Questions about submitting papers for peer review

[Enos]

TL;DR Summary

Asking for advice.

Do papers done without the math get approved? I've got some ideas about how the universe works but I've just focused on intuitively understanding how GR works and never got interested in the math end until now that I'm finished. Or should I just focus on that part now?

 

[strangerep]

You should have started focusing on the math long ago.

Also, take a look at The Crackpot Index. You've already scored 10 points from item 15.

 

[Enos]

You should have started focusing on the math long ago.

Also, take a look at The Crackpot Index. You've already scored 10 points from item 15.

Lmao, yeah. I get it.

 

[Demystifier]

TL;DR Summary: Asking for advice.

Do papers done without the math get approved? I've got some ideas about how the universe works but I've just focused on intuitively understanding how GR works and never got interested in the math end until now that I'm finished. Or should I just focus on that part now?

If you developed an intuitive idea without any math, you cannot be finished. Your intuitive understanding of GR without math is almost certainly wrong, and you must be ready to gradually revise your intuition as you learn more and more math of GR. Einstein himself changed his view of GR several times during a period of 10 years of so, until he got the version that finally made sense.

 

[Enos]

If you developed an intuitive idea without any math, you cannot be finished. Your intuitive understanding of GR without math is almost certainly wrong, and you must be ready to gradually revise your intuition as you learn more and more math of GR. Einstein himself changed his view of GR several times during a period of 10 years of so, until he got the version that finally made sense.

Thanks for replying. Honestly I just focused on understanding relativity and time and seeing how the mysteries work in that perspective. I made this post out of frustration and was about to erase it. I had to accept that the next step is to do the work.

 

[PeroK]

Thanks for replying. Honestly I just focused on understanding relativity and time and seeing how the mysteries work in that perspective. I made this post out of frustration and was about to erase it. I had to accept that the next step is to do the work.

GR is a done deal, theoretically. It's a theory of quantum gravity that's needed. Or, an alternative MOND theory.

The work you talk about starts with getting a degree in physics. Physics, like many science subjects, now has a huge body of established theory, and it takes 10 years of hard study to get to the forefront of current research. The same is true if you had wanted to prove Fermat's Last Theorem or develop a COVID vaccine. There's nothing fundamental left for a lone, uneducated student to discover.

Also, the sad truth is that until you understand the mathematical basis of GR, you have no understanding of it at all. It's like you've been hitting a few tennis balls around your back yard and you think you could beat Djokovic. It's impossible to play tennis like him without years of practice and dedication.

 

[Enos]

GR is a done deal, theoretically. It's a theory of quantum gravity that's needed. Or, an alternative MOND theory.

The work you talk about starts with getting a degree in physics. Physics, like many science subjects, now has a huge body of established theory, and it takes 10 years of hard study to get to the forefront of current research. The same is true if you had wanted to prove Fermat's Last Theorem or develop a COVID vaccine. There's nothing fundamental left for a lone, uneducated student to discover.

Also, the sad truth is that until you understand the mathematical basis of GR, you have no understanding of it at all. It's like you've been hitting a few tennis balls around your back yard and you think you could beat Djokovic. It's impossible to play tennis like him without years of practice and dedication.

I'm not here to argue about how wrong I am for something I haven't even discussed. I just wanted an opinion on peer reviews.

 

[martinbn]

I'm not here to argue about how wrong I am for something I haven't even discussed. I just wanted an opinion on peer reviews.

From the dictionary peers = one that is of equal standing with another : equal. Do you have a degree in physics?

 

[PeroK]

I'm not here to argue about how wrong I am for something I haven't even discussed. I just wanted an opinion on peer reviews.

No serious journal or professional physicist will look at your work. They'll consider it a waste of time. That's my opinion. They simply won't consider you a peer of theirs. You may consider yourself a leading physicist; but they won't.

Some (so-called predatory) journals will publish almost anything as long you pay them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_publishing

 

[Enos]

From the dictionary peers = one that is of equal standing with another : equal. Do you have a degree in physics?

So equal is defined by degrees... Math is pretty hard.

 

[PeroK]

So equal is defined by degrees... Math is pretty hard.

Yeah, it's tough. You can't even pull people's teeth out these days without a degree in dentistry!

 

[Enos]

No serious journal or professional physicist will look at your work. They'll consider it a waste of time. That's my opinion. They simply won't consider you a peer of theirs. You may consider yourself a leading physicist; but they won't.

Some (so-called predatory) journals will publish almost anything as long you pay them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_publishing

Thanks for your honest reply. I'm already starting to see the pattern of how peers will review it just by the hostility of these replies.

 

[martinbn]

So equal is defined by degrees... Math is pretty hard.

In this context yes. But if you have any other way to show that you have the background knowledge and skills, please tell us.

Thanks for your honest reply. I'm already starting to see the pattern of how peers will review it just by the hostility of these replies.

The replies are not hostile, just because you don't like them.

 

[Demystifier]

Thanks for your honest reply. I'm already starting to see the pattern of how peers will review it just by the hostility of these replies.

Imagine that someone came to the body-builder forum and said: "I don't have much of muscles but I think I know how to pose in front of mirror, can I apply to the professional body-builder competition? Or should I build some muscles first?" What do you think how the "peers" would reply, do you think they might be a bit hostile?

 

[Frabjous]

TL;DR Summary: Asking for advice.

I've just focused on intuitively understanding how GR works and never got interested in the math

So equal is defined by degrees

An intuitive understanding is a partial understanding. This will be reflected in your work. It is not a question of credentials.

 

[Enos]

In this context yes. But if you have any other way to show that you have the background knowledge and skills, please tell us.

The replies are not hostile, just because you don't like them.

Fair enough. I don't like being called unequal. But I do agree I earned the crackpot points.

Imagine that someone came to the body-builder forum and said: "I don't have much of muscles but I think I know how to pose in front of mirror, can I apply to the professional body-builder competition? Or should I build some muscles first?" What do you think how the "peers" would reply, do you think they might be a bit hostile?

Lol good point. And pretty much the plot to the movie ice princess.

An intuitive understanding is a partial understanding. This will be reflected in your work. It is not a question of credentials.

Is there any actual understanding in the areas I set my focus on though. Which would be the big bang and the nature of black holes?

 

[AndreasC]

Is there any actual understanding in the areas I set my focus on though. Which would be the big bang and the nature of black holes?

There is a lot of knowledge on these areas. But here is the problem. I can tell you you need to learn at LEAST cosmology, general relativity (which you need for cosmology anyways), and quantum field theory in curved spacetime AT LEAST to deal seriously with these subjects.

However, to learn cosmology you need to learn (other than general relativity) also electromagnetic fields, classical mechanics, thermodynamics and statistical physics, maybe also particle physics in general FIRST. To learn general relativity you have to already know the basics of special relativity, and understand well various mathematical methods of classical mechanics. To learn quantum field theory in curved spacetime you need of course quantum field theory, and to know that you first need to learn (non relativistic) quantum mechanics. To learn all these things you need to know linear algebra and calculus, and then on top of that learn about Hilbert spaces, differential geometry, for the curved spacetime stuff maybe also some functional analysis etc. In other words, to even begin to approach these subjects seriously, you need almost the whole package of what you learn in a physics undergraduate program, plus lots and lots of other, extra stuff that is too advanced even for a master's degree sometimes.

So there is no point in someone telling you on what to focus. You have to focus on everything first, and then specialize. There is (for better or for worse) no way to just skip all these things and go straight to these very advanced subjects. The only people who work on these things and haven't gone through the whole physics degree thing are probably some mathematicians, however they had to go through a similar deal to learn extremely advanced mathematics, and then also learn some of the physics. So that's an even longer road.

This is the reason people expect you to at least have a degree. If not you have to somehow demonstrate you have what it takes to engage with these subjects.

 

[Frabjous]

Is there any actual understanding in the areas I set my focus on though. Which would be the big bang and the nature of black holes?

Yes there is. One can argue if it is correct or complete, but one will need math to make predictions with the new theory in order to change belief.

 

[PeroK]

Is there any actual understanding in the areas I set my focus on though. Which would be the big bang and the nature of black holes?

If you study the subject seriously, then you'll find out. Black holes and the Big Bang are well understood as far as GR goes, but a theory of quantum gravity is needed. That's the sticking point. If you wanted to publish a paper on Quantum Gravity, this is the sort of thing that peer-reviewed journals would expect. For example, here's an "introduction" to QG:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.3269.pdf

That's the sort of thing you'd be aiming for, in terms of a publishable paper.

Alternatively, there's the open question to explain galaxy rotation curves, with the options being broadly Dark Matter on one hand or MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) on the other. Again, here is an example paper on the subject of MOND:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.11067.pdf

Again, this is the sort of thing journals are looking for.

Note also that data is critical in the debate about a subject like this. If you wanted to contribute to the debate on Dark Matter vs MOND you would need access to the experimental data on galactic rotation curves. And be able to run computer models to test a theory against the known data.

Note also that papers nowadays usually have three or four joint authors. Physics has become a team effort. Some of the big questions (like analysing the Muon-g experiment) involved teams all round the world collaborating.

This is the reality of physics research in 2023.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks for your honest reply. I'm already starting to see the pattern of how peers will review it just by the hostility of these replies.

You're getting a little snark, but no open hostility. Most of the replies are completely flat. Quite honestly your error in approach is truly breathtaking, and pointing out a massive error sounds bad.

But maybe also look at it from the other direction: some of the guys replying are actual professional physicists. Your approach is a huge insult to them.

 

[PeroK]

You're getting a little snark, but no open hostility. Quite honestly your error in approach is truly breathtaking.

But not uncommon!

 

[Vanadium 50]

You first tried to get your theory aired here 17 years ago. In that time, you could have gone to college and earned an entire degree in mathematics. And then done it again three more times. You can complain about "hostility" all you want, but the fact is that you didn't put the work in.

 

[russ_watters]

An intuitive understanding is a partial understanding. This will be reflected in your work. It is not a question of credentials.

That might be true as phased (1% is "partial"), but math is the hard part, which these guys always lack. You don't necessarily have to go to school to learn it, but almost nobody ever has learned it alone. Also:

Is there any actual understanding in the areas I set my focus on though. Which would be the big bang and the nature of black holes?

Do you mean can you understand it without math? Only very superficially. These theories are almost nothing but math.

 

[Enos]

I understand how nuts I sound and I most likely am. And yes I agree that learning physics is my next step and I'll wait until I learn enough to put my thoughts into something that can make a prediction. Or learn enough to know I'm wrong. My drive to learn is peeking now because I finally reached a framework in my head that works and I want to work on proving it. As I mentioned before, I made this post out of frustration because I felt as if I knew how to speak a language but I haven't bothered to learn how to read and write it. I guess I took the quote “You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.” quite literally. Thanks for your replies and I apologize for taking some of the replies personally.

 

[strangerep]

It's like you've been hitting a few tennis balls around your back yard and you think you could beat Djokovic.

It's worse than that. It's like imagining hitting some tennis balls on a court, and then thinking one could beat any experienced player.

 

[Enos]

It's worse than that. It's like imagining hitting some tennis balls on a court, and then thinking one could beat any experienced player.

It's like schrodinger's cat. My thoughts could be both right and wrong until observed.

 

[haushofer]

Another question: do you know of anyone without formal academic training who developed a groundbreaking theory in physics the last, say, 50 years?

I personally do know many, many people without this training who think they have developed such a theory.

The point is: people often underestimate the skill of research, because they confuse it with plain reading. Without the stringent constraints of math and peer review and with huge emotional investments and logical fallacies like confirmation bias, one quickly is lead astray. Hell, even with peer review and mathematical consistency.

Good luck!

 

[Enos]

Another question: do you know of anyone without formal academic training who developed a groundbreaking theory in physics the last, say, 50 years?

I personally do know many, many people without this training who think they have developed such a theory.

The point is: people often underestimate the skill of research, because they confuse it with plain reading. Without the stringent constraints of math and peer review and with huge emotional investments and logical fallacies like confirmation bias, one quickly is lead astray. Hell, even with peer review and mathematical consistency.

Good luck!

I'm aware of the fact that I don't study physics the same way everyone else does. In my point of view, or at least the fun part was to visualize how all the rules of equivalence, relativity, and everything worked together so I could try make sense of the mysteries in physics without breaking all those rules. But yeah, now that I did make sense of them finally. I'm going to learn physics the way everyone else does to prove it. I'm just starting my first year at university so I'm pretty excited.

 

[Vanadium 50]

To be honest, I was hoping this thread would have died down after #24 or so. That would have been a good stopping point.

There is a fundamental idea here that is being missed. That is that scientific publications are a form of dialog. The usual advice is "publish in the journals you are reading". If you aren't reading any, you are effectively saying "you should listen to me, but I don't want to listen to you."

How well do you think this will go over?

 

[sbrothy]

[...]Note also that papers nowadays usually have three or four joint authors. Physics has become a team effort. [...] collaborating.

This is the reality of physics research in 2023.

Collaboration is the salient point here. Most of the newest papers on experimental physics on arxiv doesn't even bother to mention the authors anymore. It's the "ATLAS Collaboration", the "CMS Collaboration", the "STAR Collaboration" and so forth.

The heydays of the "natural philosopher" are well and truly over. Theoretical physics may still have the lone genius but even Einstein didn't develop his theories alone.

 

[Demystifier]

I'm just starting my first year at university so I'm pretty excited.

Good luck!

 

[berkeman]

Collaboration is the salient point here. Most of the newest papers on experimental physics on arxiv doesn't even bother to mention the authors anymore. It's the "ATLAS Collaboration", the "CMS Collaboration", the "STAR Collaboration" and so forth.

The heydays of the "natural philosopher" are well and truly over. Theoretical physics may still have the lone genius but even Einstein didn't develop his theories alone.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-about-the-nobel-prize-rule-of-three.1056063/

 

[sbrothy]

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-about-the-nobel-prize-rule-of-three.1056063/

That does indeed seem unfair. The "maintenance" guy servicing the superconducting magnets or whatever is probably every bit as educated as the guys actually writing the paper. He or she must be left with a rather bad taste in his/her mouth.

No, the world just isn't fair. :(