You're focusing on just one aspect of particle physics. In addition to looking for new particles using colliders at the highest possible energies, there are many experiments looking for 'indirect' impact of new particles at lower energies. These fundamental symmetry measurements vary in scale from single-institution experiments to collaborations including dozens of physicists. So there is already a program trying to address these questions on several fronts, including smaller targeted experiments. But even with revolutionary new ideas, direct verification of expansions of the standard model which add new particles to explain current limitations in the theory will likely require large-scale collider experiments.

You're focusing on just one aspect of particle physics. In addition to looking for new particles using colliders at the highest possible energies, there are many experiments looking for 'indirect' impact of new particles at lower energies. These fundamental symmetry measurements vary in scale from single-institution experiments to collaborations including dozens of physicists. So there is already a program trying to address these questions on several fronts, including smaller targeted experiments. But even with revolutionary new ideas, direct verification of expansions of the standard model which add new particles to explain current limitations in the theory will likely require large-scale collider experiments.

You are speaking about what I called "speculative." It is already a fully developped discipline at the theoretical level, but there is not the least clue in all our experimental data of its reality. That's not the same as with the standard model that was build mainly on what was already known. It's only a matter of faith to believe that it will have any bearing at all in the future of physics.

Now if we take the example of quantum gravity, the question remains open, above all if, as I think, a solution won't be found if the long standing problems of the interpretation of quantum mechanics that were put aside by copeous cop outs aren't adressed. In this case, the old ways of work can not necessarily be taken as a model.

Since it is 'forty years' that there are no advances in theoretical physics, the only criteria to evaluate a physicists is the collaborations of his/her works. The 'publish or perish' policy has favored the 'shout up and calculate' philosophy. The necessity of fast communication, even if not peer-riviewed, promoted by arXiv, has favored speculative researches with poorer and poorer scientific value (they reject or reclassify paper without entering in the merit of the research, this is against the essence of the scientific method). Leading scientific journals favorite speculative researches with respect to courageous ones: courageous ones can be tested and ruled out by experiment in the next years whereas speculative researches it cannot be test in the next centuries so that they have no risk for the editors and referees.

I have attended a conference some days ago and I have noted that the trend to justify supersymmetry, with great satisfaction of big names of the phenomenology community, is multiverse, that is the anthropic principle in opposition to naturalness. To me this means to give up with the attempt to search for logic explanations to physics phenomena. It is like saying, supersymmetry must be there because we live in a universe in which supersymmetry must be there, despite the extreme fine-tunings with more and more parameters in these theories. New ideas come with single authored researches. But in the bibliometrics indexes these have the same value of a paper with ten coauthor. The referees of the grants, only when they see something original, they only count the number of publications, citations, citations to their own works, without having the time to really understand the originality of the proposal, but new ideas have small impact at the beginning with respect to mainstream researches. Your researcher can find a postdoc only if they give 100% of their time to develop the researches of his supervisors. Today there is not an environment that favorite those visionary that can be brings breakthrough in physics.

As a result it is probably twenty years that there are no real new ideas in high energy physics. Who have tried to propose something really new, and that works particularly well, has seen his/her carrier destroyed, is put in a corner and forgotten by the community as an annoying competitor.

At the moment I can only say that the future of theoretical physics will be a sort of alchemy for academic elected people, whereas experimental physics will be as pre-cartesian science, that is mere reports of empirical facts.

Dear Dolce

I like your work so excuse me if call you Dolce. I totally agrees with you , take an example I made a theory that describes the cause of Lorentz invariance violation and the cause of arising different form for Lorentz factor and with same number that lead to violation proved in equations. I sent the paper to Q1 and Q2 journals all of them have the same answer your work is out of main stream. they even did not say it is true or false. I think with such ideas in publication that do not look to the ideas but only to the probability of citation of the published papers . I think with the new bases of quantum theory of citation the theoretical physics will be the slowest branch of physics in developing. I may at last if they keep refusing go to arxive to publish it.

by the way my theory agrees well with yours.

I think the solution in funding a new journal that can publish papers in theoretical physics out of main stream, who can bear it for physics this is an open question...

Dear Fadhil,

Thank you for your interest in my work, this is the best reward for who try to communicate his results. I know perfectly how disappointing is for a scientist to have reports not based in the merit of your research. This is against the essence of the scientific method. This was a letter of Galileo to Kepler:

(Galileo Galilei, 1600) I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ...

If you say, "I see this important result by following these technical (mathematical or experimental) prescriptions" and people do not want to see in your 'telescope' to not admit the evidence of fact, this is a crime in science. Unfortunately, Galileo's lesson ("Indeed it moves!") is lost for many important so-called scientific institutions, and this is bringing theoretical back to alchemy. For instance, in high energy phenomenology now they are pretending that nature is unnatural to bypass the naturalness and fine-tunings problems and continue to publish and speculate, while natural description are put in the shadow because this would require to reconsider fundamental paradigms or wrong turns in popular theories.

To publish your theory you must probably try to add more evidences with detailed mathematical demonstrations of your results. If you are lucky you can still find some fair scientist or editor that check the reproducibility of your results and accept them for their scientific values, regardless the non mainstream approach.

However, in my experiences, the publication of a peer-reviewed journal will only the begging of the troubles. Even if your demonstrations are mathematically correct and certified by publications, the more they represent a real breakthrough to solve fundamental problems of physics, the more you will ignore you as a competitor which must be eliminated at any rate before that someone really takes in consideration your work. This will happen by putting you and who try to support you in a corner where nobody will see you until you will be forgotten. This is easy to do in a community in which everyone speak but nobody listen, as a consequence of the policy "publish or perish".

Unfortunately this is not an epoch of heroes. My advice is to give the priority to your main stream researches in a big group ("shut-up and calculate!"), otherwise your career will be compromised. At the same time, continue in your spare time to bring new evidences, well supported by scientific arguments, with risk that when you will have a permanent position you will have lost your creativity and energies to follow original projects.

In any case we could discuss together about your idea, maybe by starting a common project in our ResearchGate pages.

Dear Donatello

Thank you very much for your interest and for your kind words. I'm really interested in your suggestion and I will try to contact you on your E-mail to put the basis of new project. I read your theory there are many similarities between your theory and mine. If these theories are unified together I think the results may be of great importance to physics. I think unifying efforts is the best way to introduce new revolutionary ideas to resist the strong disregarding of such theories.

with best regards.

I was not trying to chart a new course in physics when I started my work on developing models to introduce advanced concepts to undergraduates. But the effort to bridge the fields of physics with a simple semi-classical model had some unexpected results.

A simple semi-classical model presented in my book derived the mass of the Up and Down quarks within observed limits, predicted that quark/gluon plasmas would behave as a perfect fluid and that the size of the proton would be slightly smaller than the classical size. However that is not as impressive as it sounds.

However it does make me think that the standard model may not be entirely correct.

Because my work is not 'mainstream' getting published was impossible, and why I put my basic research in a book.

There are other alternatives, but many journals not mainstream have a bad reputation. Conform or be excluded. I am too mainstream for them, and not mainstream enough for standard journals. Not sure what to do next, or where to go with my research at this time, or if I should just abandon it for other pursuits.

Anyway, if anyone is interested here is a link to some of the work on semi-classical educational models. Not technically advanced, being meant for undergraduate use, but you might find something of interest in it.

http://www.academia.edu/1118589/Undergraduate_Thesis_A_relativistic_quantum_model_of_atomic_structures_from_particles_to_the_atom_

I would not be so pessimistic. Already at the end of the 19th century it was generally accepted that all the important laws of physics had been discovered and that, henceforth, research would be concerned with clearing up minor problems and particularly with improvements of method and measurement. And then we know what has happened. So we are still in a kind of a "punctuated equilibrium" (using terminology of the complexity theory) which could end with a jump to a new level of our understanding of the Nature. But how and when it is hard to speculate.

CERN is already looking far into the future revealing its plans for the after LHC era, that is about 20 years from now - construction of the Future CERN Collider

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/56603 But what really will happen in 20 years from now will depend on the physics outcome of the LHC program (phase 2 and 3) and possible developments of the acceleration technology.

The foundational work of Russell and Whitehead, in which space-time is reduced to time alone, has been confirmed by the recognition of frequency ratios formed among the simplest causal sets.  This showed that the causal web of the event ontology can account for frequency ratios all by itself, and by virtue of E=hf, energy ratios.  It then proved simple to construct the particles as repetitious causal set formations, such that the particles have DeBroglie values and mass-ratios with respect to one another.  These solve the most fundamental mysteries of physics, as well as the mind-body problem, since Russell and Whitehead were working with a concept of physics that excludes extension-in-space, just as causal set theory does.  Human mental events are then at home in the wider causal web.  Physics is then founded upon the arithmetic of a temporal successor relation, having the same consistency as whole-number arithmetic.  The Standard Model is reconstructed from causal sets.  Physics is then the simplest of the physical sciences, as is proper for its foundational role.  The proof of the foregoing is in the construction of the common particles, and the worked example of the mass-ratio of proton-to-electron, working off quantum schematics of those two particles.  See "Causal Set Theory and the Origin of Mass-ratio."  File is attached.  Link to posted file also given.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1006.0070v1.pdf