/sci/ - Science & Math

>writing a very important paper
>4chan
>important
>4chan
myface.jpeg

>>1204742
I have literally nowhere else to go, and I'm hoping that someone here has at least a little experience with the subject. I have no other people I know that are scientists, and I'm a member of no other communities with even a small scientist population.

>>1204747

Thought you be trolling.
I'll be off.

>>1204747
>I have no other people I know that are scientists, and I'm a member of no other communities with even a small scientist population.

Aaaaaand there's your problem.

>>1204760
Great. While I'm in the first step of this, weeks before the paper is even started, I guess I should make me some scientist friends, or join a scientific community? Anyone care to reccomend one? Is it better to go with people you know personally, or people in a respected community? If I could, I would just walk out to the nearest corner store and use a Scientist dispenser. Unfortunately, those don't exist :(

http://www.vixra.org/

>>1204724

go to your local university and ask around , talk to big time professors

Tell us something interesting about extra dimensions!

You can submit your papers and research to http://arxiv.org/ it's an open research publishing site.

However OP, something tells me you're a troll.

>>1204808
Yes, this, obviously. A physics professor.

OP, the fact that you couldn't figure this out gives me the feeling that the inner workings of the universe might be a tad beyond your grasp.

>>1204823
I'm certainly not a troll. Of course, the only real way to prove this would be to disclose the contents of my theory (raw and unshapen as they are), but that's sort of impossible. You'll just have to take my word, I guess.

>>1204819
The theory is not so much about "extra" dimensions, it's a simplification to the way we see dimensions today. In perspective to the common M-Theory explanation, this one is so much more simpler. It deals with the dimensions we (sort of) know today, and the way they interact with each other. The theory does criticize the upper dimensions (4+) according to M-Theory, and clears up the confusion with those, but other than that it's more how the dimensions are placed and how they change each other, and rely on each other.

>>1204845

go to a university if its that good of a concept.

is it just a hypothesis, or do you actually have some math or experiments to back it up?

>>1204845
> this one is so much more simpler
Dude. Seriously?
I'd like to hear OP's layman's description of M theory.

>>1204841
I'm by no means a professional scientist, nor do I have any experience with getting things published, or anything even close to the sort. Don't use that, though, to criticize my scientific abilities. I've explained this to a small group of people, and the one person that actually understood it (like I said, I don't have a lot of scientist friends/connections), had a "EUREKA!" moment like I did.

>>1204845
>M Theory
>Implying spacial dimensions interact instead of encompass each other.
>Calling your hypothesis a theory

Well there's your problem

>>1204880

if that were possible the 3 dimensions that we know of, we wouldn't be able to see.

just tell us your idea OP.

>>1204862
At the moment it's a simple hypothesis. Hundreds of hours are going to be pumped into this though, perfecting the theory as much as I can, and following the steps I've laid out for myself. The steps are record, transcript, research. and write. I'm recording nearly every thought I have on the matter, transcripting it to paper, and when I've completely sucked myself dry of all the thoughts I possibly can, I'll attempt to test my hypothesis. However, it's incredibly hard to do so when dealing with concepts so strange as other dimensions.

>>1204866
If you've got an email, MSN, or AIM, I can add you or save your email, and I can let you know when any of it is avaliable to release to the public

>>1204912
Well, I can save you a lot of time.
If your theory isn't *falsifiable,* meaning that it makes predictions that can be tested (and proven false), then don't bother with the "hundreds of hours" you were planning to pump into it.

Does it make a testable prediction, or doesn't it?

>>1204934
This. If it's not falsifiable then it's just intellectual wankery.

>>1204912

it seems that there's still months before you need to worry about publishing anything, first get your shit together and start crafting that theory/hypothesis.

>>1204934
It's provable in the same way M-Theory is provable. Perhaps "Theory" is the wrong word to use in this case, but the technicalities will be cleared up soon enough. It doesn't make a testable prediction because it deals with things outside of what we can possibly test. Instead, it changes the way we see different dimensions, how they interact and encompass each other.

A simple point to make, is that, by this theory/hypothesis/what-have-you, there are some dimensions that interact with each other, and some that encompass each other. This is to clear up >>1204880 's remark.

It should be noted that this isn't something that will change the world as we know it. For the people who read it, though, it will change the way they see other dimensions. It makes complete sense of the dimensions. Not so much the "HOW CAN WE EXTEND 3 DIMENSIONS HURRDURR" problem, but more the way we see space and time in regards to dimensions.

It's really hard to give hints and answer questions without revealing the core of the theory/hypothesis as it is. When it's in any sort of official form (Most likely PDF), /sci/ will be notified of it for sure.

>>1204971
I had the same idea while I was high one time. But I don't think people will take it seriously since what you're talking about is more metaphysical than anything.

>>1204971
> It doesn't make a testable prediction because it deals with things outside of what we can possibly test.

Then what good is it? It can't be proven true or false and it can't benefit anyone in any way.

I could make up a theory that invisible unicorns created the universe, and that can never be proven or disproven. And I can write as many papers in as much detail as I want, explaining the idea. But what use would they ever be to anyone?

>>1204980
You're assuming that you can gather what my theory is without really knowing anything about it.

Also, you shouldn't assume that all metaphysical things are just taken lightly and tossed aside. This also isn't entirely dealing with physics; some of it deals with something completely different entirely.

Now that I've got my answer (I was really worrying over nothing due to freaking out over my own thoughts), I should probably just delete my thread. If anyone has anything else of value to post, I'll read it for the first five minutes or so, and then I'm killing this thread. Just to get me to move on and stop obsessing over this for the night, really.

>>1204723

w W Ｗ . ａ N ｏ ｎ _ x _ T A Ｌ ｋ . s Ｅ _ R Ｅ m o V e _ x d pye juojtgyiwj zpvckaa uxn rh zjjbqspeh wth lq kl

>>1205009
This would be of use because it would make sense. It answers questions, while leaving up none. So far, theories claiming "Unicorns" (Read: God) created the universe brings more questions than it does answers. This is entirely the opposite. While there are questions that arise from what I've explored so far, it answers questions that were once unanswerable. It makes absolute sense, and, as someone who's obsessed over dimensions for years, it puts me at ease. I'll be able to appreciate this "ease" more, though, when I've actually completed the paper.

>>1205030
> theories claiming "Unicorns" (Read: God) created the universe brings more questions than it does answers

No, they don't. If you're willing to accept the answer that "God did it," then you can answer every question. It answers absolutely every question you can ask... Why are there three spacial dimensions? Why is the sky blue? Why is anything the way it is? If you answer "God did it," then there are no questions left. But you also can't prove or disprove that answer, so it doesn't benefit you in any way. Except that I guess you can stop spending time trying to figure out why the sky is blue, since you've already chosen your answer.

So is there going to be any math in your paper about theoretical physics?

>>1205107

This, if it's only provable in the same way as M Theory you need to have some fucking beautiful mathematics before people will even give it more than a glance.

>>1205058
When provided absolutely no evidence to the contrary, there's not much else to do, is there? The difference between my theory and believing that super-intelligent shades of blue created the universe is that the former allows a cease of thought to occour. This theory isn't "God did it" as much as it is "This is the best way to explain things so far."

>>1205107
Yes.

I'm off this thread now, as I've gotten what I wanted an then some. I won't directly delete the thread, but I'll allow it to sink to the bottom, and I won't be returning. I've got to get some sleep. G'night, /sci/.

>>1205161

..poor guy :(

>>1205180
Meh, don't feel bad for him. He'll waste a few hours on his shabby 'theory' only to have it shot down by the first science-literate person he runs into and that'll be the end of it.

>>1205198
http://milesmathis.com/

>>1205161
(I'm not sure whether he knows he's a troll)

>>1204724

<span class="math">/frac{x}{y}[/spoiler]

>>1204724

<span class="math">\frac{x}{y}[/spoiler]

wake up OP

>>1205229

I think he is just a hack. It sounds like he has no real academic background.