Towards a New Physics

[Ultron]

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.

There is no counter evidence to the statement that people without academic affiliation cannot get published, nor that arXiv operates as an "elitist society based on secret rules" and this statement is indirectly supported by already linked web pages of arxiv and by fact, that I couldnt find any new authors without academic affiliation on arxiv. And if I would want to spend more time on it, I could find several other links supporting this statement, but I dont want to spend too much time on it.

And no, I had not submitted anything to arxiv. But I generally dislike moderation of arxiv because for example any member of religious cult of string cranks can post unfalsifiable papers full of fantasy bullshit, just because they have the right academic affiliation and are members of the generally accepted cult. Just one random example of many published fantasy bullshit papers on arxiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.05734
And if anybody without academic affiliation will send something reasonable but new and challenging mainstream, it will be automatically rejected without possibility of real discussion with moderation or without real possibility to appeal and get reason for rejection, as documented in the Nature article about non transparent moderation.

 

[exchemist]

There is no counter evidence to the statement that people without academic affiliation cannot get published, nor that arXiv operates as an "elitist society based on secret rules" and this statement is indirectly supported by already linked web pages of arxiv and by fact, that I couldnt find any new authors without academic affiliation on arxiv. And if I would want to spend more time on it, I could find several other links supporting this statement, but I dont want to spend too much time on it.

And no, I had not submitted anything to arxiv. But I generally dislike moderation of arxiv because for example any member of religious cult of string cranks can post unfalsifiable papers full of fantasy bullshit, just because they have the right academic affiliation and are members of the generally accepted cult. Just one random example of many published fantasy bullshit papers on arxiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.05734
And if anybody without academic affiliation will send something reasonable but new and challenging mainstream, it will be automatically rejected without possibility of real discussion with moderation or without real possibility to appeal and get reason for rejection, as documented in the Nature article about non transparent moderation.

As I am sure you are aware, it is the one making the claim (in this case, you) that needs to substantiate it.

It seems to me you have not done so. In fact, I do not believe you have addressed Dywyddyr's research that seems to suggest you CAN submit papers to arXiv without academic affiliation. And now you talk, hysterically of the "religious cult of string" and "fantasy bullshit", and merely repeating your assertion that unaffiliated people are automatically rejected.

You do seem remarkably sure of yourself about this, for someone who has never experienced the process for himself. Where do you get information from, if not from your own experience? Have you contacted them, to ask about their policy in this respect? If not, why not?

 

[exchemist]

There is no counter evidence to the statement that people without academic affiliation cannot get published, nor that arXiv operates as an "elitist society based on secret rules" and this statement is indirectly supported by already linked web pages of arxiv and by fact, that I couldnt find any new authors without academic affiliation on arxiv. And if I would want to spend more time on it, I could find several other links supporting this statement, but I dont want to spend too much time on it.

And no, I had not submitted anything to arxiv. But I generally dislike moderation of arxiv because for example any member of religious cult of string cranks can post unfalsifiable papers full of fantasy bullshit, just because they have the right academic affiliation and are members of the generally accepted cult. Just one random example of many published fantasy bullshit papers on arxiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.05734
And if anybody without academic affiliation will send something reasonable but new and challenging mainstream, it will be automatically rejected without possibility of real discussion with moderation or without real possibility to appeal and get reason for rejection, as documented in the Nature article about non transparent moderation.

duplicate deleted

 

[Dywyddyr]

There is no clear and direct statements of arxiv moderation that they effectively censorship people with no academic affiliation.

Yet you considered it okay to make a specific claim...

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).

Ah yes.
You can't find the data to support your view because of the cinspiracy...

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

http://www.nature.com/news/arxiv-rejections-lead-to-spat-over-screening-process-1.19267
Isn't it funny how you only manage to take in half of that article?
And your almost automatic assumption that anyone complaining about "blacklistsing" is, ipso facto, correct (and your equally automatic dismissal of arXiv's reasons).

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.

Really?
...local content in arXiv (affiliation data is often absent).
and
Authors' institutional affiliations are mostly missing.

 

[Ultron]

Yet you considered it okay to make a specific claim...

Really?
...local content in arXiv (affiliation data is often absent).
and
Authors' institutional affiliations are mostly missing.

Many years institutional affiliations were not required and there are hundreds of thousands of papers without affiliation. Therefore I have specified a timeline of last two years which is surely within the time, when the new rules for rejecting people without academic affiliation were already in place.

And it seems, that despite your searching, you werent able to find any new not established author without academic affiliation from last two years, so an another indirect confirmation of the statement.

 

[Ultron]

As I am sure you are aware, it is the one making the claim (in this case, you) that needs to substantiate it.

It seems to me you have not done so. In fact, I do not believe you have addressed Dywyddyr's research that seems to suggest you CAN submit papers to arXiv without academic affiliation. And now you talk, hysterically of the "religious cult of string" and "fantasy bullshit", and merely repeating your assertion that unaffiliated people are automatically rejected.

You do seem remarkably sure of yourself about this, for someone who has never experienced the process for himself. Where do you get information from, if not from your own experience? Have you contacted them, to ask about their policy in this respect? If not, why not?

Actually I have written them asking about this topic. No response. Im not surprised, based on the non trasparency policy of arxiv.

 

[exchemist]

Actually I have written them asking about this topic. No response. Im not surprised, based on the non trasparency policy of arxiv.

Fair enough. But in that case it remains an assertion of yours, without evidence.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Therefore I have specified a timeline of last two years which is surely within the time, when the new rules for rejecting people without academic affiliation were already in place.

Not really. For the simple reason that you haven't yet established that there is such a policy.

And it seems, that despite your searching, you werent able to find any new not established author without academic affiliation from last two years, so an another indirect confirmation of the statement.

Uh wrong.
I didn't look for any. Nor did I say I had.
But, in keeping with your generalisation (see below), you've managed to fit something that wasn't stated (actually not stated because it wasn't done) as a confirmatory "data point" of your paranoia. Well done. It's always easy to make graphs when you invent the input.

So far all YOU have is an unsupported claim: i.e. an observation of some incidents[1] generalised (by you and certain others) as a fixed policy.

1 Where it hasn't been conclusively shown why those papers were rejected.

 

[danshawen]

since you can never have an electron with null momentum

It happens all the time in a simple device called a "capacitor" with an electric charge maintained between insulated conductive plates. Without them, the power supply in the monitor you are using right now would not work very well.

 

[exchemist]

It happens all the time in a simple device called a "capacitor" with an electric charge maintained between insulated conductive plates. Without them, the power supply in the monitor you are using right now would not work very well.

This is incorrect Dan. The electrons in a metal that is not passing an electric current are not static. It is only the sum of their collective momenta that is zero.

 

[Ioannis]

since you can never have an electron with null momentum

Hi danshawen, I was referring actually to the Uncertainty Principle.

 

[Ioannis]

Hi everybody!
What do you think about post #10?

 

[origin]

Hi everybody!
What do you think about post #10?

Same as i did before.

 

[Ioannis]

Same as i did before.

I did not find any comment of yours.

Anyway, Ultron (I know what mainstream claims (not proved) that does not mean I should abandon my idea. The point is somewhere else that you fail to identify it.) and mainstream Physics in general claim that an unbounded electron cannot absorb even a single photon entirely. However, they cannot really justify the "why", the cause. They simply throw a "it violates the Energy conservation" and that is all.

Well who is going to answer to the following:"Why an unbounded electron cannot absorb photons? Please justify yours answers".

 

[exchemist]

I did not find any comment of yours.

Anyway, Ultron (I know what mainstream claims (not proved) that does not mean I should abandon my idea. The point is somewhere else that you fail to identify it.) and mainstream Physics in general claim that an unbounded electron cannot absorb even a single photon entirely. However, they cannot really justify the "why", the cause. They simply throw a "it violates the Energy conservation" and that is all.

Well who is going to answer to the following:"Why an unbounded electron cannot absorb photons? Please justify yours answers".

Read the "Note" on page 2 of this: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/Phy237/ChapterNotes/NotesChapter02.pdf

This is indeed based on arguing from conservation of energy. However it will not do for you to dismiss an argument based on conservation of energy as inconclusive. Conservation of energy is a fundamental principle of physics, supported not only by observation but also underpinned by Noether's Theorem. If you think you can just set conservation of energy to one side and ignore it, that just makes you a crank.

I rather think it can also be explained by consideration of the symmetry of wavefunctions. Photon absorption by electric dipole transition requires a change of symmetry (for example, an electron bound in a symmetric s orbital can only absorb by moving to an antisymmetric p orbital.) This gives rise to the well-known "selection rules" in spectroscopy, that determine which atomic and molecular transitions between bound states are permitted and which are not. It seems to me that the relevant symmetry properties of the wavefunction are not defined for free electrons and thus there is no way that a "transition dipole" can be created to do the absorbing, if the electron is free. But I admit this is my gut feeling based on rather rusty recollection of quantum chemistry from 40 years ago.

 

[Ioannis]

Hi exchemist!
Thanks for finding time to answer. I read those notes you shared as also the mathematical proof however I have a couple of questions.

 

[exchemist]

Hi exchemist!
Thanks for finding time to answer. I read those notes you shared as also the mathematical proof however I have a couple of questions.

I will do my best to answer, provided they are reasonable questions. I wrote you off originally as just another crank, but if you are willing to enter a proper discussion of science here I always have some time for that. I do not pretend to be a physicist, just a chemist with some understanding of quantum chemistry.

 

[Ioannis]

Below are my comments:
a) The mathematical proof you shared addresses the impossible case of total absorption from a single free but stationary electron.
b) I absolutely agree with (a) since during the interaction there will be a progressive momentum transfer from the photon to electron forcing the latter to accelerate, which means it will not be any more stationary in order to absorb the entire photon Energy.
c) Although the proof speaks about non-conservation of Energy, the reason behind it is that the electron cannot absorb an entire photon because it will not remain stationary during the interaction.

-On post #10 I used a setup where an electron interacts with two photons simultaneously assuming a Compton Scattering process.
-What is required to absorb both photons is the electron to be kept stationary.
-This can be achieved by placing an electron in the middle of two photons coming from its LEFT and RIGHT.
-The outcome of such setup is:
i) Compton Scattering process is blocked due to two photons interactions (mirrored interactions)
ii) The total momentum conservation holds
iii) However, the Energy conservation does not hold (the electron appears with increased Energy) since the electron did not acquire a momentum that would lead to a kinetic Energy (as it occurs in the normal Compton Scattering process)
iv) The trick here (Law of the excluded middle) is since the electron undoubtedly absorbed those two photons (based on our setup) then in order to hold the Energy conservation, the electron must decrease its total Energy.

The last sentence is similar to Achilles and turtle paradox where there we know that Achilles will surpass the turtle however the maths revealed another reality (no motion) when distance or time is divided infinitely. What we learn from this paradox is that since motion occurs (we experience it and measure it), the infinite small of space or time is impossible because it leads to no motion in our world. Then obviously space and time must be quantized.

 

[exchemist]

Below are my comments:
a) The mathematical proof you shared addresses the impossible case of total absorption from a single free but stationary electron.
b) I absolutely agree with (a) since during the interaction there will be a progressive momentum transfer from the photon to electron forcing the latter to accelerate, which means it will not be any more stationary in order to absorb the entire photon Energy.
c) Although the proof speaks about non-conservation of Energy, the reason behind it is that the electron cannot absorb an entire photon because it will not remain stationary during the interaction.

-On post #10 I used a setup where an electron interacts with two photons simultaneously assuming a Compton Scattering process.
-What is required to absorb both photons is the electron to be kept stationary.
-This can be achieved by placing an electron in the middle of two photons coming from its LEFT and RIGHT.
-The outcome of such setup is:
i) Compton Scattering process is blocked due to two photons interactions (mirrored interactions)
ii) The total momentum conservation holds
iii) However, the Energy conservation does not hold (the electron appears with increased Energy) since the electron did not acquire a momentum that would lead to a kinetic Energy (as it occurs in the normal Compton Scattering process)
iv) The trick here (Law of the excluded middle) is since the electron undoubtedly absorbed those two photons (based on our setup) then in order to hold the Energy conservation, the electron must decrease its total Energy.

The last sentence is similar to Achilles and turtle paradox where there we know that Achilles will surpass the turtle however the maths revealed another reality (no motion) when distance or time is divided infinitely. What we learn from this paradox is that since motion occurs (we experience it and measure it), the infinite small of space or time is impossible because it leads to no motion in our world. Then obviously space and time must be quantized.

But your electron is not in a bound state. So it won't absorb the photons. Your set up does not appear to me to address this issue. You assert the electron absorbs the photons but how can it do this?

 

[Ioannis]

But your electron is not in a bound state. So it won't absorb the photons. Your set up does not appear to me to address this issue. You assert the electron absorbs the photons but how can it do this?

The electron is bounded (localized in a region of space) over the two photons since it is placed in the middle. It is actually a standing wave setup with the electron entrapped within.

Alternatively the argument is as follow: The Compton Scattering process is known and experimentally verified, right. Then two mirrored Compton Scattering processes actually cancel the Scattering process (over the momentum conservation). At that moment appears the paradox (as I call it) where the electron seems to absorb both photons (there are no scattered photons therefore they are absorbed) leading to an increased electron Energy without to change its initial null kinetic Energy. Now under such circumstances (trapped in between of two photons) and in order to hold the Energy conservation, the electron is forced to reduce its total Energy. That is all!