@Draco @mrhavens so that’s has me wondering what options are there for doing peer reviewing and getting one’s study peer reviewed?
Anybody affiliated with an institution can submit to a peer reviewed journal. Even someone at Dallas Makerspace. Adding a co-author to your paper that has some weight to their name increases your chances of getting a paper accepted.
1 Like
There are a couple of things to think about …
- You cannot submit your paper to more than one journal at a time. Once rejected then you can submit it to another.
- Many journals want you to transfer copyright to them before they will publish it. You will no longer own it nor can you choose to republish it later but they can sell it or choose to trash it.
1 Like
- Papers have to be a certain form to be accepted.
- You are not only appealing to the science community but to the publishers reputation. Stuff that is outside of a certain range will most likely not be accepted even if it is well written good science.
This last one is the crux of my issue with journals. If reputation is more important than doing good science then the topics studied in science will start to be controlled by those that publish. The more this happens the less it becomes about pure scientific exploration and instead about shaping science into a way to make money.
1 Like
Anybody affiliated with an institution can submit to a peer reviewed journal. Even someone at Dallas Makerspace.
Well now, then that also might mean one could file patent, RFCs, and potentially land grants for the space… Good to know 
@Draco So that’s sticking within the same current model of Science politics, nothing wrong with that but, I was referring to say if one wanted to do the peer research and maybe publish the results of the peer review?
Also today, things that can’t be proven are touted as reality such as multiple universes.
Well, the Copenhagen model is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics. Sure you have media jumping on the simplified explanations and turning that into the multiverse" but the math does point to eleven dimensions. What those dimensions are is something up for discovery.
There is a growing backlash among physicists rejecting nonsensical interpretations of QM and also string theory.
I don’t feel this approach is any better than denying something doesn’t exist just because it can’t be proven.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Still, anyone acting like they KNOW for sure at this point has some ulterior motives.
4 Likes
Different interpretations … and these aren’t even going into the esoteric or woowoo as people say
2 Likes
6 Likes
All models are wrong, but some are useful
Models describe behaviors of systems at a simple, idealized way. They are useful for making predictions within the limitations of their assumptions and ability to extract meaningful measurements. Mathematical theorems are an example of this - they’re often arrived at examining the limit at which extreme degrees of recursion approach; an idealization atop another idealization.
More than a century on from the end of classical physics where you could learn new things by banging on matter at a readily-observable macro scale, we’re turning to increasingly subtle means of learning new things about the nature of the universe. When you’re so often dealing with objects smaller than your means of observation - or whose states are altered by observation - this should come as no surprise. We are often exploring quarks and other particles below the basic scale of one of the most-used subatomic particles for measurement - the photon.
With the difficulty observing these things we more than ever must devise models. The nature of the model is to allow one to describe something mathematically so as to be able to make sufficiently accurate predictions about its behavior in order to exploit it and use it.
Quantum mechanics is a troubling field to examine. The constituent particles are incredibly tiny. Their behavior is counterintuitive relative to our understanding of even the subatomic particles they form. The experiments are huge. The timelines for analyzing the experiments are years. Of course our understanding of the nature of the universe will change one way or another as we puzzle out these things and devise new experiments.
Or, even on a macro scale, some phenomena defy thorough understanding. Fluid dynamics has been studied for centuries and still isn’t considered as well-defined as other disciplines. I recall reading about one of the automakers performing some cutting-edge experiments with a pretty mundane reciprocating-piston engine with high-speed instruments, then spent an immense amount of supercomputing cluster time analyzing the results. Understanding of combustion physics improved, but they still didn’t reduce the specifics of modeling that engine under those conditions to a satisfactory level.
2 Likes
That poor cat was originally proposed as a criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation by Schrodinger. Over time it became an illustration of QM.
1 Like
I think physicists a century from now will think those of today look silly sometimes.
There are those who enjoy inventing things because the math is ‘beautiful’. That’s not a good reason.
1 Like
Maths is completely invented by us, IMO. I’m a fictionalist when it comes to Maths…
One of my favorite short videos on the Maths debate which is entirely different than the QM debate.
Enjoy …
3 Likes
I’ve always been curious, why do people, use the term ‘maths’ Instead of ‘math’? Is it of U.K. origin? It just sounds funny. Thanks.
2 Likes
Maths is short for Mathematics. Notice the ‘s’ … “Mathematic” without the s, sounds funny to me and not a thing
1 Like