Just Discovered Unified Field Theory! How To Market?

Dien,

Suppose, in a blinding flash of insight, you suddenly achieved one of the great goals of physics: You discover the true Unified Field Theory! (For those not familar with physics: See definition below.)

As you write down and clarify your thoughts, low and behold, you realize that the true Unified Field Theory is so simple it can easily be understood by practically anyone, laymen included!

Unfortunately, your new theory is *too* simple, and your ideas are (naturally) rejected out of hand by the current physics establishment. Even so, you *know* you have it right!

Questions: First, would your discovery constitute a marketable product? And second, how would you format, package and market your discovery? (Given that the modern day equivalent of the-world-is-flat society will, no doubt, be taking potshots at you as soon as you and/or your theory become visible --- and, thus of course, no "respectable" journal will publish your ideas.)

--- Hugh

P.S., No, I haven't discovered the true Unified Field Theory. But suppose you or someone else comes up with a similar basic discovery --- like maybe an explanation of what electricity really is, or a simple explanation of what time is. How would you format your/their discovery, package it and market it? Could you sell this as an "information product"? Could you make money from it? (Altruistic considerations aside!)

*Simple Definition - Unified Field Theory: A single, unifying idea or formula that fully explains the workings and interactions of all natural phenomena.

YES! (Explanation below....)

Hugh, thanks for an interesting question! (To me anyway.... :) )

> Suppose, in a blinding flash of insight, you
> suddenly achieved one of the great goals of
> physics: You discover the true Unified Field
> Theory! (For those not familar with physics:
> See definition below.)

> As you write down and clarify your thoughts,
> low and behold, you realize that the true
> Unified Field Theory is so simple it can
> easily be understood by practically anyone,
> laymen included!

> Unfortunately, your new theory is *too*
> simple, and your ideas are (naturally)
> rejected out of hand by the current physics
> establishment. Even so, you *know* you have
> it right!

Heheh, well, I haven't found the "true unified field theory" (I assume you mean what Einstein was working on in his latter years)....

But I did have a strange experience once.

The short version was I did what I felt was a very original piece of research. I wrote it up and sent it to a well-known physics journal....

I got a letter back. The referee had rejected it! The reason why was because they said, if what I did was right it would be important, BUT.... They thought my work was wrong.

I didn't think the referee was right, and I don't like giving up, so I fixed the paper up a little bit, and sent it to a different, also well-known physics journal.

I got a letter back from them, they rejected it too! But what were the reasons? The precise OPPOSITE of the first journal - they said my work was right, but that it was trivial! (That is, they thought it was not important....)

Obviously, they couldn't both be right (since they contradicted each other).

So I decided to try a THIRD journal. And finally, it got accepted, and it was published in 1997.

I think one lesson I've learned is that, what one person thinks is trivial, another will find profound. Often we think our own knowledge is trivial, whereas in fact, many people will probably find it profound. As Paul Short says, your knowhow can really change people's lives!

But back to the topic at hand.... :)

> Questions: First, would your discovery
> constitute a marketable product? And second,
> how would you format, package and market
> your discovery? (Given that the modern day
> equivalent of the-world-is-flat society
> will, no doubt, be taking potshots at you as
> soon as you and/or your theory become
> visible --- and, thus of course, no
> "respectable" journal will publish
> your ideas.)

Yes, I think there may be a niche market for such a product. I can even think of an example.

There is an ingenious British mathematician named Roger Penrose. He came up with an interesting - and quite "unorthodox" - theory of what might cause the phenomenon of consciousness.

Roger Penrose decided that, instead of publishing his theories on this in refereed journals, as is standard in science, he would take his theory directly to the public.

The result are two books - "The Emperor's New Mind" (1991) and "Shadows of the Mind" (1996) - both about his theory of consciousness, and how it relates to quantum mechanics.

Did they make him rich? I doubt it, but I think he did get decent sales.

I do know some popular physics authors. I once had lunch with Paul Davies (at a conference in 1997) - he's a professor of physics who became a full time science author. He's a millionaire from his books, I believe. You can find plenty of his books on Amazon.com. His latest book is "How to Build a Time Machine," which has just been published - I haven't read it yet though.

Another popular physics author I know is Gerard Milburn - he was one of the examiners of my Ph.D. thesis. He's a professor of physics and has also written two popular books, "The Feynman Processor" (about quantum computing) and "Schrodinger's Machines" (about other aspects of quantum technology). He's said he didn't make all that much from his books, but they did bring some extra money in (which, of course, he spent on research!).

So, in brief, that's what I'd do. The science "establishment" isn't always right, and if you believe in your theory and believe there's good evidence for it, publish it as a book and put before the public!

You may not get rich, but one of the best qualities in sales is PASSION. And if you believe in your own theory, I'm sure you'll be passionate!

What Roger Penrose did was put in all the background knowledge you needed to understand his work too. You might want to look at his books as a possible model. Where his books differ from most other popular science books is that these are accounts of his own ORIGINAL, generally previously unpublished research, whereas most popular science books are summaries of research that has already been published in specialist scientific journals.

Hope that helps, Hugh....

- Dien Rice

This is a heavy discussion and not my area
of expertise, but I'd like to add:
Michio Kushi wrote a series of books on
YIN YANG theory(the theory of macrobiotics)
which are very popular in the metaphysical
circles and "allegedly" is a unified field
theory of his...some say it is to simplistic;
but the point is what Dien is saying: it can
be done and sold successfully...
I think this is what you're talking about:
;-)

Remember the cold fusion debacle?
Rejected out of hand as bad science by the scientific establishment, yet it caught the publics imagination thru a flurry of books on the subject. Still highly supported despite a lack of results on some fringe sites. (hint: keelynet)




Just me