Quote from Bruce__H

I think a paper deriving gravity from EM force

I don't think it would get past the first read,

, given the thousands of research physicists ..mathematicians.. professors who

make a living off QFT and other quantum nonsense..since 1926,,

more than seven decades of nonsense,

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.08053.pdf

"The fact that QFT does not have (as we will see) one clear and universal set of axioms likely shows that the
physical understanding is still lacking.

Hence, we argue, it is a challenge both for physicists and for mathematicians to define QFT.

Quote from RobertBryant

No one in physics dares say so, but the race to invent new particles is pointless

"Ambulance-chasing is a good strategy to further one’s career in particle physics.

"Most of those papers pass peer review and get published because they are not technically wrong.

And since ambulance-chasers cite each other’s papers, they can each rack up hundreds of citations quickly. But it’s a bad strategy for scientific progress."

Sabine Hossenfelder The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/co…sics-particles-physicists

The real casualty is physics..luckily the physical world does not depend on 'physics'

or zoology

" preons, sfermions, dyons, magnetic monopoles, simps, wimps, wimpzillas, axions, flaxions, erebons, accelerons, cornucopions, giant magnons, maximons, macros, wisps, fips, branons, skyrmions, chameleons,

cuscutons, planckons and sterile neutrinos, etc"

Display More

https://www.google.com/search?…&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 The best thing is a Google review, and all the other magazines are just stupidity and everything is hidden under this technique. Do as I do, my first articles on the Internet on the first page and everyone will know everything...

Quote from Wyttenbach

The SO(4) physics model would destroy the live of several 100'000 physicists in most areas of today's interest.

...

So far, what I have understood is that when you submitted a manuscript on your SO(4) theory to a peer reviewed journal, it did not move forward as you hoped.

Setting aside your reasoning as to motivations ... you must have received some communication from some editor at the journal as to why your manuscript was returned to you without review. What did the editors say?

Quote from Bruce__H

What did the editors say?

2nd time.

If "Bruce" is persistently curious ,why don't you drop W a line on Researchgate,,,,..with your details.

if they're not too confidential

Have you done Peer Review before? Just asking...

https://www.nature.com/nature-…-policies/confidentiality.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The SO(4) physics model

Its allowed on the fringes though..as a fictitious model for the hydrogen atom..

Does anyone know....? Is there maybe an (introduction) video on YouTube or somewhere else, which explains
the basics of SO(4) physics? Researchgate.... with an explanation, when your are not a physicist?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Obviously not. I need to do more work...

Isn't there any way to get invitations or apply for a lecture or as a speaker on those various conferences related to these topics? There should be ways to spread the word on your theory, other than just waiting for a publication in a major science media...?

Quote from zorud

Isn't there any way to get invitations or apply for a lecture or as a speaker on those various conferences related to these topics?

Well, in general you need to keep paying to attend and submitting abstracts. A slow and patient business and it is not easy if you are not from a company or a university. For theoreticians they like a university.

Quote from Alan Smith

Well, in general you need to keep paying to attend and submitting abstracts. A slow and patient business and it is not easy if you are not from a company or a university. For theoreticians they like a university.

zorud , being “in the fringe” (more correctly, on the bleeding edge) of science is never easy, ideas that are self coherent and allow to make useful predictions, but challenge the predominant paradigm are, even on these days in which we value evidence above all, met with resistance. Have we not learnt anything after 33 years of studying a paradigm challenging field that has just begun to be accepted as potential valid science?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Did you ever try to teach a trained SM monkey ??

Try to explain him the following::

You cannot describe a particle with a single 4 potential and even less using the classic Coulomb gauge as usually one just leaves left out the strongest field - the one generated by the internal charge = magnetic momentum. The magnetic momentum is never stable and directed !!! Also do the two charges (the momentum generating one and the externally visible) not overlap what disallows gauging.

So basically current SM physics (about mass and particles) is fringe nonsense.

I never tried. But I am sure, I would fail as well, if I officially call out loud that all stuff related to current mainstream SM physics is nonsense and believers or "trained" in that are monkeys... Maybe a start can be to provide sustainable evidence that the the current model fails to explain specific experimental findings, while your theory shows a much better and more accurate model for this? As an alternative or improvement... Just saying...It is a pity that such stuff seems to be discussed more or less in this forum only. And those who never read here will never know...

Quote from zorud

I never tried. But I am sure, I would fail as well, if I officially call out loud that all stuff related to current mainstream SM physics is nonsense and believers or "trained" in that are monkeys... Maybe a start can be to provide sustainable evidence that the the current model fails to explain specific experimental findings, while your theory shows a much better and more accurate model for this? As an alternative or improvement... Just saying...It is a pity that such stuff seems to be discussed more or less in this forum only. And those who never read here will never know...

It is often the case that the people more capable of seeing through the holes of a paradigm are also relatively less capable of succeeding in making others see those same holes. It is never an easy task. Well documented by Thomas Kuhn in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This finding is one of the experimental refutations of SM. Also Sardins neutron diffraction experiment that shows the nuclear charge is toroidal or B.Schaeffer that shows the nuclear force = magnetic force.

A very valuable note! Samsonenko Nikolai Vladimirovich, Associate Professor of the Department of Theoretical Physics of the RUDN University, spoke about the same 5 years ago.

This video is a seminar at RUDN University - 2017.05.30 (2-2) Samsonenko N.V. Strong interactions are poorly understood magnetic interactions -

Samsonenko Nikolai Vladimirovich paper here..

Maybe he is interested to read a more constructive SO(4) model

in Russian?

We briefly outlined the main ideas of Barut and gave an idea of the potential
but interactions of two charged particles with normal and abnormal ones
magnetic moments. Using the general expression (20) for the Hamiltonian,
a number of tasks were solved earlier.]. Expression (20) turned out to be effective for the 
coupled system «neutron-proton» (nucleus of deuterium).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343031912_Vlianie_magnitnogo_vzaimodejstvia_na_spektr_mass_elementarnyh_castic

Quote from RobertBryant

Samsonenko Nikolai Vladimirovich paper here..

Maybe he is interested to read a more constructive SO(4) model

in Russian?

Code

We briefly outlined the main ideas of Barut and gave an idea of the potential
but interactions of two charged particles with normal and abnormal ones
magnetic moments. Using the general expression (20) for the Hamiltonian,
a number of tasks were solved earlier.]. Expression (20) turned out to be effective for the 
coupled system «neutron-proton» (nucleus of deuterium).

https://www.researchgate.net/p…_mass_elementarnyh_castic

Thank you ! On February 27, 2020, at a seminar in RUDE, Nikolai Vladimirovich made a report - The influence of magnetic interaction on the mass spectrum of elementary particles Nikolay Samsonenko, 02/27/2022

In this article, I mention the speech of Nikolai Vladimirovich - an article in Russian - What is wrong with antihydrogen, March 17, 2020 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4jKi/K4txCwACW

What's wrong with antihydrogen, March 17, 2020 -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ps3AZ4MDKTcp3OS3IfT1Rx5-9K80HJq7/view?usp=sharing

I spoke at that seminar - look at 1 hour 51 minutes 13 seconds.