ajb

LOL... you will learn in the world of publishing it is never quite that simple. I am sorry, but you are coming across so naïve and not showing much humility. You are young and full of yourself, I accept that. Which is why - in mathematics for sure - it is usually best to go for a specalist journal. If the results are of interest to a wider group then maybe a more general maths journal will take the paper - typically more general journals have higher IF. Anyway, look at the journals that the papers you cite are published in.

This one is for Near-Death Webmaster

They reject about 92 or 93% of the papers they get... think about that. The odds are very stacked against you from the start! Yes, and then select a journal or two to submit your paper to. Your chances of getting the paper accepted will be better in other journals. You stand a better chance if the journal has already published something similar. Thats a different question... but it maybe the case that once you have one article published you stand a better chance of getting another accepted. I don't know and it does not matter as you have not published in Nature before.

Okay, if you really think so - but this is not really how research works. But that maybe another topic. You will need to learn basic. It is not hard to get the basics. I am learning new things in LaTex all the time. Also with Nature, be aware that they publish only 7 or 8% of the papers sent to them. Just playing the numbers game here, I think your chance of acceptence is low. The usual thing to do is look at your bibliography and see what journals your refrences appear in. Go for one of those - that is my honest advice.

Rejection from Nature I mean - maybe not in general. The reason is, as I have said many times now, is that Nature is a very hard journal publish a paper. Simple as that. I have not said that. Only that the usual thing to do - and as you have no experience this maybe very helpful - is to discuss drafts of the paper with experts. Maybe there is someome at your university that can offer you direct help?

I think you worry about this too much. As this will be you first paper it may not be obvious to you when it is ready. It helps to have some kind of mentor or at least a few experts you can ask for their opinions on the paper. More than that ... I am saying sending the paper to Nature will almost certianly result in rejection. Rejection is part of life - you almost expect it from the higher ranking journals. Right now I am having problems with a paper! There is no sanction if you get rejected. Just you cannot resubmit the paper unless asked to do so. Or you can try to fight with the editors - this usually does not work. The rest of the post seems off topic.

I really think it is you that is missing the point that Nature is very very fussy and very very very hard to get published in. By far most of the papers they get sent are rejected at the editorial stage without peer-review. I expect that - just based on how journals work and what you have said so far - your paper will be rejected at the editorial stage. You should show a full version to some experts in the subjects you write about and see if they share my opinion. I could be wrong and your work is a game changer and opens up new things... but in all honesty very few works are actually like that.

I am not following your arguments here at all. The fact is Nature is very very very difficult to get published in. It is a real achievement to get a paper accepted in Nature. That is why I think - given your background and experiences - that you are aiming too high. I for one do not expect to ever publish in Nature - they are not really interested in maths.

IF = Impact Factor I have never paid myself or used grant money for open access - the reason is simply I put all my papers of the arXiv, so people can get them anyway. I would not pay from my own pocket. I would use grant money or something similar. Sometimes editors can reduce or remove fees - if they have any. They can do this if you are from a poor country. I am not sure if Turkey is poor in this sense. You would have to ask the journals yourself about this. You do not seem to understand how difficult it is to get published in Nature. And since you have no experience here, I would suggest that other journals are more sutiable. For example, how many papers in the bibliography of your paper are published in Nature? Also, Nature does not tend to publish mathematical works in general.

We essentially have two choices i) Stick with the idea that general relativity is okay (for the scales we are talking about) and add some 'dark matter'. ii) Look at modifying general relativity. Both have been suggested and looked. Modified versions of Newtonian gravity are generally thought not to work properly. For one they seem not to account for all rotation curves. Secondly, one needs ad-hoc corrections to general relativity to get a non-Newtonian non-relativistic limit - the theory is not so nice in this respect. Other kinds of modifications to general relativity have been thought about also. However, it is known - and known for a long time for f[R] theories - that Lagrangians build from the standard curvature tensors are equivalent to general relativity + matter - they can always been reformulated in this way, but the matter may be exotic. So it is generally thought that modifications of general relativity in this way are not really going to answer the question of dark matter. The general thinking today is that particle physics has the answer. You maybe thinking of dark energy - this is the root of the acceleration of the expansion that we see today. But there is some loose connection here - details of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) seem to fit the Lambda CDM model. This model has both some form of dark energy and dark matter. ----------------- Edit: The person who made the initial post has been banned. But we can still discuss some of this if anyone is interested?

Sounds trivial - my brain is a brain.

Bad form replying to a mod note. Anyway there is no evidence from quantm physics about life after death.

Kaku sketches some things in his book on quantum field theory. It is not the best, but it will give you something to start with.

I tend to find a journal and look for the IF on their website. It is usually quite clear if that have one. I have never paid for a publication to appear - so I don't know how the cost of open access compares across journals. I don't know if this is linked to IF. To be honest, I would forget Nature as place you try to submit your first paper. Unless others who know your work - say PhD supervisor or something suggests it. As you are maths focused I am also doubtful that Nature is that interested, but I could be wrong. The best thing to do is to submit to journals that have published the papers you are reading as part of your background work.

I can't recall much from the top of my head - but you are looking for irreducible representations of the (complete) Lorentz group. It is not just tensors you are interested but also spinor reps.

I don't think they really care - meaning the editors and referees - what journals the reference you give are in, as long as you reference are sensible and up to date. I think that they generally agree with other methods of ranking. The Impact Factor seems to be the one most people use. So find a journal that has publsihed the papers you are reading and rank then using IF. (Not that I like IF, but it is what people use) Some journals you can pay to make the articles avaliable to everyone. Some good journals have this option.

You need to look at the representaion theory of the Lorentz group...

Is it not just the ratio [math]R^2 / M[/math]?

It depends exactly what you mean by model - we can construct theories that do not match nature well. Anyway, I still don't see how this relates to time being an intrinstic part of mathematics.

"...firing of nearly 8,800 policemen, and the arrests of 6,000 soldiers, 2,700 judges and prosecutors, dozens of governors, and more than 100 generals – or just under one-third of the general corps". It looks like the country really is going to shoot itself in the foot here.

blue89 - I hope Erdogan and Yildirim's changes don't change things for you too much. Stay safe.

Details are for another thread... but essentially the communist party - Polish run but set up by Moscow - made sure that those who could put an argument together why Poland should not be communist were got rid of. The same happened to the Polish Free Army that fought the Germans, many were got rid of.

This is the worry... others have done similar things in the past to keep their position. A good example is the near civil war here in Poland after WWII.

The revenge of Prime Minister Binali Yildirim is worrying. We have seen this kind of action before throught history - chop off the heads of those who can think for themsevles. Same of the purge of the armed forces. We have seen this before... "More than 1,500 university deans have also been ordered to resign and the licences of 21,000 teachers working at private institutions revoked." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36838347

So, still no then.