(besides of the fact that a majority of your post is not true)--and that is because of realistic, practical, logical, and justified reasons. in reality, it is simply, only, the mentally disabled and the wannabes, or simply the narcissistic ignoramuses that have an issue with this process--WHY IS THAT?
Wrong on 2 accounts. Arxiv does not automatically reject the papers of unaffiliated people and Einstein had a physics degree and was working as a patent clerk.
Hi Ultron and everybody! First of all who could give a proof about what exchemist claims that "an isolated electron does not absorb photons....". Secondly, I am not a physicist, although I understand a lot about Physics I have poor mathematical education on the field. This does not mean that none should develop his own ideas and publish them to such places like vixra. If I had an affiliation with an Institution then I would put it on arxiv. Who cares where one put his work? It is only a matter of prestige for some. Anyway, I understand all of yours comments and arguments very well now. Third, since I am all these you mention then, why you bother to reply me or why is there such an aggressive behavior. IF you are right, just share "Ioannis your work is wrong for this and this reason and there is the proof that you are wrong. I am sorry I cannot continue this conversation.". Agreed! So then, when I see there are no responses anymore I will leave (I am already). I do not have to prove anything to anyone.
My reasons for dismissing this person do not rely, either solely or even largely, on him publishing only in vixra, as my above remarks make perfectly clear. Regarding Einstein, he was already a regular contributor to Annalen der Physik by the time of his 1905 papers, so he had a track record the editors would have recognised. And he had a PhD in physics so, unlike our friend here, he had taken the trouble to learn physics before trying to overturn it.
Actually patent "clerk" does not do him justice. He was a patent office examiner. This, as I know from personal experience in patent agency, is a responsible position, requiring considerable intellect. The examiners are those who analyse candidate invention applications for novelty, patentability and compliance with the other requirements of patent law. It is not just pushing paper.
because you are simply insulting scientist and science in general. i am personally disgusted with such pathetic conduct. comical-- you are correct--but what exactly were you attempting to prove to begin with??
You are wrong on two accounts. I have not written that Einstein didnt have a physics degree when posting papers while working as patent clerk. Surely he did and I know it. Regarding arxive, only registered authors can submit papers. https://arxiv.org/help/submit And if you try to register, they accept only people with academic affiliation. https://arxiv.org/help/registerhelp Which effectively means, they reject all people without academic affiliation. Years ago, they would accept papers from anybody, but not today.
I expect they got fed up with weeding out the cranks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
well, i had no clue of the change-- but it appears that arVix became tiresome of the endless narcissistic ignoramus.
Now I'm describing something, the character of an electron is fishy to me because 1) The structure of electron is unknown 2) And why an electron is excited(after absorbed photon) to a higher energy level when the rest MASS OF PHOTON is 0 ! When an electron is excited from a lower to a higher energy level, it will not stay that way forever. An electron in an excited state may decay to a lower energy state which is not occupied, according to a particular time constant characterizing that transition. When such an electron decays without external influence, emitting a photon, that is called "spontaneous emission". The phase associated with the photon that is emitted is random. I thought something about bound electrons to change their orbits after absorbed photons. Simply I guessed that moon can change its orbit if we reduce/increase its enough mass by spacecrafts suddenly. So what is happening, when a photon stricks a bound electron ! Is the energy of photon transformed into mass that increased the mass of electron after absorbed it (photon) !! Or some times,(when an electron absorbed another photon from exited state to go lower state) is it happening like reduce its(electron) little bit of mass but transforms(reduced mass) into energy and carry the energy to re_emit ! And only a question that "Can cathode ray absorb photon(from laser or other source) before reached anode ?
Phew, quite a few things here but I'll have a go. Maybe a real physicist can add to or correct what I say in response. To start with, I think you are somewhat "begging the question" with your first statement. According to my understanding of our current model, the electron has no structure. There is no evidence for any structure and thus no need to hypothesise about it having any. Secondly, on your point about photons, rest mass and energy, photons carry energy (E=hν), but this energy is due to them being disturbances in the electromagnetic field, rather than being due to the kinetic energy of a particle with rest mass. (Electric and magnetic fields contain stored energy, as you may know from the "pop" you sometimes hear when an accelerating electric train suddenly cuts off the power - that pop is the stored energy in the magnetic fields of the motors discharging, in the form of an electric arc). As for what happens when a bound electron absorbs a photon, its potential and kinetic energy are increased. To use your space analogy, it is like an orbiting satellite being boosted into a higher orbit by a rocket motor giving it more speed. The satellite's rest mass is not increased by this, but it gains kinetic and gravitational potential energy. The only thing you have to bear in mind with electrons is that, being quantum-scale objects, they do not behave exactly like an orbiting satellite, because of their wavelike nature. The means by which an electron emits or absorbs a photon can again be thought of in terms of the photon being a linked pair of oscillating electric and magnetic fields, whereas an electron is a charged particle in motion. Thinking of it in classical terms for a moment, an oscillating electric field of the right frequency can match the motion of the electron and thus amplify its motion (being charged, the electron will tend to move towards the +ve side of the field, so with an oscillating field the electron will tend to oscillate in sympathy). This transfers energy to the electron. In QM terms it is not quite like that, but it is sort of analogous. Emission is the reverse: classically, the oscillation of the electron would be expected to create an oscillating electric field, which radiates energy, thus reducing the kinetic and potential energy of the electron. (In fact, historically, this led to one of the objections to the classical Bohr model of the atom, with particle-like electrons orbiting the nucleus. They ought, by classical theory, to radiate away energy and spiral into the nucleus! The fact that they don't was one piece of evidence for quantisation. In QM they can radiate, but only in quantised jumps - and thus only at certain set frequencies - because a bound electron can only exist in a limited number of "standing wave" states.) As to your last question about cathode rays absorbing photons from a laser, I would think the answer must be no, since a free electron is - according to my understanding - forbidden from absorbing. (If an electron is in a container such as a cathode ray tube, then you might think that, strictly speaking, it would behave like the well-known "particle in a box" scenario, in which case its translational energy would be quantised into a series of extremely closely spaced energy levels. However, since the anode attracts the electrons, one end of the "box" is effectively "open" in this case, so it seems to me there is no confinement of the electrons and no quantisation would be expected.) If rpenner were answering this you would get a more correct answer, at the expense of needing a lot more QM terminology. I am trying to keep it pictorial so I am using a semi-classical approach.
Could you quote the part where it states that? The only mention of affiliation I can see is where it says "It is a violation of our policies to misrepresent your identity or institutional affiliation. Claimed affiliation should be current in the conventional sense: e.g., physical presence, funding, e-mail address, mention on institutional web pages, etc. Misrepresentation of identity or affiliation, for any reason, is possible grounds for immediate and permanent suspension". Not accepting misrepresented (claimed) affiliation is NOT the same as "rejecting all those without affiliation".
https://arxiv.org/help/submit Take responsibility Because putting articles on arXiv entails certain responsibilities, authors must make their own submissions. Third-party submissions (by secretaries for example) are often the ones that cause the most problems, presumably due to lack of self-interest and related factors. The following information is also required for submission: Institutional affiliation for the author(s) must be provided. Official report number(s) from the author(s) institution(s) must be provided. Additional comment: It is clearly written on that page, that there have to be institutional affiliation and also cases in reality confirm, that simply everybody without institutional affiliation will be rejected. You can turn it as you will, this is reality. Surely, this is because of the many obvious crackpots trying to publish on arxive, but on the other hand they censorship potentially rare cases of unaffiliated people with new and good theories or discoveries.
Ah right. So it wasn't included in the link preceding your claim and also NEITHER page linked to states that the affiliation must be "academic" (which was your actual claim). In fact the registration process asks for an organisation (on the 2nd page of the registration application[1]) - with nothing to say that it must be an academic one. I fail to see why one couldn't enter a company name[2]. After 30 seconds of Googling I found these: I'd suggest entering "none", as that is the truth of the matter and unlikely that you'll get a message saying "You have no affiliation, never darken our doors again!" but more likely "We notice that you have not provided an academic affiliation; therefore, in order for your article to be properly submitted, you need to do X, Y, and Z.". Or how about a direct statement from arXiv moderation: "If [user] has no institutional affiliation, that is also fine". 1 Haven't gone any further towards registering since - currently - I'm not associated with any organisation. 2 In itself, nothing unusual - many sites require entry of organisational affiliation.
There is no clear and direct statements of arxiv moderation that they effectively censorship people with no academic affiliation. There are two indirect indications which I have pointed out in previous posts, but they are not that stupid to openly present their censorship rules, because physics is presented as discipline where matters if the theory is in line with experiments and they dont want to be viewed as some elitist society based on secret rules and personal feelings (which is unfortunately true, especially for peer reviews in journals, but also for arxiv moderation). Moderation of arxive is obviously not trasparent and it is not only my opinion: http://www.nature.com/news/arxiv-rejections-lead-to-spat-over-screening-process-1.19267 But Im sure, you will not be able to find a single arxive paper from new, not previously established author without academic affiliation for last two years. And Im also sure, there were hundreds of attempts by new non affiliated authors to submit a paper.
There is no evidence here that people without academic affiliation cannot get published, nor that arXiv operates as an "elitist society based on secret rules". There is a dispute about the rejection of two (2) papers - which turned out to be based on wrong physics. That is all. Big deal. From the Nature article, it looks as if these were borderline cases that could have been argued either way. You will always get that from time to time, with any system involving judgments. No doubt hundreds of cranks try to submit to arXiv all the time. For that reason, they obviously MUST have an editorial policy to stop that, since if they didn't the credibility of arXiv would collapse and it would become a laughing stock. (like vixra). As for censorship, I wonder if you understand what that means. It is not censorship to refuse to publish something: it is editorial judgement. Your talk of "censorship", "elitist" and "secret rules" - and the notion that they would not be so "stupid" as to reveal what their "censorship rules" are - sounds perfectly paranoid, to me. In fact, this is just the sort of language I would expect might be used by someone who has submitted crank papers and had them rejected.
