In theory Foundations of Physics, but doubt anyone would get this far.

A piece of it might be better.

If not in a private book.

If you've done what you say you've done it has to be a book. High quality university press. Oxford maybe, Harvard perhaps? Your problem then will be referees, but there's less potential for leakage than a journal review process.

You need a lawyer to help protect your copyright in the publication process. You can negotiate to retain more control than you'd get with a journal. You can negotiate on future value, ie a popular version of the work may generate a lot of money at some point. You want your share of that.

Christopher NOCK

I think the "standard" steps would be: register the author according to the law, publish it in arxiv or equivalent and then in a scientific journal with peer review

Dear Juan, Emanouil, Christophe, Sydney, and Sergio,

Thank you very much for your suggestions and advice, really valueable and appreciated.

I understand that Foundations of Physics is probably the most correct address for publication of such a theory, and maybe Annals of Physics as a second resort, but I am talking about 18-20 papers of 10-30 pages each, with proof and insight analysis. So, the impression I get from you all is that, before it is known and accepted, it is hard to publish such a comprehensive content in those journals, maybe as a special issue of a series of papers, but even more difficult to prevent partial leakage. I agree that it would be hard for any single physicist to fully digest at once and leak the whole thing, because even if the idea is known, it has no meaning without proof and understanding of consequences, which is not obviously apparent to everyone, as you have stated Sydney.

I have also considered arXiv, but can you publish anything you publish in arXiv first elsewhere later? Not in any Scientific Journal that prints novel discoveries, I believe.

So, it seems that book is the best option.

Christopher,

Thank you for suggesting about the potential future material return. You are right that the Author deserves their share of it more than any Journal :) After all, it is the Author’s effort. Do you think a Local Notary registration of the original script prior to publication would legally help to protect intellectual rights?

Sydney,

I am considering self publication options as a book. On the other hand, can you be more explicit about “a way that will not spoil your life”? I may try and take my precautions.

Best Regards,

Pınar

" I have also considered arXiv, but can you publish anything you publish in arXiv first elsewhere later? Not in any Scientific Journal that prints novel discoveries, I believe. "

I think that arxiv is considered as a non-commercial pre-print server and is accepted by all journals, however, if you want to see the conditions of each journal:

http://sherpa.mimas.ac.uk/romeo/search.php

Thank you for sharing this link Sergio,

It seems really useful to search the pre-print and post-print policies of major journals 👍🏻

Presentation "IF YOU WANT TO...", by: Asst. Prof. Dr. Emad Kamil

Presentation How to Select a Trusted Journal, by: Asst. Prof. Dr. Emad K....

Regards,

Emad

Thanks for clarifying what you meant Sydney,

I had wondered if you had meant something else. If this is the case, no problem. I am aware of how much so many people craved with an ambition to find a Unified Theory in vain, and why people are skeptical when they hear someone claims to find a Unified Theory.

I have no intention of claiming something based on some imagination. Rather, I am willing to share a description of a bigger perspective I see, allowing a better picture of the observed macro and micro scale Universe in a joint form, based on mathematical proof, also in agreement with existing physics theories at the scales they are observed to be or accepted valid.

However dynamic and relative reality is, there is an underlying consistent pattern all the same, and I think that pattern itself is more deterministic than the probabilistic quantum possibilities it enables.

In the worst case, it will be a step towards discovering more ;)

In fact, I think that experiment is very exciting and also supportive of my theory Sydney Ernest Grimm. Every time I read a paper or news about an experiment or observation in recent years that is said to conflict with prediction, I find it quite in compliance with my theory, which increases my confidence.

I think the problem with the scientific community, and people in general, is that they stick so much to a theory or an idea in a dogmatic sense that they come to the verge of denying a reality in front of them when faced with it, if it doesn’t support what they chose to believe. I am surprised about so expensive experiment setups such as the ones held at CERN to prove imaginary theories that people do not even give the benefit of doubt that the theory they have set out to prove may have flaws or be wrong in the first place. Majority vote has no meaning when it comes to wieghing the truth. However, each effort is a step in discovery and observations in colliders such as CERN will certainly open way to more discoveries in time, even if not the ones intended in the first place.

I think I will not have to worry about acceptance if I publish in a book rather than a journal. It will speak for itself, and whoever wishes can put it to the test. If there happens to be an experiment which indicates a conflict in the future, it would only point out an area open for improvement.

I have been suggested publishing in pieces as you have also suggested and I have considered it a couple of times, but the pieces by themselves would not make the overall impact and give the whole connected picture.

Regards,

Pınar

Images, sentences, and math, of course, alongside data. I also plan an overall summary of the result for laymen, to demostrate the beauty & symmetry in the simplicity of nature’s rules :)

Making humour of it, I don’t have to remind a scientist like you that Intelligence Gene is independent from Gender Chromosome and that intelligence is statistically distributed by a Gaussian curve in society and within respective genders, and that cultural & social biases are not the subject of this discussion. But I agree with you that not all men might be happy with the outcome :)

I do not knot what you mean by “creating a theory of everything” but what I am talking about is ”asserting a concise explanation consistent with observation as a whole“, I am not talking about creating something that does not exist.

Humans must have been underlying principles to describe the phenomena they observe for as long as humans existed, so it does not just date back to 2500 years ago. To what extent the description is correct is another issue. Some may have imagined ether though which fields travel, you may choose to describe phenomena via QFT excited states but even the structure of photon is not understood fully in the physics community yet, classical mechanics may have attributed an entity called “mass” to clumps of what we call “matter” and Relativists may have imagined it as a form of stored “energy”, etc. The bottom line is, people have tried to formulate theories which they suppose would describe things to an extent, but all of these altogether or some of them or just one of them do not simply describe the phenomena as a whole, consistently. However, a precise description of nature as a physics theory must be as concise and compact as possible, simple and consistent, like “conservation of energy” as it is called. The more complicated a theory becomes, the more we must suspect the existence of some error in that theory.

You put the same question that I put myself many years ago..:-)

I will tell you how I did (even now I not sure that is necessary anymore):

- you can write and publish an article about this (I done). Is not sure that people will understand what you want to communicate... but you will have the PROVE

- you can create your own website about this or wherever else and promote it. Same situation as above... but need prove before!

- you can even.. try on researchgate... maybe .. who knows...

Concerning about unified theory you can find it in my very summary article.

Dear Balseanu,

Thank you very much for your response. I have read your summary on your profile based on gravitons. I am going to read your full pdf as well, but from what I understand in your summary statements, I have a totally different approach in my theory, and definitely we have some conflicting conclusions. I have based my proofs on compliance of theory results with observation. To state more correctly, I have derived my theory based on observation, and not the other way around, and it doesn’t involve quantum theory at all, although it is not conflicting with it as far as observation is concerned.

Best regards,

Pınar