Submitting to a Journal

Post Reply New Topic

I extensively studied space-time and physics since I was twelve years old. This summer, taking advantage of the free time youths have, I made a mathematical and logical argument about what actually happens after faster than light travel. It didn't start out that way. I just made a connection and then it turned into another.

My major is in computer science. While I have enough of a mathematical background, I only took three classes of university physics.

I am afraid of showing anyone at my university because they might take the paper for their own. I want to get credit for my work. I am also afraid I will be disqualified from submitting even though the logic and mathematics are correct.

Any advice on submitting a journal as an undergraduate and getting proper credit for my work?

Last edited by techn0teen on 17 Aug 2011, 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Look up the submission procedures for a journal in the field of your research, and send it off. It could help to have a faculty mentor help you along the way though, especially in refining your ideas and making sure you haven't made some embarrassing error that will get you laughed out of peer review, etc. You would be expected to share authorship with them if they helped you, but you are still credited, and as an undergrad having your name on a paper at all is a good thing.

As to the research you described... based on the physics background you claim, I would probably assume there is some error in the logic and mathematics, or in the assumptions you are making about physics.

Will do. Thank you for the advice. Getting laughed at doesn't bother me. If it passes peer review, it passes. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I thought it would be nice to share in case there is some validity and value to it. I thought sharing it to a journal would be more beneficial than just leaving it in my house somewhere to rot.



Possibly. That is what peer review is for, after all.

I find it humorous that you would assume that I assumed something just because I do not have more of a physics background. In computer science, we are required to do proofs. One of the things we first learn about is not to assume anything. Always make sure you know the subject thoroughly before trying to prove or disprove anything about it.

Last edited by techn0teen on 17 Aug 2011, 10:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

techn0teen, this sounds very interesting. Whatever happens I hope you come back and tell us how it goes -- I would really like to read your ideas.

Submitting to a journal as a sole author is extremely difficult without a publication record. You could either aim very low (impact factor <0.5) or aim higher but turn it into a collaboration with a physicist at a nearby University. The second choice is definitely the best, as you also get feedback from somebody with experience (and avoid potentially embarrassing yourself). Good luck.....

One thing that formal education in a subject is good for is learning the standard "language" of a field. That lets other people more easily understand your ideas. So, I'd anticipate some trouble in getting people to understand what you mean.
Also, formal training helpful in avoiding "re-inventing the wheel."

Three undergrad (unless you meant graduate) physics classes is not a lot. I have a BA in Physics and even that is really just "pre-physics" prep for grad school. I.e. you don't General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory ("particle physics") proper, until grad school. So, you might have more holes in your knowledge that you know of at this point.

Thanks for that suggestion. I will look at my physics journals at my university library and physics department to see if I have enough of the "lingo" to make a meaningful communication.

That reminds me; is there somewhere to search to make sure an idea similar to mine hasn't already been proposed and shot down?

If it doesn't... you submit to a different journal.


I did not mean to be negative. Just... proceed with caution. There are a lot of people who seriously overestimate their understanding of physics based on the leisure reading they do.

And my CS friends don't do many proofs. Certainly not an emphasis for them. That's more of a math major thing, and even though I've complete a BS in applied mathematics I would never pretend to have the expertise to formulate a novel idea in physics, especially on such a level as challenging accepted ideas on faster-than-light.

That actually shouldn't matter. Most publications do not consider the qualifications of authors when deciding whether to publish. If you apply to the most prestigious journals like Science or Nature, they will never ask you what degree(s) or prior publications you have, and I assume it is the same for other journals as well.

You could search physics journals, of course, though I'm not sure how far back the indexes typically go, given that there's 100 years of history for S.R. Books on the history of S.R. could help, but that could be a lot of reading. The easiest way would be to ask a professor or grad student, but if you don't want to risk having your idea stolen then that's of no help. I dunno, that's all I can think of ATM.

You don't seem negative. You seem skeptical and realistic.

I hardly think what I found is novel, and it does not seem to challenge anything. But I will be careful. It's a delight to talk with you.

I am reading this physics article in 1905 called "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" to get a better idea on the necessary wording to use. Geez, did Einstein even reference anyone with this paper?

Here's Einstein's Paper (click here). Let me double check to see if this is the correct version, and it is not some fraud. It's better to be safe than sorry.

Unless I have severely misunderstood the state of physics research (which is entirely possible) any idea about what happens at velocities exceeding c would be novel and a challenge to established ideas.

I've heard of tachyons, which are theoretical faster than light particles. You could try looking that up and tracking down references from there.

I know I'm probably not helping you much here, but I really want to see this theory of yours. I've heard of tachyons, but if you're thinking of something different, I'd like to know what it is. Even if it's similar, I still enjoy thinking about this sort of stuff.

I suppose we can turn it into a discussion. I will explain it but keep in mind that I am not using the exact wording, and I really edited it so it lacks crucial details (since that is how I derived the calculations). I am only giving a conceptual answer.

So basically the paper argues that when a particle goes faster than the speed of light, it enters a higher dimensional space. It does not go backwards in time so it does not violate causality like a tachyon potentially could.

The closest analogy I can draw is imagine you have a rope. If you rotate it slowly, you can put your finger in it because it has a lot of gaps. If rotated more quickly, the gaps get smaller. It gets more solid as there is less and less space to stick your finger in. If you rotated this rope closer to the speed of light, you would get closer to having a true solid.

So when something goes past the speed of light, in a way, it enters a higher dimensional space because there are more gaps and room. The matter around, in the perspective of the faster than light particle, breaks down to a lower dimension. So due to all the gaps, it can phase through ordinary matter and seemingly teleport from the perspective of an observer from the 3rd dimension.