Notices
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Who is your pick??

  1. #1 Who is your pick?? 
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    here is one list of famously known physicists. But my question here is who do you admire or, respect their work most greatly? i mean they are all great physicists but just choose one, i want to know your opinions and ideas, thank you in advance.

    btw these 12 physicists are already the most popularly picked through out the Web.

    1.Albert Einstein
    2.Stephen Hawking
    3.Werner Heisenberg
    4.Richard Feynman
    5.Max Planck
    6.Paul Dirac
    7.Robert Oppenheimer
    9.Hendrik Lorentz
    10.Niels Bohr
    11.Sir Isaac Newton
    12.Archimedes
    13.Steven Weinberg


    ------------------




    "Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders."- Carl Friedrich Gauss


    -------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Who is your pick?? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz
    here is one list of famously known physicists. But my question here is who do you admire or, respect their work most greatly? i mean they are all great physicists but just choose one, i want to know your opinions and ideas, thank you in advance.

    btw these 12 physicists are already the most popularly picked through out the Web.

    1.Albert Einstein
    2.Stephen Hawking
    3.Werner Heisenberg
    4.Richard Feynman
    5.Max Planck
    6.Paul Dirac
    7.Robert Oppenheimer
    9.Hendrik Lorentz
    10.Niels Bohr
    11.Sir Isaac Newton
    12.Archimedes
    13.Steven Weinberg
    All are emminent.

    However, in terms of overall impact on the subject of physics and the implications of physics for society Isaac Newton sits clearly at the top of the heap. It is not even close.

    Einstein through his work in establishing quantum mechanics (despite his philosophical misgivings) and relativity is second.

    The remainder made large contributions but are not in a class with the first two (despite my tremendous admiration for Feynman and Weinberg). There is no sensible way to rank the remainder. Physicists and mathematicians are not linearly ordered. Also note that the selection of Newton and Einstein at the top is based on impact of their discoveries, and not on "intelligence", whatever that is.

    Newton and Archimedes are also generally regarded as mathematicians, and sometimes the list of the top 3 mathematicians of all time is given as Newton, Gauss and Archimedes. That is rather subjective, but these three are on the list of the top several for anyone knowledgeable in mathematics.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Newton by far.

    All of the other physcists were developing ideas and new science based on other works, already established and noted evidence. Newton started offf anew with nothing to note, nothing to observe out of the ordinary, albeit nothing he had acknowledged at first.

    Einstein was good though, showing that gravity is the cause of the dimension itself interacting with mass. Quite forward if you ask me.

    Personally I beleive that Einsteins work is un finsihed. He was able to intergrate relativity into Electromagnetism and explain how it worked. I believe that the force of EM and gravity can be merged with Einsteins theories of relativity and that Quantum Mechanics although brilliant, is unable to compensate for extra dimension influence on the spacetime continuum.

    This is why I am VERY interested in Quantum Physics at its extrememes, eg superfluid Helium, where it behaves second sound and quanta becomes macro as well as micro. Also in superconducters.

    QP is missing something huge and it will take a physcist the same as Newton to piece the final missing link in the GUT, or TOE.

    THAT must be the goal of the 21st Century. Everything else from there will be as easily explainable as gravity and the forces of motion were after Newton. I believe that research into the CP invariance of the strong nuclear force will be this missing link.

    I believe that the discoveries at CERN with the LHC will be the most important ever made. And that the discovery of the Higgs Boson will open gateways to new physics we can only dream of. What if we incorporate Uncertainty into a certain model? Using a new kind of mathematics to explain it? Just like Newton?

    Bounce off ideas please. Be the next Newton.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime
    THAT must be the goal of the 21st Century. Everything else from there will be as easily explainable as gravity and the forces of motion were after Newton. I believe that research into the CP invariance of the strong nuclear force will be this missing link.

    I believe that the discoveries at CERN with the LHC will be the most important ever made. And that the discovery of the Higgs Boson will open gateways to new physics we can only dream of. What if we incorporate Uncertainty into a certain model? Using a new kind of mathematics to explain it? Just like Newton?

    Bounce off ideas please. Be the next Newton.
    A theory unifying the fundamental forces will be a great achievement. But it will not provide explanations for "everything else from there". It is rather like knowing the rules of chess. To be a grand master you must know the rules. But the permutations are so numerous that knowing the rules will not make you a grand master.

    Quantum electrodynamics already provides the rules for all everyday phenomena that do not involve gravity in an essential way. In particular it implicitly contains all of chemistry and all of biology. But neither chemists nor biologists are folding up their tents, nor should they. There will be LOTS of physics left to do even after a successful "theory of everything" is formulated.

    The discovery of the Higgs boson at the LHC, if its is discovered, will be anticlimactic. Everything else in the standard model has been discovered and the predictions of the standard model confirmed. The Higgs boson is just icing on the cake.

    What will be more important is the discovery, or lack of discovery, of supersymmetric partner particles. There is a lot riding on supersymmetry, from extensions of the standard model to string theory. Discovery of supersymmetric particles has been forecast for more than a decade now, with not one hint of experimental evidence.

    If supersymmetric particles are found, it will offer great encouragement to string theorists as well as other flavors of particle physicists with theories that might answer some of the great open questions but that are dependent on supersymmetry. Perhaps the LHC experiments will lead the way to the addition of an Edward Witten or Frank Wilczek to the list in the OP.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Newton by far.
    At this time, yes Isaac Newton has been the most influential and important scientist in history. However, this is about to change. This year, a new theory will be released which can actually explain the entire physical universe.

    Einstein was good though, showing that gravity is the cause of the dimension itself interacting with mass. Quite forward if you ask me.
    I still dont know why people admire Einstein or "his" work. You think his theories were quite forward? They were ridiculous, possibly one of the biggest backward steps in science history. The true relativity is that of Lorentz.

    Personally I beleive that Einsteins work is un finsihed. He was able to intergrate relativity into Electromagnetism and explain how it worked. I believe that the force of EM and gravity can be merged with Einsteins theories of relativity and that Quantum Mechanics although brilliant, is unable to compensate for extra dimension influence on the spacetime continuum.
    QM is brilliant? You believe in extra dimensions? You believe in Space-time?

    This is why I am VERY interested in Quantum Physics at its extrememes, eg superfluid Helium, where it behaves second sound and quanta becomes macro as well as micro. Also in superconducters.
    Dont think that QM is the only explanation for these phenomena.

    THAT must be the goal of the 21st Century. Everything else from there will be as easily explainable as gravity and the forces of motion were after Newton. I believe that research into the CP invariance of the strong nuclear force will be this missing link.
    Why on earth do you think that?

    I believe that the discoveries at CERN with the LHC will be the most important ever made. And that the discovery of the Higgs Boson will open gateways to new physics we can only dream of. What if we incorporate Uncertainty into a certain model? Using a new kind of mathematics to explain it? Just like Newton?
    The LHC was probably the biggest waste of money in history. The higgs boson will not be discovered, because it does not exist. Even if it isnt detected though, the scientists there will revert to their same old excuse of "Oh, it must take higher energies to find it".

    Bounce off ideas please. Be the next Newton.
    Ive already started.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    Thank you for all the responses, surely it was interesting ideas and opinions from Quantime and DrRocket. Though im frankly quite not sure of Waveman28's quote response.

    e.g.
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    The LHC was probably the biggest waste of money in history. The higgs boson will not be discovered, because it does not exist. Even if it isnt detected though, the scientists there will revert to their same old excuse of "Oh, it must take higher energies to find it".
    ..........................
    ------------------




    "Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders."- Carl Friedrich Gauss


    -------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Newton by far.
    At this time, yes Isaac Newton has been the most influential and important scientist in history. However, this is about to change. This year, a new theory will be released which can actually explain the entire physical universe.
    Rubbish. I suppose you are delusional enough to think that it is you who will release such a theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    I still dont know why people admire Einstein or "his" work. You think his theories were quite forward? They were ridiculous, possibly one of the biggest backward steps in science history. The true relativity is that of Lorentz.
    I am not surprised that you don't know why peopole admire Einstein or his work. There is a very long list of things that you don't know.

    Einstein's work is not all ridiculous. What is ridiculous is your statement. You clearly understand neither Einstein nor Lorentz. In fact you don't understand much of anything.

    The work of Lorentz was completely subsumed by Einstein's formulation of special relativity. General relativity made another giant leap forward. It is one of the pillars of modern physics and is astonishingly accurate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    QM is brilliant? You believe in extra dimensions? You believe in Space-time?
    Yes indeed QM (quantum mechanics) and in particular QED (quantum electrodynamics) is brilliant work.

    QED has demonstrated complete agreement with all experiments to date to the precisoin that the experiments are capable of producing, something like 16 decimal places. It is not the ultimate theory, but it is awfully damn good.

    You have exposed your complete ignorance of the subject. There is absolutely nothing in currently accepted quantum theories that includes extra dimensions. The need for extra dimensions arises as a requirement for the mathematical consistency of some string theories, but those theories are most certainly at best works in progress.

    Spacetime, at least as the term is usually understood arises in special and general relativity. It is not a part of quantum theories until one encounters quantum field theories, such as QED. It is actually quite a successful concept, as demonstrated by the incredible accuracy of the prediction of QED, special relativity and general relativity.

    All that you have demonstrated is an incredible lack of intellectual capability, ignorance of physics, and inability to handle simple logic. The theories that you attack novel, subtle, and incredibly accurate, hence brilliant.

    Bounce off ideas please. Be the next Newton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Ive already started.
    Started what ? Your ideas are not even worthy of a Fig Newton.

    I have house plants with better understanding of physics. And my house plant are not irrational.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz
    Thank you for all the responses, surely it was interesting ideas and opinions from Quantime and DrRocket. Though im frankly quite not sure of Waveman28's quote response.
    Basically, I am very sceptical of the LHC, because it is being used to test theories which I know are fundamentally flawed. It is going to be a very expensive way of realising that our theories are in need of serious revision. I have analysed the history of physics and I know that on the way (particularly in the 20th century) some errors were made which have formed the foundations of many current theories, such as Quantum Mechanics.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    What about modern science do you deny?

    Do you deny that modern theories make predictions that are correct to within our abilities to measure them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    What about modern science do you deny?
    Deny is not really the right word to use in this context, I don't deny anything about modern physics' predictions or experiments.

    In science at present, we know about virtually all of the properties of the universe. However, knowing about them and properly explaining them are two totally different things. What I'm saying is that I strongly disagree with many of the explanations for the phenomena we know in the universe.

    Do you deny that modern theories make predictions that are correct to within our abilities to measure them?
    Absolutely not. See above.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman Futurist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15
    Do we pick based on their work, or just them? I like feynman and dyson because they're both inspirational. Feynman especially, he's not what you'd expect a typical physist to be, much more personable, jovial and hands on.

    Based on their work? I'd have to read up a bit first, my gut reaction would be Planck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    What about modern science do you deny?
    Deny is not really the right word to use in this context, I don't deny anything about modern physics' predictions or experiments.

    In science at present, we know about virtually all of the properties of the universe. However, knowing about them and properly explaining them are two totally different things. What I'm saying is that I strongly disagree with many of the explanations for the phenomena we know in the universe.

    Do you deny that modern theories make predictions that are correct to within our abilities to measure them?
    Absolutely not. See above.
    Scientific theories provide predictions, not what you call explanations.

    What you call "explanations" are generally referred to as "interpretations". Interpretations are most common in quantum mechanics. Two of the best known are the traditional Copenhagen interpretation, which includes "collapse of the wave function" and the Many Worlds interpretation which describes a branching process at each measurement. The important point is that these two interpretations have nothing to do with the experimental predictions of the theory, which are identical. Hence there is only one theory.

    It simply does not matter what you think of the usual interpretations. It is the predictions of the theory that determine their validity. Interpretations are irrelevant to the underlying science.

    However, your disparaging of quantum mechanics and of relativity in the form of spacetime are not apparently directed at interpretations but in fact at the theories themselves. This simply confirms that you have no idea what you are talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    949
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    Rubbish. I suppose you are delusional enough to think that it is you who will release such a theory.




    I am not surprised that you don't know why people admire Einstein or his work. There is a very long list of things that you don't know.

    Einstein's work is not all ridiculous. What is ridiculous is your statement. You clearly understand neither Einstein nor Lorentz. In fact you don't understand much of anything.




    All that you have demonstrated is an incredible lack of intellectual capability, ignorance of physics, and inability to handle simple logic. The theories that you attack novel, subtle, and incredibly accurate, hence brilliant.

    I have house plants with better understanding of physics.
    My first thoughts were correct. You really have mellowed! :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    "He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

    The author of this and many other brilliant quotes is my answer, for his work in not only physics, but humanity in general. His quotes alone have been an aid to my ethical compass.


    As far as the other arguments going on here, I would like to state my opinions:

    The LHC has more purposes than just to look for the higgs.

    Whether you believe something to be true or not, such as quantum mechanics, you shouldn't look past the discoveries it has made.

    Much of science is discovered by accident, and the ideas and methods of a misled theory may yet be the ones that discover a unified field theory.

    Waveman28, you have made yourself look like a fool. If you would like to attempt to salvage your statements here I recommend you elaborate, with examples or reasonings, on any statements you have made that seem to be based on your belief alone. Examples:

    'The LHC will not find the higgs because it does not exist.'
    "I am very sceptical of the LHC, because it is being used to test theories which I know are fundamentally flawed."

    If you are so sure, why don't you enlighten us, as well as the world's leading physicists, on the truth behind these flawed ideas which we have so lazily failed to double-check? You know, the theories that have convinced the world's leading financial powers for an insane amount of money to fund their research.

    In other words, I will listen to all you have to say, but I will take none of it seriously unless you can PROVE IT beyond my belief that your knowledge of the subject ends with the vocabulary.

    Also, what new theory are you so confident about, considering you seem to be biased against all of the leading theories?
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    "He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
    I can find lots of internet renditions of this attirbuted to Einstein, but no documentation of when, to whom, or in what publication such a statement was made..

    I find no such statement in The Expanded Quotable Einstein which always includes references to an original source.

    I am therefore skeptical that Einstein actually made this statement. The wording seems out of character for him, even in most fervently pacifist stages. I would be willing to change my mind if a solid citation for this quote could be given.

    In any case Eiinstein's statements regarding war and pacifism changed markedly in 1933 as a result of the actions of Adolph Hitler.

    And finally, Einstein had great impact on physics, but he is still second to Isaac Newton.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    "He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

    The author of this and many other brilliant quotes is my answer, for his work in not only physics, but humanity in general. His quotes alone have been an aid to my ethical compass.
    Here is another quote from the same person: "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources". Although this may sound hard to believe at first, a study of history shows that Albert Einstein was a Hypocrite, a Thief and a Liar. With all due respect, you have failed to verify your knowledge, you just blindly accepted what your teachers have told you without carefully verifying that what you have learned is true. You are not alone either, most people and students today do not check this, and this is the surest and fastest path to error. Remember what Rene Descartes said: "Doubt is the origin of wisdom".

    Modern physics is plagued with errors. This is due to the fact that many errors have been made in the past, especially the 20th century, and these errors have been accepted which have then been used to form the basis of other theories. The foundations of many scientific theories today are fundamentally flawed, and many of their assumptions are simply wrong. An example is Quantum theory. A significant portion of Quantum theory is based on the so-called Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal. As I have said in a previous post: There are two main things that happen in science, we discover a property of the universe and then we try to explain that property.

    So in terms of the so-called Uncertainty Principal, the property in question is that the position of a particle and the momentum of a particle cannot be known with perfect accuracy simultaneously. This property is an unquestionable fact: we know that this is how the universe works as it has been proven countless times through experiments. However, now we come to explaining this phenomena. Heisenberg said that this phenomena was due to the fact that the position of a particle at any given time is random and that the universe was probabilistic in nature. He said that the same particle could be in different positions at the same time and that this was the source of the uncertainty. This idea had no grounding whatsoever, there was no reason at all to think that this was the case. This was certainly a very weird and illogical explanation for the phenomena. But surprisingly, most scientists immediately accepted this, without verifying it or proposing any other explanations for the phenomena.

    A much more logical explanation would be this: We cannot know the position and momentum of a particle with 100 percent accuracy simultaneously because if we fire a beam of light or particles at another particle to determine its position, in doing this we give the particle extra energy which was not present beforehand, so when the light or particles return to us, the other particle's position and momentum have changed. Also, all particles have a temperature, so they are constantly moving and accelerating slightly in different directions. It is that simple.

    Unlike Heisenberg's idea, this explanation is much more logical, makes no assumptions and does not invent any new ideas which have no correspondence with reality. Thus as we can see, the theories which involve Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal are simply wrong from the perspective of what is really going on. They do not illustrate what is happening in reality.

    The LHC has more purposes than just to look for the higgs.
    I am fully aware of that. Most of the other experiments are very similar though, such as trying to find super symmetric particles. Most of these experiments revolve around quantum theories or the standard model, which as I have explained, contain fundamental flaws.

    Whether you believe something to be true or not, such as quantum mechanics, you shouldn't look past the discoveries it has made.
    I have not overlooked the discoveries quantum theory has made. Lasers and transistors are extremely important devices that have apparently been spawned through this theory. However, other theories had they been discovered earlier could have also enabled these developments.

    Much of science is discovered by accident, and the ideas and methods of a misled theory may yet be the ones that discover a unified field theory.
    Yes, many things are discovered by accident, but a "theory of everything" is not something that is going to fall into your lap. A "theory of everything" so to speak, already exists and it is amazingly simple, I could teach it to an 8 year old.

    Waveman28, you have made yourself look like a fool. If you would like to attempt to salvage your statements here I recommend you elaborate, with examples or reasonings, on any statements you have made that seem to be based on your belief alone. Examples:
    'The LHC will not find the higgs because it does not exist.'
    I have rejected the Higgs Boson on the grounds of logic, which is something that has been absent from physics for a long period. For example the Higgs boson is supposed to be responsible for giving particles with mass their mass. However the Higgs boson itself has been predicted to have a certain mass, so now what gives the higgs boson its mass? Also, if the Higgs hypothetically did exist, why does it give mass to some particles but not others? It is just a massive circulation of questions. The Higgs Boson does not Explain anything.

    Also, what new theory are you so confident about, considering you seem to be biased against all of the leading theories?
    I have a theory which can explain all Physical phenomena in a consistent, logical way using a single mechanism. I am publishing it this year so you will be able to see it soon. I will tell you one thing in advance which has priceless importance: The Ether exists.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I find no such statement in The Expanded Quotable Einstein which always includes references to an original source.
    I checked my copy and concur with your finding (or, lack thereof). However, a quick hit with the google stick sent me to wikiquote, which sources the quote as part of Mein Weltbild, or "The World As I See It" for that particular comment.

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_...ild_.281931.29


    I haven't been able to check a copy myself for the actual quote, but if someone wants to run it down, it seems this would be the place to start:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080...lance&n=283155
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Waveman, where are you publishing your theory. If it's in some respectable journal, I'll be sure to look for a copy. If you mean you plan on putting up a website...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I find no such statement in The Expanded Quotable Einstein which always includes references to an original source.
    I checked my copy and concur with your finding (or, lack thereof). However, a quick hit with the google stick sent me to wikiquote, which sources the quote as part of Mein Weltbild, or "The World As I See It" for that particular comment.

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_...ild_.281931.29


    I haven't been able to check a copy myself for the actual quote, but if someone wants to run it down, it seems this would be the place to start:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080...lance&n=283155
    That quote would then date from 1931, prior to Einstein's retreat from total pacifism, compliments of Hitler.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    I have a theory which can explain all Physical phenomena in a consistent, logical way using a single mechanism. I am publishing it this year so you will be able to see it soon. I will tell you one thing in advance which has priceless importance: The Ether exists.
    "Publishing" in the context of science means publishing in a reputable scientific journal, refereed by experts.

    Somehow I rather doubt that your "ideas" would be accepted in any such venue.

    However, now that you have announced this intention it is very much time to put up or shut up.

    Moreover, good journals often have a significant backlog. So if it is to be published this year it should have been submitted by now.

    To which journal have you submitted this "theory" ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Waveman, where are you publishing your theory. If it's in some respectable journal, I'll be sure to look for a copy. If you mean you plan on putting up a website...
    There are a number of actions I will be taking towards releasing the theory. I will be publishing it in multiple Journals, a website will be made, and a video explaining the theory in full detail will be available for download from the website as well as being available on Youtube. The goal is to make it known to as many people as possible. Thus, I will post links to the site in every section of this science forum (with prior permission of the moderators) and I will also be posting in other science forums.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    You'll be violating the terms set out by the publishers of those journals then. Get it published in one respectable journal first. Then consider what else to do with it. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. If you need help deciding which journals are respectable, feel free to ask. I'm sure several people can give several recommendations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    You'll be violating the terms set out by the publishers of those journals then. Get it published in one respectable journal first. Then consider what else to do with it. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. If you need help deciding which journals are respectable, feel free to ask. I'm sure several people can give several recommendations.
    Thanks for the advice. It is certainly worth doing and I am trying to do it in the best way possible. It is possible to publish your theory in multiple ways, but yes, not multiple journals. For instance, you can publish a book in addition to the journal article. What would you consider to be the most prestigious science journal?
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    You'll be violating the terms set out by the publishers of those journals then. Get it published in one respectable journal first. Then consider what else to do with it. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. If you need help deciding which journals are respectable, feel free to ask. I'm sure several people can give several recommendations.
    Thanks for the advice. It is certainly worth doing and I am trying to do it in the best way possible. It is possible to publish your theory in multiple ways, but yes, not multiple journals. For instance, you can publish a book in addition to the journal article. What would you consider to be the most prestigious science journal?
    I you have really done what you claim then publication in the Annals of Physics would be appropriate. -- Frank Wilczek is the editor in chief.

    http://ees.elsevier.com/aop/

    But unless you can make your claims very clear, and back them up with appropriate mathematics, forget about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Unfortunately, as a computer scientist, I haven't had any reason to look into which physics journals are the best, so you'll have get advice from other people on this one. Also, DrRocket's point about mathematics is very important. No physics paper will get published in a journal without the associated math. (And publishing in books and on the web count for extremely little in the physics community. So if you want your idea to reach scientists, you need the journal publication.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    59
    Feynman would be nowhere on my list unless size of ego was the main consideration. Newton and Einstein are giants in the field for good reasons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by bradford28
    Feynman would be nowhere on my list unless size of ego was the main consideration. Newton and Einstein are giants in the field for good reasons.
    Of course Newton and Einstein are giants for good reasons.

    But you clearly don't understand Feynman's contribution to physics. Try to find any treatment of modern particle physics that does not use Feynman diagrams. His formulation of quantum electrodynamics is the model for all quantum field theories.

    What makes you think Newton or Einstein had smaller egos ? Newton was well known for his ego. Einstein made provisions in his divorce for the Nobel Prize money, and he had not even won the prize at the time. Their egos were justified. So was Feynman's.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •