In my last post I made an official promise that I’d submit the manuscript of the theory of everything to Nature and I also mentioned that I need to convince the editor with a cover letter. In today’s post I share with you the magic of the cover letter.
You see, the editors of top scientific journals are very seldom (possibly never) the experts who can deduce from the content of the submitted manuscript whether it is likely to be correct and almost as seldom able to know whether is sufficiently important to be published in the journal. What this means is that a cover letter is required to convince the editor to pass the manuscript to be peer reviewed. In some sense, the editor could pass all submitted manuscripts for peer review, but to prevent the journal to be flooded with insignificant papers, the editor acts as a gatekeeper.
So, to write a really good cover letter, one has to be a great storyteller. Personally, I’m of the opinion that the story must be true, but the sad truth is that there are also cases where untrue stories have led paper to be accepted for review. But let’s not focus on scientific fraud, but rather on how to weave truth into a compelling story.
The really difficult bit about my cover letter is that to convince that I can make a hypothesis of the elementary particle of energy, I must show that this idea didn’t just pop into my head out of nowhere but was based on a significant background of experimental evidence. What makes this especially difficult is that I don’t want to make the article on the theory of everything at all about my experimental findings and my hypotheses based on those. I need to show to the editor that I was faced with an overwhelming amount of weak evidence all pointing towards there being supramolecular shells that I was almost forced to develop the theory of everything.
Here is my current version of the cover letter. It might be the final one, or I might still rework it. I show it to you as citations of paragraphs and give some comments on them.
Please find attached a manuscript by Kalle Lintinen. “A Proposal of an Elementary Particle of Energy and the Mathematical Description of its Refraction as the Most Fundamental Interaction” for publication in Nature
This is a standard opening, so nothing too interesting here. However, I’ve again changed the title. This time I try to be as descriptive as possible but being as concise as possible.
Note: As I am submitting this as a sole author, I use first person singular in this cover letter.
I had to add this sentence. In current academic publishing it is so uncommon to submit papers as sole authors, that most people have never submitted a cover letter saying, “I did x”. Almost always the cover letter says “we did x”. However, being the sole author, I don’t feel comfortable using the royal we. In the final submission a royal we is ok, as the paper is not written for a specific person.
The current understanding of fundamental interactions assumes no physical contact between particles to impart force and the current understanding of elementary particles of matter assumes that these are not comprised of smaller particles.
With this sentence I lay the basis of the current understanding of physics. These phrases should be as uncontroversial as possible.
However, herein I propose an elementary particle of energy, that is the building unit of all elementary particles of matter, as well as the building unit of light, and the source of all fundamental interactions. I offer the mathematical basis for refractive formation of matter (i.e. massive particles) from these particles of energy, as well as introduce the concept of supramolecular loops that fold into supramolecular shells. According to the proposed theory, individual molecules do not interact with light separately, but as a supramolecular entities. I also propose that light is present as a supraphotonic entity, where the energy of a single photon is the energy of the supraphotonic entity divided by the number of molecules in the supramolecular shell with which it interacts. Using the Rydberg formula as an example I show that the concept of the elementary particle of energy is compatible with the experimental data.
This paragraph I’ve worked and reworked a gazillion times. This paragraph needs to convey the core of what is presented in the manuscript. As the manuscript holds so many new ideas and concepts, it is extremely hard to distill all of this into a single paragraph, but hopefully I’ve managed this.
The proposed theory is not based on pure hypothesis, but a body of evidence pointing towards the supramolecular linking of non-charged molecules, gathered over several years of experimental work on the aqueous self-assembly of spherical lignin particles. I have for over three years developed the hypotheses that a) lignin is biopolymerized as supramolecular entities, which retain their general shape even in the harsh chemical environment of pulping, that b) water-miscible solvent molecules trap water into (quasi)spherical supramolecular shells and c) that liquid water is also present as (quasi)spherical supramolecular shells filled with water. However, none of these hypotheses have been publishable without a proper theoretical framework supporting the existence of supramolecular shells.
This paragraph does not refer to the submitted manuscript but attempts to address the objections of the editor and the reviewers before they even raise these objections. The primary objection is that you just can’t propose an elementary particle of energy without really convincing experimental data for it. However, I don’t want my paper to be about my experimental data, so I try to explain what I’ve found and at the same time I try to explain why I cannot include my own finding into the manuscript.
For reference I give examples of the peculiar properties of both lignin and solvents. Firstly, I hypothesized based on the concept of supramolecular shells, that lignin is present in plants as non-cylindrical nanotubules of 8 nm. While this shape could be found when analyzing microscopic images of hemicellulose-lignin-modules (HLM) when knowing of its existence, the resolution of these images is not sufficiently high to deduce this structure from microscopic images from plants alone. For lignin to be separated from biomass it must be rendered into a soluble form. Usually when dissolved lignin is precipitated, it cannot properly self-assemble into its original shape, but rather forms fractal aggregates with very little trace of their original primary structure. However, when lignin is self-assembled into spherical colloidal lignin particles (CLPs), this process takes place by the reformation of the original non-cylindrical nanotubular shape and their subsequent self-assembly into linear aggregates that form hexagonal and square lattices in three dimensions (all in all, forming a truncated octahedral crystallization pattern). Usually this ordered pattern of self-assembly is masked by the collapse of the aggregate into dense spherical particles. However, when the self-assembly of the spherical lignin particles is intentionally disrupted, the hexagonal pattern of self-assembly becomes visible, as seen in the transmission electron micrograph below. It is of note that I devised the below experiment because I expected to find the hexagonal pattern of self-assembly, based on the theory of supramolecular shells. I.e., I did not devise the theory to explain these findings.
However, as the hypothesis of the primary structure of lignin relies on the concept of supramolecular shells, I have been forced to withhold publishing this hypothesis.
Here I continue by showing that I indeed do have experimental evidence that points towards supramolecular shells. I also try to make a compelling argument that there is a chicken-and-an-egg problem. I cannot publish a hypothesis that is based on the existence of a supramolecular shell, if there is no theory of these shells. However, I cannot make the manuscript of the theory of supramolecular shells about the structure of the supramolecular shell of lignin, if it is currently believed that lignin has no primary structure.
Secondly, working with spherical lignin particles, it was observed that when a drop from a stock dispersion of these particles was dispersed in a mixture of ethanol and water the particles swelled in a very peculiar, initially unexplainable but reproducible manner (see below), when very specific ethanol-water ratios we used. I hypothesized that this was due to the water-miscible ethanol molecules forming quantized supramolecular shells around cores of water, and that these very specific ethanol-water ratios indicate conditions where all the supramolecular shells are of a single size. Again, as this hypothesis relies on the concept of supramolecular shells, I have been forced to withhold publishing this hypothesis as well.
Here I continue to show that I have also observed reproducible properties of colloidal lignin particles in mixtures of water and ethanol that I can only explain if ethanol is present as supramolecular shells with very specific sizes in water. I again raise the chicken-and-an-egg problem of not being able to publish my hypotheses.
As I am fully aware that the above examples in themselves offer insufficient proof of the existence of supramolecular shells, I have omitted any reference to my personal experiments from the submitted manuscript or the supplementary information. If it is deemed necessary by you or the reviewers to refer to these new experimental findings, they can be included in the supplementary information. However, the interpretation of this data will inevitably be viewed as much more speculative than what is represented in the submitted manuscript.
Here I specifically say that I do not have enough experimental data to publish these findings and that in themselves they would not be compelling enough to strengthen the case already presented in the manuscript.
Also, while I begin this cover letter by saying “I propose an elementary particle of energy”, possibly the more accurate phrase would be “I postulate an elementary particle of energy”. While there is subtlety in the terminology, the introduction of an elementary particle of energy is clearly a shift in the basic postulates of physics. This postulate is in direct contradiction with three postulates of the kinetic theory of gases: i.e., 1) with the assumption that molecules are in random motion, that 2) the average distance between molecules in gas is large and 3) that the particles undergo random elastic collisions between themselves. However, as I do not address these three phenomena in the manuscript, I refrain from using the term postulate in it.
This paragraph is a bit problematic, and I might still rewrite, or even remove it. In it I say that what I do in the manuscript is to scrap several of the basic postulates of physics and introduce a better postulate. This is a very radical thing to say. Perhaps I can omit this and just let it be revealed implicitly in the manuscript. However, I prefer to be explicit, because implicit means a high likelihood of misunderstanding.
Next, I make a note that I have intentionally cited no previous publication in the main body of the text. The reason for this is that there are no other publications proposing an elementary particle of energy. As the manuscript is a logical progression from this proposed particle to the basic structure of light and matter (both charged particles and molecules), there is no point in the manuscript where reference to past work is relevant. Even when tying the proposed theory to the Rydberg formula, there is no need to cite new experimental evidence. All the cited existing equations can be found in physics textbooks.
Here I lift the Schrödinger’s cat on the table. The question of why there are no citations will inevitably be raised. With this paragraph I attempted to pre-emptively answer this question.
Finally, just based on the presented manuscript, I cannot prove that there are only elementary particles of energy and that the only truly fundamental interaction is refraction. However, the manuscript is written assuming this to be the case and I have thus far found no evidence to invalidate this assumption.
And here I address another obvious issue. I claim that refraction is the most fundamental interaction, but don’t really explain how refraction leads to currently understood fundamental interactions. I sort of wave the problem away, saying that I introduce a new postulate and that at least I don’t know of any conflicts with the current theory. Let’s hope this is good enough for the editor.
The presented theory could be considered a version of string theory. However, the major difference here is that the proposed theory considers fundamental interactions to be emergent properties of the refraction of elementary particles of energy, whereas current versions of string theory assume fundamental interactions not to arise from anything more fundamental.
And here I address the final obvious issue. I haven’t before mentioned string theory, but to put the manuscript into perspective I have to say how what I propose differs from current string theory. I think I’m clear in the similarities and differences between them.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Kalle Lintinen
I’m not sure whether I need to end the cover letter with something witty. Now it seems it ends in a wall. Perhaps I need a better closing remark. I don’t yet know what this would be. Perhaps I’ll come up with something.
Then again, a good-old rewrite might be required. I just googled the cover letter checklist from Nature, and mine doesn’t exactly fit the checklist. Another useful piece of advice is this piece from Nature Biomedical Engineering. But as my manuscript is so different from the rest, I allow myself not to fit the exact requirements, if I can make a good case for it.
Next, I need to get into the head of the editor. I really need to think like her/him. If I were the editor, what questions would I still have? What would I not consider convincing? Other possible objections?
When I feel that all of the questions and objections by the editor have been addressed, I think the cover letter is ready. And once the cover letter is ready, I’m pretty close to being ready to submit.
Comments