Want to publish

[ponderer]

I don't know if this is the place to discuss this, but, let's try and see where the moderators move this.

 

I have written an article, which takes a philosopical approach to constructing a universe model. I have never published anything outside the company that I worked for. I am now reitred.

 

I have decided that it would be best to publish in a philosophy periodical, since the model is based on a philosphical premise and reasoning, mixed with very little actual mathematics.

 

I developed this model over a period of 40 years, and it represents my lifetime attempt to understand the actual universe.

 

I am sure the model would be contentious. Of interest to me is that the philospophical line of reasoning, which I feel contains a degree of eligance, and profound simplicity, should not be lost, with my passing, and should be recorded somewhere.

 

So what is the story on publishing? I can expect to submit the article to many periodicals and wait for the rejections, or should I look to be rejected one periodical at a time?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Generally I think one is supposed to go one journal at a time -- it's considered bad etiquette to apply to several, get accepted at one, and then have to withdraw your paper from the others.

 

However, I know more about publishing in scientific journals than in others, so the situation may be somewhat different. I'm not sure.

[ponderer]

Generally I think one is supposed to go one journal at a time -- it's considered bad etiquette to apply to several, get accepted at one, and then have to withdraw your paper from the others.

 

However, I know more about publishing in scientific journals than in others, so the situation may be somewhat different. I'm not sure.

 

Thanks,

 

That's what I needed to know. It is what I figured. I have submitted to one philosophy periodical. I will wait for the rejection before trying another.

 

I supppose it is also bad form too, or even a copyright problem, if you publish the article on the net, in advance of any official publication?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That really depends on the journal, I think. Some make you sign over your copyright completely, some let you retain rights, and so on. I know in some fields of physics it's popular to publish your papers yourself online as "preprints" before they're peer-reviewed, but some journals want the copyright to your article. Best to check, I think.

[Baby Astronaut]

ponderer, you can try viXra. It's probably easier to get something accepted there.

 

Read the submission guidelines at their website and check out the rest. Might fit what you're seeking.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Although viXra does not have a particularly good reputation when it comes to scientific credibility.

[timo]

Although viXra does not have a particularly good reputation when it comes to scientific credibility.

But to be honest, neither has "I worked on this for 40 years, it's my attempt to understand the universe and based more on philosophical aspects than on natural sciences".

[Baby Astronaut]

Exactly. Basically the OP's looking for a safe repository, to get hypothetical thoughts published where others can view them and with proper credit to the author.

[mooeypoo]

This might sound like a cop-out, but if all else fails, you could always open up a blog. Seriously, in our day and age, publishing something for the world to see (and keep) is easy. The question is more about credibility. Try and see if you can get an organized publication to accept it, then, if all else fails, you can publish in a blog or viXra to get somewhat of a peer-review.

 

Get ready for that, btw... peer-review.. it's usually brutal, though supposedly non-personal. Don't publish if you don't plan on getting smashed by other scientists, they practically live to dissect publications.

[ajb]

Although viXra does not have a particularly good reputation when it comes to scientific credibility.

 

I stared a thread about this a little while back. See here.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This might sound like a cop-out, but if all else fails, you could always open up a blog. Seriously, in our day and age, publishing something for the world to see (and keep) is easy. The question is more about credibility. Try and see if you can get an organized publication to accept it, then, if all else fails, you can publish in a blog or viXra to get somewhat of a peer-review.

 

Get ready for that, btw... peer-review.. it's usually brutal, though supposedly non-personal. Don't publish if you don't plan on getting smashed by other scientists, they practically live to dissect publications.

 

I don't think there's peer review in philosophy.

[mooeypoo]

I don't think there's peer review in philosophy.

Sure there is. They criticize one another all the time, it's practically the point of philosophy. It might not be using empirical evidence, but it's still arguments testing the validity of the theory even if it's the philosophical validity.

 

That said, it seems the theory is mixed in with some science, which does raises the (likely) option that people might argue against specific parts of it through contradictory evidence or what they think might be contradictory evidence.

 

~moo

[Sisyphus]

I don't think there's peer review in philosophy.

 

There is in academic publications.

 

(You wouldn't know it around here, but philosophy the academic discipline has nothing in common with "philosophy," i.e. "this makes sense to me, but I don't have to support it." "Real" philosophy has more in common with mathematics, though more abstract and wider in focus.)

[mooeypoo]

There is in academic publications.

 

(You wouldn't know it around here, but philosophy the academic discipline has nothing in common with "philosophy," i.e. "this makes sense to me, but I don't have to support it." "Real" philosophy has more in common with mathematics, though more abstract and wider in focus.)

Yes, Sisyphus that's a good point, I was talking about the academic subject of philosophy, seeing as the poster intends to publish in a philosophy publication, which should be related to philosophy in the context of the academic subject.

[toastywombel]

There is in academic publications.

 

(You wouldn't know it around here, but philosophy the academic discipline has nothing in common with "philosophy," i.e. "this makes sense to me, but I don't have to support it." "Real" philosophy has more in common with mathematics, though more abstract and wider in focus.)

 

I think that this is a great statement. Philosophy, the academic discipline, is actually a very useful subject. Especially when it comes to the notation of thought processes.

 

A lot of laymen like to use the term philosophy very loosely. They don't actually follow philosophical rules and they don't notate their thought processes to look for flaws or contradictions in their own arguments. Really they just like to sit and think, and after thinking for a short period of time they determine a conclusion and hold onto it. I would not call that philosophy as much as ignorance.

[ponderer]

Yes, Sisyphus that's a good point, I was talking about the academic subject of philosophy, seeing as the poster intends to publish in a philosophy publication, which should be related to philosophy in the context of the academic subject.

 

I titled the article

 

The Philosophy of Physics

 

Or

 

Making a Universe Model from Simple Logic

 

It's about applying Occam's Razor, as a tool to form theory.

 

You know, the Simplest Explanation. Simple Logic.

 

I go through a half dozen or so simple logical steps to create a whole universe. Well, it's just two steps really but you need to logically arrive at those two steps. Once you start it rolling, it really creates itself. It's just getting to those two steps logically, and understanding the unfolding result.

 

I define the qualitative difference between hyperspace and space-time and explain the nature and structure of space-time in the manifold.

 

Most of it is just explaining the logic behind why each simple step is taken, and what happens as a result.

 

The explanation faulters at the traditional divide of classical and quantum physics. I've just recently actually started contemplating quantization and how I would work it into the model.

 

The bridge between classical physics and quantization, seems to be related to magnetism, well at least WRT protons, electrons, neutrons, and photons.

 

It's just a model. I can't claim it explains the real universe. I call it the natural universe since it just happens, when you apply the simplest possible inputs. I mean that literally. I would challenge anyone the apply information theory to the simple construct and show any alternate starting point that could be simpler. In fact it depends on the absolute minimum input two work. If you change anything. It wont work.

 

Once you establish the number of Euclidean dimensions your universe will have, logically, just adding the absolute simplest feature needed to demonstrate volume, energy, and time, plus one duplicate feature to add complexity, and a temporal symmetry breaking, and presto, you have a universe.

 

There is not any math to speak of.

Edited February 5, 2010 by ponderer

[ajb]

I titled the article

 

The Philosophy of Physics

 

Or

 

Making a Universe Model from Simple Logic

 

It's about applying Occam's Razor, as a tool to form theory.

 

You know, the Simplest Explanation. Simple Logic.

 

I go through a half dozen or so simple logical steps to create a whole universe. Well, it's just two steps really but you need to logically arrive at those two steps. Once you start it rolling, it really creates itself. It's just getting to those two steps logically, and understanding the unfolding result.

 

I define the qualitative difference between hyperspace and space-time and explain the nature and structure of space-time in the manifold.

 

Most of it is just explaining the logic behind why each simple step is taken, and what happens as a result.

 

The explanation faulters at the traditional divide of classical and quantum physics. I've just recently actually started contemplating quantization and how I would work it into the model.

 

The bridge between classical physics and quantization, seems to be related to magnetism, well at least WRT protons, electrons, neutrons, and photons.

 

It's just a model. I can't claim it explains the real universe. I call it the natural universe since it just happens, when you apply the simplest possible inputs. I mean that literally. I would challenge anyone the apply information theory to the simple construct and show any alternate starting point that could be simpler. In fact it depends on the absolute minimum input two work. If you change anything. It wont work.

 

Once you establish the number of Euclidean dimensions your universe will have, logically, just adding the absolute simplest feature needed to demonstrate volume, energy, and time, plus one duplicate feature to add complexity, and a temporal symmetry breaking, and presto, you have a universe.

 

There is not any math to speak of.

 

I really do hope you can explain the mathematics above without going into the mathematical depth. It is something I am not very good at if I am honest. Best of luck with it.

[ponderer]

I really do hope you can explain the mathematics above without going into the mathematical depth. It is something I am not very good at if I am honest. Best of luck with it.

 

No math, well unless you consider the expression r^4, math. I believe that is the only math expression in the article.

 

It's a model. The complextiy of the inputs into the model is absolute minimum, Occam's Razor, but it requires a tremedous energy input, that would make all the mass and energy in the universe a drop in the bucket. You could power up a pluriverse.

 

The laws of physics would uniformly change over time, and the universe would eventually dissipate.

 

Still it's an interesting exercise, and in that universe I can figure out how to do field propulsion, and probably even travel in hyperspace, by constructing an E-M worm. I see the structure of the manifold, and what protons, electrons, and neutrons are. I suppose you have to be the right kind of person, but I find it fun in a way.

 

I started on this quest to get a visual model of the stuff under the math. That's what I got. Until someone can provide me with a believable one, for the real universe, I have at least a conceptual model from my natural universe.

[ajb]

It's a model.

 

In what sense is it a model?

[ponderer]

In what sense is it a model?

 

It's visual. I talk about geometry, time, energy, and such.

 

There is certainly mathematics underlying the geometry, but it is not required for the discussion.

 

It really is a philosophy article.

 

I would probably have trouble publishing in a physics periodical. It would be too controverisal. I just want to publish to preserve the model that I worked on all my life, so it is not lost when I die. I'm retired you see.

 

I'm not up for a a huge argument to defend my model as a representation of the real universe. For me it doesn't have to be. I can live in my own universe.

 

I thought I would never understand the underlying nature of space-time, electrons, and protons, and I may not, but in my model I can.

[ajb]

Ok, so it is not really a model in the sense we mean in physics. It will not get published in a physics journal.

 

Your talk of logic (coupled with the word "model") made me wonder if you were thinking of applying model theory to the structures found in theoretical physics. I doubt much work has been done along these lines and I expect it to be very difficult.

 

You could, as has been suggested place it on viXra. But I warn you the repository is of a low scientific standard in general.

[ponderer]

Ok, so it is not really a model in the sense we mean in physics. It will not get published in a physics journal.

 

Your talk of logic (coupled with the word "model") made me wonder if you were thinking of applying model theory to the structures found in theoretical physics. I doubt much work has been done along these lines and I expect it to be very difficult.

 

You could, as has been suggested place it on viXra. But I warn you the repository is of a low scientific standard in general.

 

This is definitely a philosophical discussion and rightly placed in a philosophy periodical, if it passes review.

 

How long does it usually take before you receive a rejection notice?

[ajb]

How long does it usually take before you receive a rejection notice?

 

Don't know, it does depend on the journal. It can take a few months.

 

I submitted my first article for publication about a month ago, so I am not worried yet.

[CharonY]

That is a bit arcane. If the editor does not deem it publishable or out of scope it can be fairly quick (a week or so). Unless the editor is sick/traveling/drunk/shark hunting.

If it goes to peer review it depends a lot on the reviewers as well as the journal. A month would be really fast and it can take up to half a year to get a note. If referees do not agree it can be sent out again, taking more time.

[ponderer]

That is a bit arcane. If the editor does not deem it publishable or out of scope it can be fairly quick (a week or so). Unless the editor is sick/traveling/drunk/shark hunting.

If it goes to peer review it depends a lot on the reviewers as well as the journal. A month would be really fast and it can take up to half a year to get a note. If referees do not agree it can be sent out again, taking more time.

 

Well, I guess there is no point watching my in box.

 

That's really sucks in a way. You have to wait months before you can try re-submitting to another periodical.

 

I guess they are out shark hunting, because I told the guy right up front that my article was way over their 3500 word limit. I figured I would get a rejection straight away just for that, never mind that I didn't include any references, since none were used, and I don't have any academic credentials.

 

You know, you would think the polite and honourable thing to do, would be to acknowledge receipt and give an initial status. If they are having it reviewed, they should tell you.

 

If the system works the way you say, they seem to have little respect for contributors.