Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?

T Wake a écrit :
In <448B2250.9000007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sent to sci.physics on Saturday 10
June 2006 20:48, srp (srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) had a brainstorm and wrote:

T Wake a écrit :

I have no idea. I have not read it. Ask the people who have looked at it,
yet remain silent.
Since you were asking if I had submitted work, I assumed you were
curious to see for yourself why it was rejected. This is why I was
asking you.

OK - sorry. I have no idea why it was rejected. I still have not read it.

Or are you feeling at long last the community held leash that
forbids you from discussing (and maybe even thinking) of any new
promising idea publicly ?
Ok, the frothing begins. Initially I thought you were fairly reasonable
and open to debate.
I am fairly reasonable and open to debate.
Yet you seem convinced there is a "community held leash." This makes
debate difficult at best. Either I agree with you, or I am simply being
held in check.
Not at all. Prove me wrong then. Read my paper and tell me why the
community will not publish it, and why it will not be discussed by
physicists even on this ng.

Yet it is being discussed on this group.

I meant its contents, obviously. Not a peep.

I am no longer working in academia so even _if_ I were to agree with you,

No need to agree with me. Simply telling me why a seamless mathematical
demonstration is rejected from formal publication, would be a great
litmus test.

it wouldn't remove your belief in the community holding you back.

But I don't think the community is holding me back. Quite the
contrary, I specifically think the community cannot hold me back.

It is a perfectly kosher development on a paper made by a very
kosher and recognized physicist.

Very simple.

I may be tempted one day to read it.

I am in no hurry. Time is not an issue.

Are you just another USENET crank desperately seeking attention for an
unsound theory?
Note that you addressed me first. Not the opposite.
This is USENET, it is an open forum. I never meant to imply you had
sought attention from *me* personally.
So you admit I have not been desperately seeking your attention for
my unsound theory ?

"Admit?" That implies things which are not the case.

I accept your statement that you are not a USENET crank seeking attention if that is what you want.

Great! Recognition at last ;-)

Don't bother. I know the answer.
Same here.

Looks like the community systematically fails to pass my little
validation tests.
From this post, I get the feeling that you are dismayed that your
lifetimes work was rejected.
Well, hardly my lifetime work, nor even my main interest. I started
really paying attention barely 8 years ago.
It shows.

Unable to come to terms with any possible errors or mistakes in your
acheivement, you have decided the fault must rest with the
reviewers.
It is a fact that I don't have reviewers in very high regard.
Well, there is nothing wrong with hubris.
Fine.

Also unable to accept that a couple of reviewers could share the same
negative opinion on your work, you have come to the conclusion that
there is a "Community" who control each others thoughts and actions
and are keeping your work suppressed.
Not at all. the community can not control my thoughts nor can it
keep my work suppressed.
The "community" you refer to does not exist.
As I said, prove me wrong. The method is described up there.

I don't think I can prove you wrong. I can agree with you, and not working
as a researcher I wouldn't be part of the "community" or I can disagree
with you and be under the leash.

Not really. I simply am curious at a real opinion from an insider as
to why real edge issues are never discussed openly by physicists.

Sorry if I prodded a little hard. I could have been better mannered.

It strikes me as a dead end.
Your method of dissemination will suppress your work more effectively
than anything else.
I think the opposite will happen.

Time will tell.

You said yourself that the community has complete control, and that
all works not formally published will not be considered.
You twist my words. The community does not exist. However dissemination
of information means that without peer review and publication, few if any
people will read it and less will pass it on. Peer review is not a
process which keeps the status quo intact.
I think the exact opposite. I think peer review has become the main
driving force of status quo.

Well, once more we are in disagreement. The human nature of peer review
means it is open to failures, however generally speaking the reviewers
prefer to read "new" theories than ones which agree with the accepted
norms. Most people I have known, when they have reviewed, simply look at
the science not the "nature" of the article.

I am sure your experiences are different though.

Yes.

If all peer reviewers are seeking to maintain the status quo though, how do
journals get their readership? Most journals seek new theories, not old
ones.

I don' think they are purposefully seeking to maintain the status quo.

I think that having made up their mind that the current theories are
the best for the moment and having become very knowledgeable in all
the details of these theories, any straying on the fundamentals
appears nonsensical from the get to to them and they will reject
for no particular reason other that the idea si too far fetched,
whatever its objective real merits, thus contributing to maintaining
the status quo.

I think however that peer pressure, the grant system and the
rat race to publish at all cost, has strangled fundamental research
to a standstill. No one dares speak up any more in the community
against forced conformity.
Total nonsense.
Ok. Prove me wrong. See up there. Very easy. What is unsound in the
mathematical demonstration in my paper that warrants not being suited
for formal publication ?

I haven't read your paper.

However, that does not prove your theory about the "community" false -
neither would publishing or reviewing your paper.

Claiming fundamental research is at a standstill is nonsense.

I have the same opinion as Franco Selleri on that issue.

André Michaud
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... Yet you seem convinced there is a "community held leash." ... sought attention from *me* personally. ... of information means that without peer review and publication, ... process which keeps the status quo intact. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: GE intolerant of criticism - censorship of Dalais PACS blog
    ... I like Dalai's blog and view it often. ... out of order to cause all of the attention it has gotten. ... realize that this community is small and word gets around. ... company should be ashamed and offer an apology. ...
    (comp.protocols.dicom)