Advice on submitting a scientific paper

[Farsight]

I've now completed my paper. It's 40 pages long, 22,730 words, and 873k in PDF format. The title and abstract is below. Canybody give me any advice regarding submission or endorsement? I'm registered with arXiv, and have printed the arViv.org > help > submit_pdf and related pages.

 

A qualitative 3+1 dimensional geometrical model: RELATIVITY+

 

Abstract

Current avenues within physics have so far failed to offer an intuitive understanding of the significant features of the universe. I present a new qualitative model built upon a re-examination of concepts that are customarily accepted as fundamental and irreducible. The new qualitative model refers repeatedly to the tenets of Special Relativity and the subsuming General Relativity, throws new light on The Standard Model, and is expected to redirect and refocus interpretation thereof via the delivery of powerful insight into the nature of time, energy, mass, charge, gravity, space, and particles.

 

 

1 Introduction

 

In comparison to the advances of the early twentieth century, physics appears to be at an impasse. Its popularity amongst the population at large appears to be falling, and it appears to be in danger of losing its senior science status to biology. The detailed reasons for this are beyond the scope of this paper, but simple logic dictates that if a rigorous mathematical approach cannot provide the answers we seek, then we must take a searching look at the axioms we use therein. To this end I have returned to first principles to analyse a set of basic concepts that are considered by many to be unsuitable for examination, either because understanding is already presumed, or because such concepts are considered to be fundamental. My analysis indicates that such is not the case, and the result is new understanding that dispels many former mysteries...

[PhDP]

40 pages long ? I hope it's double-spaced.

 

BTW, if you're using LaTeX to write your paper; lineno is a good package for line numbering.

[ydoaPs]

BTW, if you're using LaTeX to write your paper; lineno is a good package for line numbering.

 

Are you kidding? You expect him to make mathematical predictions?

[PhDP]

Are you kidding? You expect him to make mathematical predictions?

 

I don't know, I have not read his draft or anything about his work. And I use LaTeX even when there's no equations.

[iNow]

Farsight - Without math or predictions, it's an editorial, not a scientific paper. Also, would you share your references section here with us? That might mitigate some of my disbelief, but I remain skeptical.

[ydoaPs]

Introduction

Energy Explained

Mass Explained

Gravity Explained

Time Explained

Relativity+

Charge Explained

There you go Phil. Read them at your own risk.

[Klaynos]

If you honestly think physics has reached an impasse and that rigorous mathematical approach cannot provide the answers, then you understand less than I thought you did.

[Farsight]

Phil: It's just a word document converted to PDF. There's virtually no mathematics, and it's single spaced. I've used Times New Roman, and was just about to increase the font size.

 

iNow: Here's my references. As to whether it's an editorial or a scientific paper, that's why I'm looking for advice.

 

Klaynos: Any advice you can give will be welcome. I can clear up about half of these: Unsolved_problems_in_physics

 

References

 

[1] Turin, Luca ; “A spectroscopic mechanism for primary olfactory reception”, Chemical Senses 21(6):773-791 (1996).

 

[2] Folsing, A.; “Albert Einstein: A Biography”, page 261, Penguin Books (1998).

 

[3] The collected papers of Albert Einstein, volume 6, the Berlin years, writings 1914-1917, document 30, “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity”. Translator Alfred Engel, Edited by A. J. Kox, Martin J. Klein, and Robert Schulmann. Princeton University Press (1997).

 

[4] The collected papers of Albert Einstein, volume 7, the Berlin years, writings 1918-1921. Translator Alfred Engel. Edited by Michel Janssen, Robert Schulmann, József Illy, and Christoph Lehner, and Diana Kormos Buchwald. Princeton University Press (1997).

 

[5] Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Albert Einstein, chapter 22: "A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity" (1920).

 

[6] Yourgrau, P; “A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein”, page 113, Basic Books (2005).

 

[7] Yourgrau, P; “A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein”, front flap, Basic Books (2005).

 

[8] Eaton, P. E. ; Zhang, M. ; Gilardi, R. ; Gelber, N. ; Iyer, S. ; Surapaneni, R. ; “Octanitrocubane: A New Nitrocarbon”, Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 27, 1-6 (2002).

 

[9] Williamson, J. G. ; van der Mark, M. B. ; “Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?” Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133 (1997)

 

[10] Kiehn, R. M. ; (2004-2nd edition 2007 ) Cosmology, Falaco Solitons and the Arrow of Time, "Non-Equilibrium Systems and Irreversible Processes Vol 2", Lulu Enterprises, Inc., 3131 RDU Center, Suite 210, Morrisville, NC 27560. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): (http://www.lulu.com/kiehn).

 

[11] Ashby, N. ; “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”, Living Reviews in Relativity, Volume 6, 2003-1. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1

 

[12] Pound, R. V.; Rebka Jr. G. A. ; "Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance", Physical Review Letters 3: 439-441 (1959).

 

[13] Shapiro, Irwin, I. ; "Fourth Test of General Relativity", Physical Review Letters 13: 789-791 (1964).

 

[14] Moffat, J. ; “Superluminary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Initial Value Problem in Cosmology”, Int.J.Mod.Phys. D2 351-366 (1993). URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:gr-qc/9211020v2

 

[15] Albrecht, A. ; Magueijo, J. ; "A time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles", Phys.Rev. D59 (1999) 043516. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:astro-ph/9811018v2

 

[16] Magueijo, J. ; "New varying speed of light theories", Rept. Prog. Phys. 66 (2003). URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:astro-ph/0305457v3

 

[17] Brown, P. M. ; “Einstein's gravitational field”, URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:physics/0204044v2

 

[18] Will, Clifford M. ; “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment”, Living Rev. Relativity 9, (2006), 3. URL (cited on 29 September 2003): (http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2006-3) updated at arXiv:gr-qc/0510072v2

 

[19] Davis, T. M. ; Lineweaver, C. H. ; “Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe”, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 21, 97—109. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:astro-ph/0310808v2

 

[20] Neil J. Cornish, David N. Spergel, Glenn D. Starkman, Eiichiro Komatsu, “Constraining the Topology of the Universe”, Phys.Rev.Lett. 92 (2004) 201302. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:astro-ph/0310233v1

 

[21] Milgrom, M. ; A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 270, July 15, 1983, p. 365-370.

 

[22] Nieto, M. M. ; Anderson, J. D. ; “Seeking a solution of the Pioneer Anomaly”, Fourth Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Symmetry, 8-11 Aug. 2007. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:0709.1917v1

 

[23] Saffari, R. ; Rahvar, S. ; “f® Gravity: From the Pioneer Anomaly to the Cosmic Acceleration”. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:0708.1482v1

[ydoaPs]

I can clear up about half of these: Unsolved_problems_in_physics

 

With NO MATHS!!!!!!! Huzzah!

 

Do you even know the required maths for the currently accepted models?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There's no need to repeat what has been said to him so many times before. If Farsight is serious about submitting this paper, he will get plenty of feedback (good or bad) from real experts. You haven't even seen it, so I'd hold your judgment a little.

[Sisyphus]

Half of the unsolved problems in physics! In 40 pages! Awesome.

[Farsight]

I know you're incredulous, Sisyphus, but IMHO I really have got something here. As to how valuable it is I don't know. We'll see.

[ydoaPs]

To what publication(s) do you plan on submitting your paper?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Looking at his first post, arXiv.

[PhDP]

Looking at his first post, arXiv.

 

It's not really a journal, and AFAIK, it has no peer-review system.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

True, although the article will have to be "endorsed" before it will be published.

[the tree]

Seriously though, DO NOT SUBMIT ANYTHING TIMES NEW ROMAN. Serif fonts are for headers and single lines of text. Body text should always always always be sans-serif fonts else it will be way too much effort to properly read without glazing over and getting bored.

[iNow]

iNow: Here's my references. As to whether it's an editorial or a scientific paper, that's why I'm looking for advice.

Thank you. I do appreciate your response, and offer you good luck. FYI, number 6 and 7 are the same reference, so you might need to edit that prior to submission. I look forward to more.

[lucaspa]

I've now completed my paper. It's 40 pages long, 22,730 words, and 873k in PDF format. The title and abstract is below. Canybody give me any advice regarding submission or endorsement? I'm registered with arXiv, and have printed the arViv.org > help > submit_pdf and related pages.

 

1. A couple of your references are in Phys. Rev. Letters. I suggest that as a start. You'll at least get comments.

 

2. The Abstract is too abstract. You need to outline your solutions, not just say you have one. You say "the new qualitative model". That's not enough. You need to outline that model and give its essential features. Look at some abstracts of papers in Phys. Rev. Letters as a guide.

 

3. Other than that, I'll let the editor of Phys. Rev. Letters and the reviewers do the commenting.

[Klaynos]

It's a tad long for phys. rev. let. probably :|

[PhDP]

Indeed, they publish mostly (if not exclusively) short letters.

[Farsight]

Thanks for the information guys. All points noted.

 

Seriously though, DO NOT SUBMIT ANYTHING TIMES NEW ROMAN. Serif fonts are for headers and single lines of text. Body text should always always always be sans-serif fonts else it will be way too much effort to properly read without glazing over and getting bored.

 

tree: I tried arial and helvetica plus univers, including narrow/condensed versions, and none look particularly satisfactory either on-screen or as hard-copy. I've currently gone back to Times New Roman 11-point justified, the general appearance is something like this one plucked at random:

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0709/0709.3248v1.pdf

 

Any particular advice you can offer would be most welcome.

[D H]

It doesn't matter a bit what font you use. A journal (a real journal that is) will their own fonts, not yours. Look at any journal: All articles are in the same font. A journal will not accept a PDF for this reason. They want your LaTeX or word file (or whatever).

 

Regarding Tree's comment: Look at a scientific journal. Its very likely to be printed in a font with serifs. Your eyes have built-in edge detectors. Those little serifs give your eyes something to grab onto. The lack of serifs means those low-level edge detectors can't function as well. The brain has to work harder to interpret what the eyes are seeing. Study after study has shown that sans serif fonts are much harder to read that serif fonts.

[swansont]

APS journal submission guidelines

 

http://authors.aps.org/

 

Before you submit to a journal, it's a good idea to read it and see if your article is appropriate and if not, why not (i.e. look at what the accepted articles do, and what yours doesn't, and vice-versa).

[Severian]

You are best to submit it to the arXiv first and then point the journal at the arXiv copy. That way it is in the public domain faster and the referee will be more tolerant of it (I am always very suspicious when refereeing a paper not on the arXiv, because they usually have something to hide).

 

However, that will mean that you will need an arXiv endorser. I am not sure how you will go about finding one (email academics at random?). I am an endorser but I am not willing to endorse this (no offense).

 

40 pages isn't too long - I have written papers that long before. (They get smaller in the journal because they typeset differently.)