validated? I'm mean, if you throw a unique theory on the Internet is that just inviting people to take it and run away with it? How does science keep track of who thought of what?

Don't hold out on us. What good is your theory if you can't open it up for discussion? I promise we'll give you all the credit. After all, you posted it here first! Here is my theory:

The Big Bang theory is correct but it exists as part of a much larger scale, one that we cannot begin to comprehend. There are an infinite number of galaxy's but they are likely too far apart from each other to have any relation to a neighbouring galaxy. Each one of these galaxies exist as part of a "Big Bang/Big Crunch" cycle. These cycles do not exist as a single event in our universe or any other universe but only one of an infinite amount of repeating events. To say the "Big Crunch" and the "Big Bang" has happened a million times over in our (or any other) universe is likely a gross understatement. Time as we perceive it, is moving on a very slow pace, almost at a standstill. In order to comprehend these events, imagine our universe and everything in it, the Big Bang, and the Big Crunch, as being one power stroke inside of one piston, in one engine, in one car, on our planet. All over and repeated again in a split second. Also, time and history repeats itself, to a certain extent, as the universe expands and contracts.

 

[rpenner]

Does anyone know where I would formally submit a theory I have about the Universe? How do people get proper credit for such theories if they prove to be validated? I'm mean, if you throw a unique theory on the Internet is that just inviting people to take it and run away with it? How does science keep track of who thought of what?

The first thing to do is to make sure your theory is a theory in the same sense of the word as is used in science.

A "scientific theory" is a communicable framework which precisely describes the observable behavior of a large domain of related phenomena.

1) "communicable" because human beings can teach it to other humans who are willing and able. That way we can talk about THE quantum mechanics rather than "Joe's quantum mechanics" and "Mary's quantum mechanics." The best scientific theories are the inheritance of all humans.
2) "framework" because physical theories define their own terms. Reality comes with no labels, so humans invent them to suit human purposes. "time" and "straight line" mean something different in Newtonian theories and post-1916 physical theories."position" and "momentum" and "particle" mean something different in Newtonian theories and quantum mechanics.
3) "precisely describes" because it uses math and the math of uncertainty associated with physical measurements allows us to compare the output of theory with the observations of phenomena. Thus precision is valued and a universally more precise physical theory is valued over others.
4) "observable behavior ... of ... phenomena" because physics isn't about what things "really are" but about how phenomena behave. Physics is about testable ideas about the behavior of things, not about making untestable claims about the "why" behind the behavior. No one has ever needed to say what an electron "really is" in order to explain how radios and computers work. Even if we learn something radically new about the electron, that won't change the precision of our existing physical theories.
5) "large domain of related phenomena" because the history of physics has been one of unification. Someone observes that gasses can be compressed and the pressure goes up. Someone observes that gases can be heated and the pressure goes up. These empirical observational rules-of-thumb are unified in "the ideal gas law." These in turn are unified with chemical observations of ratios of pure substances in "atomic theory" which covers a large domain.

So writing the paper usually begins with describing at least one phenomenon, explaining why the state-of-the-art theories are unsatisfactory (which perforce requires the ability to work with those state-of-the-art theories) and then introducing your hypothetical framework and explaining how it does a better job. Bonus points for giving other examples of phenomena and precisely comparing observation and theory.

The Big Bang theory is correct but it exists as part of a much larger scale, one that we cannot begin to comprehend. There are an infinite number of galaxy's but they are likely too far apart from each other to have any relation to a neighbouring galaxy. Each one of these galaxies exist as part of a "Big Bang/Big Crunch" cycle. These cycles do not exist as a single event in our universe or any other universe but only one of an infinite amount of repeating events. To say the "Big Crunch" and the "Big Bang" has happened a million times over in our (or any other) universe is likely a gross understatement. Time as we perceive it, is moving on a very slow pace, almost at a standstill. In order to comprehend these events, imagine our universe and everything in it, the Big Bang, and the Big Crunch, as being one power stroke inside of one piston, in one engine, in one car, on our planet. All over and repeated again in a split second. Also, time and history repeats itself, to a certain extent, as the universe expands and contracts.

1) The basic big bang theory is that GR and the other laws of physics are consistent with a history of the universe that used to be absurdly hotter and denser in the finite past and these initial conditions give rise to primordial nuclide abundances, cosmic microwave background radiation with a thermal spectrum which cools over time, and Hubble expansion.
2) At no point do you give a communicable framework for precisely predicting any behavior.
3) At no point to you connect with observable behavior of phenomena, as you postulate that billions of years of observation are needed to track your theory.
4) Your theory flies in the face of the three main observational pillars of basic big bang theory, therefore observation defeats your theory.
5) Your theory flies in the face of the morphological distribution of millions of observed galaxies as none are imploding.
6) Your theory flies in the face of the evidence that galaxies collide and Andromeda is currently crashing into us.
7) Your theory does not explain the observational success of basic big bang theory when you have to throw out at least GR and probably other laws of physics to make it work. Physical laws don't just switch off because they are philosophically inconvenient, therefore you need to rewrite all of physics before you have a hypothesis without large observational gaps left unexplained.

 

[TheFrogger]

Why not post your theory on sciforums??

 

[Dean64]

The first thing to do is to make sure your theory is a theory in the same sense of the word as is used in science.

A "scientific theory" is a communicable framework which precisely describes the observable behavior of a large domain of related phenomena.



So writing the paper usually begins with describing at least one phenomenon, explaining why the state-of-the-art theories are unsatisfactory (which perforce requires the ability to work with those state-of-the-art theories) and then introducing your hypothetical framework and explaining how it does a better job. Bonus points for giving other examples of phenomena and precisely comparing observation and theory.


1) The basic big bang theory is that GR and the other laws of physics are consistent with a history of the universe that used to be absurdly hotter and denser in the finite past and these initial conditions give rise to primordial nuclide abundances, cosmic microwave background radiation with a thermal spectrum which cools over time, and Hubble expansion.
2) At no point do you give a communicable framework for precisely predicting any behavior.
3) At no point to you connect with observable behavior of phenomena, as you postulate that billions of years of observation are needed to track your theory.
4) Your theory flies in the face of the three main observational pillars of basic big bang theory, therefore observation defeats your theory.
5) Your theory flies in the face of the morphological distribution of millions of observed galaxies as none are imploding.
6) Your theory flies in the face of the evidence that galaxies collide and Andromeda is currently crashing into us.
7) Your theory does not explain the observational success of basic big bang theory when you have to throw out at least GR and probably other laws of physics to make it work. Physical laws don't just switch off because they are philosophically inconvenient, therefore you need to rewrite all of physics before you have a hypothesis without large observational gaps left unexplained.

The purpose of my post was to draw some discussion on these thoughts as opposed to hearing about how incorrect and unsupported they are. They are, however, supported in every way by drawing a reasonable hypothesis from existing theories. For example:
1) you give reference to the "finite past", the very definition of the word does not even exist in the universe that surrounds you but you embrace the idea of a beginning and an end because it provides a storybook explanation to your existence. Where it started, where it ends. There is no end, only a new beginning, never ending, infinite.
2) I don't need to provide a communicable framework for precisely predicting any behavior. Why? Because I know there is no brick wall on the outside of our universe. It's infinite. What I do know is that matter exists in our universe and if it is, indeed, infinite then there is an infinite possibility for other parallel universes to exist. An infinite amount of them!
3) I have about as much understanding about the universe as an ant crawling across the sidewalk. Anyone that claims different is blindly arrogant so yes, all I can do is postulate.
4) True, my theory is well beyond possible direct observation.
5) Black holes... they aren't getting any smaller...
6) Irrelevant
7) ok

 

[rpenner]

1) The basic big bang theory is that GR and the other laws of physics are consistent with a history of the universe that used to be absurdly hotter and denser in the finite past and these initial conditions give rise to primordial nuclide abundances, cosmic microwave background radiation with a thermal spectrum which cools over time, and Hubble expansion.

1) you give reference to the "finite past", the very definition of the word does not even exist in the universe that surrounds you but you embrace the idea of a beginning and an end because it provides a storybook explanation to your existence. Where it started, where it ends. There is no end, only a new beginning, never ending, infinite.

Your objection to finite past is based on an unstated metaphysics which has nothing to do with science. Due to the finite propagation speed of signals, all we ever experience is the past. And just because there are hot, surprisingly uniform, dense initial conditions doesn't mean that is THE beginning, but rather the beginning of modern physical theory, which does no imply an end. Your assertions are based on aesthetics and metaphysics and don't appear to be communicable, let alone part of science.

2) At no point do you give a communicable framework for precisely predicting any behavior.

2) I don't need to provide a communicable framework for precisely predicting any behavior. Why? Because I know there is no brick wall on the outside of our universe. It's infinite. What I do know is that matter exists in our universe and if it is, indeed, infinite then there is an infinite possibility for other parallel universes to exist. An infinite amount of them!

Without the ability to describe the behavior of things which are observable, your ideas fail to qualify as science. Physics isn't about knowing what stuff IS, but how things behave. The spatial extent of the universe has no bearing on what the definition of science is. Your ability to count or define inaccessible parallel universes is based on neither fact nor logic, so may be illusory.

3) At no point to you connect with observable behavior of phenomena, as you postulate that billions of years of observation are needed to track your theory.

3) I have about as much understanding about the universe as an ant crawling across the sidewalk. Anyone that claims different is blindly arrogant so yes, all I can do is postulate.

Postulating without ever going back to check if your guesses are right is not science. You have arrogance backwards, as it is humble to seek observations to prune one's guessing of those ideas which do not work.

4) Your theory flies in the face of the three main observational pillars of basic big bang theory, therefore observation defeats your theory.

4) True, my theory is well beyond possible direct observation.

That's not what I said. I said you were proven wrong as you incorrectly describe the extragalactic cosmos and primordial isotope distributions.

5) Your theory flies in the face of the morphological distribution of millions of observed galaxies as none are imploding.

5) Black holes... they aren't getting any smaller...

Black holes don't implode galaxies for the same reason stars don't implode planetary systems. They are inefficient eaters at best, struggling against conservation of angular momentum to hit a very small target.

6) Your theory flies in the face of the evidence that galaxies collide and Andromeda is currently crashing into us.

6) Irrelevant

Why are galactic collisions irrelevant when you say:

There are an infinite number of galaxy's but they are likely too far apart from each other to have any relation to a neighboring galaxy.

Indeed, we do have evidence of galaxies orbiting and even clusters of galaxies which are gravitationally bound.

7) Your theory does not explain the observational success of basic big bang theory when you have to throw out at least GR and probably other laws of physics to make it work. Physical laws don't just switch off because they are philosophically inconvenient, therefore you need to rewrite all of physics before you have a hypothesis without large observational gaps left unexplained.

7) ok

If you really understood point 7, you wouldn't have objected to points 1-6.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have about as much understanding about the universe as an ant crawling across the sidewalk.

Agreed.

 

[Dean64]

Your objection to finite past is based on an unstated metaphysics which has nothing to do with science. Due to the finite propagation speed of signals, all we ever experience is the past. And just because there are hot, surprisingly uniform, dense initial conditions doesn't mean that is THE beginning, but rather the beginning of modern physical theory, which does no imply an end. Your assertions are based on aesthetics and metaphysics and don't appear to be communicable, let alone part of science.
Without the ability to describe the behavior of things which are observable, your ideas fail to qualify as science. Physics isn't about knowing what stuff IS, but how things behave. The spatial extent of the universe has no bearing on what the definition of science is. Your ability to count or define inaccessible parallel universes is based on neither fact nor logic, so may be illusory.
Postulating without ever going back to check if your guesses are right is not science. You have arrogance backwards, as it is humble to seek observations to prune one's guessing of those ideas which do not work.
That's not what I said. I said you were proven wrong as you incorrectly describe the extragalactic cosmos and primordial isotope distributions.
Black holes don't implode galaxies for the same reason stars don't implode planetary systems. They are inefficient eaters at best, struggling against conservation of angular momentum to hit a very small target.
Why are galactic collisions irrelevant when you say:

​

Indeed, we do have evidence of galaxies orbiting and even clusters of galaxies which are gravitationally bound.
If you really understood point 7, you wouldn't have objected to points 1-6.

Thank you for your highly intellectual, thought provoking replies. You are obviously a highly revered expert in the field. Unlike that one ball guy and his pointless banter. He must've been repeatedly beat up in high school or something.