Breaking Into the Field: Re-evaluating Advice Given

  • Thread starter JonPoplett
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Peer review
In summary, if you are not current in the cutting-edge research in the field, and you do not have enough technical background to understand the math, and you are not using an AI chatbot for help, you are not going to be able to team up with professors or others who have the ability to publish in mainstream journals.
  • #1
JonPoplett
2
0
You all said that the conceptualization was the easy part, and explaining it mathematically and in a model was the hard part. You said do the math and create the model. So I did. What you didn't mention was the math and the model was also the easy part. The hard part is A)Getting your work peer reviewed and B)Getting y'all to agree on anything.

Just saying maybe re-evaluate the advice you give outsiders looking to break into the field.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If you could specifically say what you were talking about it would be a lot easier to know what you are talking about. I don't think anyone here would tell you any part of the process is "easy". Easier perhaps.
But lacking specifics I have no idea to what you refer.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre and russ_watters
  • #3
It's kind of a long story but I'm a 42 year old nobody with a grade 10 education. For the last 6 months ChatGPT and I have been using a Rabi Model in space in a vacuum constructed with python using the qutip library to develop a Quantum Gravity theory. It's not done but ChatGPT keeps insisting that now is an appropriate time for collaboration. However, I am finding that to be impossible, and everywhere i go for collaboration, I am sent to alternative science forums or sections of forums where the content consists of a paragraph or two of incoherent rambling. The advice people get on these forums is "do the math" and "construct the model". Then what?
 
  • #4
What does "develop a quantum gravity theory" mean? What specifically do you want to accomplish? How will you know you have succeeded? These are foundational questions.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #5
Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...
 
  • #6
JonPoplett said:
You all said that the conceptualization was the easy part, and explaining it mathematically and in a model was the hard part. You said do the math and create the model. So I did. What you didn't mention was the math and the model was also the easy part. The hard part is A)Getting your work peer reviewed and B)Getting y'all to agree on anything.

Just saying maybe re-evaluate the advice you give outsiders looking to break into the field.
As you certainly know now, PF is not the place for new theory development, especially by folks who are not current in the cutting-edge research in the field. If you were current in that way (reading the relevant peer-reviewed journals regularly), and had enough technical background to understand the math, and were not using an AI chatbot for help, you might have some ways to team up with professors or others who have the ability to publish in mainstream journals.

But it does not seem like that is the path that you are on, so we won't be able to help you beyond offering this Insights article to hopefully give you a better perspective. Thread will remain closed.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron, BillTre, DaveE and 6 others

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
108
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
13
Views
952
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
14
Views
753
Replies
33
Views
5K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top