Should I Copyright or Publish My New Theory of Quantum Gravity?

  • Thread starter cbd1
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Theory
In summary, this person has completed a theory of quantum gravity, which is two theories, one regarding GR and one regarding QM. They have not published before, and their original thought was to copyright the idea and have their name on it before presenting it to published theoretical physicists. However, most professionals do not publish papers of this length, and an idea is only worth publishing if it has been supported by math and/or experiments/observations. Also, the idea should not be too long for a journal to accept, and the author should be able to summarize it well.
  • #36
Just upload the paper here. Then there will be no doubt that on 4/1/11 (or 4/2/11), cbd1 presented this idea to the world.

Or don't, because the Admin will steal your idea, pull down your post and shut down physicsforums.com and run away with your idea...

Im not trying to be a dick about this, but in order to establish your name to your idea to the world, you got to show it to the world. You could easily create your own website, publish your book on the site and there can be no arguing when the idea was made public and who is attached to the idea.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
hitmeoff said:
Just upload the paper here. Then there will be no doubt that on 4/1/11 (or 4/2/11), cbd1 presented this idea to the world.

This I agree with. It also gives the benefit that you'd get feedback.
You could easily create your own website, publish your book on the site and there can be no arguing when the idea was made public and who is attached to the idea.

I wouldn't advise this. It wouldn't serve to prove anything.

You need it on an independent site / area that will date stamp it in a way that cannot be altered (or won't be) by anyone.
 
  • #38
hitmeoff said:
Just upload the paper here.

The only place here where he can do that is our Independent Research forum, and then only if he can meet the guidelines for that forum (posted in a sticky there).
 
  • #39
Yes, I did compare SR and GR to what I'm doing, in that they didn't require citing a bunch of other works, because they were pioneering, like this would be IF it works out in the equations, as I believe/hope it should.

Wait, are you implying that your theory is *not* in mathematical form? If so, I can tell you right now that absolutely no one will take it seriously.
 
  • #40
Manchot said:
Wait, are you implying that your theory is *not* in mathematical form? If so, I can tell you right now that absolutely no one will take it seriously.

Ooh, well spotted. I suppose it answers why it takes 90 pages to explain it.
 
  • #42
Ok, I think this thread is done.
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
348
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
4K
Back
Top