Can anyone publish a scientific theory -how and why would they?

[artek57]

Several Qs here really, about scientific theories. Lets take the example of String Theory in physics for instance. Its just a theory, yet it seems to be accepted as more or less correct these days.

Can anyone just publish a theory of this kind that they have? Do you have to have special qualifications or status to do it. And what makes it accepted by everyone else rather than simply ignored? (I guess being able to prove the theory works in the real world makes it good, but String theory must be one of the hardest things to actually prove surely?). So maybe the fact that it just 'sounds/feels right' gets peoples attention initially, though that in itself is not enough to be accepted until some sort of proof appears?

How would you get something like this published -send it to a science magazine or a Scientific body of some sort?

And why would someone do it? Yes I can see the 'glory' angle -your name goes down in history forever more as the 'discoverer' of this then-new concept, and you have the satisfaction of knowing you contributed to the advancement of science. But is there any financial gain to be had? After all a theory alone -even if correct- cannot be patented to get royalties like an invention can.

Im answering my own Qs here to some extent but please fill in the gaps with your answers too.

[winwood]

see my videos

[hackett]

If you discover something new, you write an article and submit it to the relevant scientific journal. However, it is then "peer-reviewed" - meaning that other competent scientists working in the field check to make sure that it makes sense, that the evidence is good, and that the arguments are sound. Publication is about the kudos. If you want to make money from an idea, you have to find some commercial application of your discovery, and get a patent on it. Then anyone who wants to use it has to pay you for the right.

[naseem]

Anyone can publish anything (unless it is illegal).
It is not likely to be taken seriously.

Articles published by serious journals must pass through many hoops first. Peer review being just one.
This is why these journals can be taken seriously.

Many theories have not met these standards and are simply published in newspapers and magazines.
These are widely promoted by various interest groups as "scientific". But lack any validity/credibility.

Things for which there can be no evidence hardly deserve the term "theory". They used to be called a hypothesis. Because they haven't been adequately tested. And perhaps they never will be.
It doesn't make them wrong. But it does mean that they can't be trusted or predictive.
They are just an interesting thought. More like philosophy than science.

And finally most of the great discoveries of the world were not done for financial gain.
The desire for financial gain has actually slowed down real scientific progress.
Most of our great scientists have done things for the pursuit of knowledge alone. And wish to share that knowledge with other interested persons.

[darce]

"Can anyone publish a scientific theory -how and why would they?"

In principle, yes, assuming they can find a publisher. They would do so because they think it's going to be of interest.

"Its just a theory, yet it seems to be accepted as more or less correct these days."

The phrase "just a theory" often denotes a lack of understanding of what a scientfic theory is! There's a just a theory that the world is roughly globe-shaped, a just a theory that it orbits the Sun, and another just a theory about a force known as gravity. All these just a theories are just theories; evidence-based, tested explanations of something or other.

"Do you have to have special qualifications or status to do it."

The qualification required is writing something that's worth publishing. Self-publication doesn't count.

"And what makes it accepted by everyone else rather than simply ignored?"

It's of interest.

"(I guess being able to prove the theory works in the real world makes it good, but String theory must be one of the hardest things to actually prove surely?)."

Science is a process of attempted falsification, not one of attempted proof. All those just a theories mentioned above haven't been proven. This is because science doesn't do proof.

"So maybe the fact that it just 'sounds/feels right' gets peoples attention initially, though that in itself is not enough to be accepted until some sort of proof appears?"

No kind of proof ever appears. All theories remain permanently open for revision and/or refutation. At no time does a group of scientific druids enter the scene, blowing trumpets and tinkering bells, until one of them intones: "Wow, this one's proven!"

"And why would someone do it?"

Because it's of interest.