I have discovered a simple yet foundational mathematical theorem that proves a universal law. My advisors say I should get the theorem published in a mathematical journal so that the theorem can be cited in a paper for the journal “Science”. I am hoping to find an editor of a mathematical journal that can see beyond the simplicity of the proof to the profound implications of the universal law it proves.

The Efficiency Theorem (ET) states that all systems function most efficiently without unnecessary resistance. The ET is easily proven using a proof by contradiction. The proof of the ET is as follows:

Assume that there exists some system that functions most efficiently with unnecessary resistance. But then it wouldn’t be unnecessary (see below for assumptions and definitions).

The importance of the ET is that it proves the Universal Law of Efficiency (ULE), which also states that all systems function most efficiently without unnecessary resistance. Because the ULE has been proven with a mathematical proof, it is an irrefutable universal law and it is more immutable than empirically-derived laws such as the Law of Gravity. This is true because mathematics can prove things to a higher level of certainty than the empirically based methods of science. For example, assuming Euclidean geometry, it is impossible empirically prove that the sum of the interior angles of all triangles is 180 degrees because it is impossible to measure all of the infinitely many triangles to an infinite degree of accuracy. Mathematics however has proven it.

The ULE is unique in that it is the only universal law that has been proven with a mathematical proof. It is interesting to note that there are exponentially more systems in the universe than there are particles in the universe (for more on this, see below).

The ULE is the basis for all of the laws of physics. Science is the study of the properties, actions, and interactions of systems. The laws of physics are empirically-derived, statistical statements about the nature of the universe. There is a qualitative difference between the empirically derived laws of physics and the mathematically proven ULE. There is no law of physics that would have the properties it does unless all systems function most efficiently without unnecessary resistance.

The ULE is also the underlying principle of human health, equality, justice, democracy, and universal peace. The ULE will lead to the previously unachievable Science of Peace.

Although the ET is easily proven, getting the ET published (and thus the ULE published) will have profound benefits for all of humanity. Any thoughts or suggestions on how to get the ET published would be greatly appreciated.


Jonathan Berman

Assumptions and definitions.


  1. Systems exist.
  2. Systems function more or less efficiently from a frame of reference.


  1. System: a set of causal relationships, or causal interactions.
  2. Unnecessary resistance: resistance that reduces the functional efficiency of a system.
  3. Necessary resistance: resistance that is required for the optimal functional efficiency of a system.
  4. Inherent resistance: resistance in a system that can’t be classified as either necessary or unnecessary.

A thought experiment on the number of systems in the universe.

We define a system as a set of causal relationships or causal interactions. By this definition, it is clear that there are exponentially more systems in the universe than there are particles in the universe. An example that takes into account only physical systems will help to illustrate this point. Let us assume that there exists a universe with only three atoms in it and that the Law of Gravity applies. The atoms are labeled A, B, and C respectively. The Law of Gravity states that every particle in the universe attracts every other particle in the universe. Since the Law of Gravity applies in this example, the individual atoms are systems since the Law of Gravity guarantees that there are causal interactions within each atom. Thus, each atom is a system. In addition, each pair of atoms (AB, AC, BC) are systems, and the three atoms (ABC) are a system. It is estimated that there are 3.28 x 1080 particles in the universe (citation?). By this reasoning, there is an almost limitless number of systems in the universe. Given the vast number of systems in the universe, it makes sense to define the laws that govern systems.

  • 7
    Based on the theorem as stated, the advisors have no training in academic mathematics to be able to give any meaningful advice, the statement is too vague and broad to give anything useful. Also based on what appears to be the planned result for the science paper "The ULE is also the underlying principle of human health, equality, justice, democracy, and universal peace." Arno's answer regarding crankery is likely very valid, so saying listen to your advisor is probably one of the worst suggestions you could make. Sep 9, 2022 at 19:15
  • 2
    @jonberman based on what you are claiming you are going to get a lot of resistance from people here, not because people are closed minded but because we see a lot of "cranks" wanting help publishing their ideas. Generally they are people who want to contribute to science but lack the skills to do so and so "don't know what they don't know". They also lack the intense self-criticality that you need for science (which takes several years of training to achieve). You might get more useful info by attempting to ask for critiques on how you believe science is done (vs how it is actually done). Sep 9, 2022 at 19:22
  • 3
    What you are doing here is natural philosophy. It looks exactly like the kinds of arguments that were made by Aristotle or Aquinas. Unfortunately for you, natural philosophy was made obsolete by science in the 16th-18th centuries. Sep 9, 2022 at 19:38
  • 1
    @AlexanderWoo unfortunately, this kind of pseudoscience seems to be alive and well, much as we would like to declare it obsolete.
    – Dan Romik
    Sep 9, 2022 at 20:09
  • 1
    @DanRomik Be careful about dismissing the entire field of systems theory: it is not a pseudoscience just because it does not rely on the scientific method. I would argue that systems theory is more of a perspective that 1) things are interdependent, 2) causation is often not linear, and 3) the sum of the interactions between objects is more than the sum of their parts. Regardless, it is a system of knowledge that defies an easy categorisation, and of course it is a very exciting field with a lot that we still do not know about.
    – Toby Mak
    Sep 10, 2022 at 3:10

1 Answer 1


The problem is that you don't have anything that would be of interest to any reputable mathematical journal. Thus, you'll find the hope to publish in such a journal futile.

Instead, you should look up the phenomenon of crankery, and probably find a new advisor.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .