Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physics

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physics

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:05 am

***
Retraction Watch has published a juicy journalistic story about my political struggle with the journal Annals of Physics and its publisher Elsevier. You can find it here:

http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... ved-study/

The story is about this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355, which was published by the journal on its website on 30 of June 2016, but then the journal editors were harassed and bullied by Richard D. Gill and his Mafia Godfathers with their usual unethical political tactics behind-the-scenes to have the paper removed. 8-)

There is also an ongoing discussion about the above paper and the political resistance it has encountered at this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55&p=6736#p6717

The Annals of Physics version of the paper can be found here (the actual galley proofs of the published paper): http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/l ... 3-2-14.pdf

The following is my latest email reply to the person who claims to be "the Publisher at Elsevier responsible for the journal Annals of Physics":

Dear Marc N. Chahin,

(Bcc: undisclosed recipients)

Do you think I was born yesterday? You are lying through your teeth and you know it. What you have claimed in your email are shameless lies. My article, which was accepted and published in Annals of Physics after seven months of rigorous peer-review process, is scientifically and mathematically impeccable. The analytical results presented in my article, as well as the event-based numerical simulations which have independently verified them, are one of the most important advances made in the foundations of quantum physics for over fifty years. Unfortunately my results happen to be extremely inconvenient for many politically powerful individuals within the physics community, including the celebrity Editor-in-Chief of Annals of Physics.

You now claim that there was a letter formulated by the Editorial Board of Annals of Physics but you “failed to inform [me] about” it “due to an internal error.” Who do you think you are kidding? You mean to tell me that your “internal error” was so grave that, even after half a dozen requests for clarification from me over the past two months, sent to the journal manager Shahid Hussain, the handling editor Prof. Hyunseok Jeong and the Editor-in-Chief Prof. Brian Greene, it never occurred to anyone in your organization to send me the supposed letter until yesterday? The truth is that the so-called letter has been completely cooked-up, after you received my explosive reply to Lyssa Abat of Researcher Support. You and the other officials of Elsevier and Annals of Physics should be ashamed of yourselves, not only for lying through your teeth, but also for despicably working against science for political, financial and personal gains.

Let me prove all of this to you by responding to the supposed letter by Editorial Board of Annals of Physics which was “inadvertently not sent out” until I ignited a metaphoric fire under Elsevier and Annals of Physics:

Dear Editorial Board of Annals of Physics,

Your conveniently error-prone letter provides clear-cut evidence that the removal of my accepted and published article from your journal’s website was motivated entirely politically, without any scientific reason whatsoever. Let me prove this to you by using your own words in your supposed letter that you “failed to inform [me] about … due to an internal error”, even after over two months of repeated requests from me to clarify the status of my published, but then removed, article.

Let us first note that there are absolutely no errors of any kind, or any other scientific deficiencies, in my article entitled "Local causality in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime."

I do not believe for a second that any credible expert in the field sent you “correspondence to report [an] error in [my] manuscript.” I am quite sure that the bogus claims of error came entirely from Richard D. Gill and his equally incompetent and unqualified surrogates. I challenge you to publish the claims of a supposed error publicly, together with the names of its authors, and let the physics community itself decide on the merits of my article, as normally done by respected physics journals, including yours. I bet my bottom dollar that you are not going to publish any such claims of error, because there are simply no errors in my article. The bogus claims of error are entirely made up, either due to incompetence of the claimants, or to serve your own current and future political purposes.

Your so-called unsolicited and self-proclaimed “expert in the field,” Richard D. Gill, is not an expert at all, but an incompetent third-rate statistician with zero grasp of basic physics, who is well known for frequently making extremely elementary mathematical mistakes. In addition, for many years he has been involved in online criminal activities, such as cyber-stalking and cyber-bullying, to justify his fanatical belief in a certain defunct ideology within physics. His elementary mathematical mistakes have been repeatedly exposed, not only by me, but also by many genuine experts in the field. See, for example, the detailed expositions of his elementary mistakes in these two recent papers of mine: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529. In fact, all bogus and nonsensical claims of errors within my article made by Richard D. Gill and several of his equally unqualified and unprofessional surrogates have been repeatedly debunked, for several years, literally thousands of times, in published arXiv preprints, as well as publicly accessible online blogs and physics forums all over the Internet, not only by me, but also by several other profoundly knowledgeable scholars in the field.

And here is a real gem from your “inadvertently not sent” letter to me: You now claim that my “result is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact.” But was it not you, the distinguished Editorial Board of Annals of Physics, who accepted and published my article for a month in your journal after seven long months of rigorous peer-review? Why was my article accepted and published in the first place if my “result is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact”? Does that not make you, dear Editorial Board, a bunch of overpaid, incompetent idiots? How on earth did you accept and publish my result that, according to you, “is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact”? You couldn’t see that for seven long months of rigorous peer-review until a third-rate statistician like Gill pointed out to you?

Actually, contrary to your claim, a proven scientific fact is that EPR-Bohm-type correlations are experimentally observed to be E(a, b) = - cos(a, b), and that is exactly what my local-realistic model also predicts, as any precocious schoolchild can see from the analytical and numerical results presented in my article (cf. the attachment). Therefore your current claim that my “result is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact” is pure baloney. It is an entirely politically motivated excuse. In fact, what is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact is your knowledge of what constitutes a scientific fact, as I now proceed to teach you.

You claim that “…violation of local realism … has been demonstrated not only theoretically but experimentally in recent experiments.” This is an extraordinarily ignorant statement, on several counts. To begin with, all that is ever observed in any EPR-Bohm-type experiment are the predictions E(a, b) = - cos(a, b) of quantum mechanics as well as of my local-realistic model (cf. the attachment). One cannot demonstrate “violation of local realism” either theoretically or experimentally without invoking a certain defunct “theorem” by John S. Bell. But it is extremely easy to recognize, even by a schoolchild, that the so-called “theorem” by John S. Bell cannot be proven without an explicit assumption of anti-realism. See, for example, my elementary explanation of how the assumption of anti-realism is surreptitiously smuggled-in, in any supposed proof of Bell’s theorem:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&p=6566#p6566

If any of you distinguished Board members think that you can prove Bell’s theorem without the assumption of anti-realism, then I challenge you to take up my so-far-uncontested challenge at the following link and prove me wrong:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=275#p6681

What the above links prove, once and for all, is that Bell’s theorem cannot be proven without cheating. And therefore, contrary to your silly claim, “violation of local realism” cannot be demonstrated, either theoretically or experimentally. You have power to remove articles from your journal at your whim, but you have no power to cheat Nature.

I think all of you are sufficiently intelligent to recognize by now that there is absolutely no scientific basis for removing my accepted and published article from your website. The facts and links I have presented above prove beyond doubt that the removal of my article was motivated entirely politically. Therefore I reiterate my demand. I demand that my article is either (1) published again in its final form (cf. the attachment), or (2) completely removed from all your publicly accessible websites without any trace, reverting all copyrights back to me as soon as possible. I am willing to forget the damage Annals of Physics and Elsevier has already caused (including the loss of my ten months in the review process) if you are able to satisfy my demand (1) or (2) above. In case you are unable to satisfy either of my demands (1) or (2), then I will have no choice but to seek legal action.

Sincerely,

Joy Christian


The above reply was in response to the following email I received yesterday:

From: Chahin, Marc (ELS-AMS) [mailto:m.chahin@elsevier.com]
Sent: 29 September 2016 17:16
To: joy.christian@einstein-physics.org
Cc: Chahin, Marc (ELS-AMS)
Subject: Annals of Physics article
Importance: High

Dear Dr. Christian,

Please allow me to introduce myself to you as the Publisher at Elsevier responsible for the journal Annals of Physics.

Your article “Local causality in a Friedmann–Robertson–Walker spacetime” was withdrawn from the journal. Unfortunately, we failed to inform you about this decision due to an internal error and I apologize for that. The below letter was formulated by the Editorial Board but inadvertently not sent out:

Dear Dr. Christian,

We regret to inform you that we have decided to withdraw your paper entitled "Local causality in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime" because a serious major error has been identified in it.

Articles in Press (articles that have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published and will not yet have the complete volume/issue/page information) that include errors may be "Withdrawn" from ScienceDirect.

In your case, soon after the acceptance of your paper was announced, several experts in the field have sent us a correspondence to report the error in your manuscript.

After our editorial meeting, we have concluded that your result is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact, i.e., violation of local realism that has been demonstrated not only theoretically but experimentally in recent experiments, and thus your result could not be generally accepted by the physics community. On this basis, we have made such a decision to withdraw your paper.

Nonetheless, we thank you for your interest in ANNALS.

Sincerely,

Editorial board of Annals of Physics

I also noted that the text presented in the journal now is not correct and we will rectify this.

Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding this, should you have any questions.

With the best wishes,

Marc N. Chahin
Executive Publisher

ELSEVIER

Radarweg 29
NL - 1043 NX Amsterdam
m.chahin @elsevier.com
t +31 20 485 2819
m +31 6 53 264 785

***
Last edited by Joy Christian on Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:17 am

***
The earlier emails in the above correspondence can be found below:


Dear Lyssa Abat,

(Bcc: undisclosed recipients)

Thank you for your reply. I have not received a response from Annals of Physics so far. In fact all of my polite requests for clarification about this very disturbing action by the journal are being ignored for the past two months by the journal manager, Shahid Hussain, the handling editor of my paper, Prof. Hyunseok Jeong, and the Editor-in-Chief of Annals of Physics, Prof. Brian Greene. I have sent several requests for clarification to all of them, but they have not responded to my requests for over two months.

By now I have also consulted several science journalists, a few sociologists of science, and several of my physicist colleagues (most with decades of experience in scientific publishing), but none have ever seen anything so bizarre as the blank pages that are now published on the journal’s website instead of my original article. Please see the first attachment to verify this for yourself. In fact my article was actually published online for about a month, from 30 June 2016 onwards, and has been downloaded and cited by me and other scientists over the past few months, in accordance with the DOI and related instructions provided by the publisher on the previously purchasable and downloadable article. But then it was mysteriously removed from the journal’s website without even a hint of notification to me. As of today I have received no communication from Annals of physics whatsoever regarding the removal of my article, despite my multiple requests to them. The one-liner that now appears on the first page of the published 13 blank pages provides no real information about why my article has been removed after publication, and when and where the final version of the original article will be published again.

Given this bizarre action by Annals of Physics and their refusal to respond to my multiple requests for clarification, I have no choice but to seek damages from the journal and from its publisher, Elsevier, for permanently stigmatizing to my scientifically impeccable work without justification. My article, which appears to have been censored by Annals of Physics for some unscientific reason, is a product of nine years of extensive research and countless personal sacrifices, in addition to being a valuable contribution to one of the most fundamental questions in foundations of quantum physics. When I signed the copyright agreement requested by Elsevier it was with the understanding that my article will be either accepted for publication or rejected, not that it will be replaced by blank pages with permanent stigma attached to it for anyone to exploit for eternity, and in a manner that would prevent me from publishing it elsewhere with any scientific credibility, or seek acceptance from my peers otherwise. If you think I am overreacting, then please have a look at the ridicule I am already enduring about the removal of my article at the following thread on PubPeer:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/AEF49D ... B4#fb53868

The individual who started this ridicule of my article at the above publicly accessible thread, namely Richard D. Gill, is a psychologically disturbed third-rate statistician with psychopathic tendencies. He has been harassing me and many others scientists, both online and offline, for many years. He has developed personal vendetta against me, and has tried to block several of my papers in the past (but has not always succeeded in doing so). While I have no concrete evidence that he is the instigator behind the unjustified removal of my article from the journal’s website, I am fairly certain that he is involved in this callous act either directly or indirectly, perhaps acting behind-the-scenes in one way or another. Needless to say, his supposed critique of my work has been thoroughly debunked by myself and others.

It is also important to note that my article has gone through a rigorous peer-review process lasting seven months, and was accepted after a positive second-round report from a referee, chosen by Annals of Physics. I have attached with this email the acceptance letter (which includes the final report from the referee) as well as a snapshot of “Accept” status of the article from the Elsevier Editorial System.

Given the above facts I now request that my article is either (1) published again in its final form (I have attached the corrected galley proofs for your convenience), or (2) completely removed from all your publicly accessible websites without trace, reverting all copyrights back to me as soon as possible. I am willing to forget the damage Annals of Physics and Elsevier has already caused (including the loss of over ten months in the review process) if you are able to fulfil my request (1) or (2) above. In case you are unable to fulfil either of my requests (1) or (2), then I will have no choice but to seek legal action.

I do hope that we reach a mutually agreeable resolution of this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Joy Christian



From: EP Support [mailto:support@elsevier.com]
Sent: 22 September 2016 04:55
To: jjc@alum.bu.edu
Subject: Re: PTS YAPHY67143 Annals of Physics [160920-008910]

Dear Dr. Christian,


Thank you for your e-mail regarding your article YAPHY67143 that was removed on the website of Article in Press’..

With regard to your query, I have now contacted the Journal manager of Annals of Physics for further assistance.

I have also provided your e-mail address to the Journal manager so he can contact you directly with this regard.

If you need any further clarification or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards,

Lyssa Abat
Researcher Support

Did you know? You can visit our customer support website and view our Frequently Asked Questions at: http://help.elsevier.com/app/answers/list/p/8045

________________________________________
From: Administrator
Date: 21/09/2016 08.03 AM
Dear Customer,

Thank you for submitting your question. This is to confirm that we have received your request and are working to respond to you as soon as possible. Our current response time is 24 hours.

For future correspondence about this question, please provide this reference number: [160920-008910]. Please do not change the subject line of this email when you reply.

You can reach our support center at: https://service.elsevier.com/app/home/s ... publishing

Kind regards,
Elsevier Customer Service

________________________________________
From: Joy Christian
Date: 20/09/2016 02.57 PM

My published article has been removed from your website for "Articles in Press." The information provided on the stub that replaces the original article is quite ambiguous. In fact it provides no real information about why my article has been removed after publication, and when will the final version of the article be published again.

I have written to the handling editor and the editor-in-chief of Annals of Physics but have not received any response from them for nearly two months. For your reference, the stub in place of the removed article is at this location: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1616300975.

I will be grateful for any real and substantive information about the current and future status of my article.

Sincerely,

Joy Christian

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Yablon » Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:52 pm

Joy, it is terribly distressing to read about these sorts of antics. It makes science and scientists look bad (or certainly, no better than any other slice of "humankind"), and it is these sorts of things that open the door to nihilists arguing that there are no facts and everything is just a matter of opinion and whomever voices it the most loudly with the most political leverage, wins. Scientists have to strive to be more objective and less open to corrupting influences than many other people, or damage is done to the entire scientific enterprise and the reputation it needs to be a bright light for human advancement. Every day that they keep your name posted with a blank spot where your paper should have been and no explanation, which allows other people to think the worst about you, is another day that they are defaming you and damaging your reputation and livelihood and making science look bad. Jay
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: New York

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:00 pm

The whole thing is quite disappointing. I can see that as time goes on, science will progress less and less due to politics.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Heinera » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:31 pm

Joy Christian wrote: But was it not you, the distinguished Editorial Board of Annals of Physics, who accepted and published my article for a month in your journal after seven long months of rigorous peer-review? Why was my article accepted and published in the first place if my “result is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact”? Does that not make you, dear Editorial Board, a bunch of overpaid, incompetent idiots?

Yes, they clearly are.

It's obviously my opinion that the paper shouldn't have been accepted in the first place. But I agree with R. Gill that since they accepted it, it should be published. After all, it's not a case of scientific fraud like you spray painted half of your mice population in order to make them look brown, or anything like that.

Anyway, I think the Retractionwatch story was fairly sympathetic towards you.
Heinera
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Yablon » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:35 pm

Heinera wrote:it's not a case of scientific fraud like you spray painted half of your mice population in order to make them look brown, or anything like that.

Nor did he spray paint Alice or Bob's electrons! :D
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: New York

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Ben6993 » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:28 pm

Be patient? For if they cannot see the importance of torsion in the universe, they may not even realise that their knickers are in a twist?
Ben6993
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby thray » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:44 pm

I have never witnessed a more cowardly act. It calls into question the entire Annals of Physics catalogue, and the reputation of its editorial board.

Equally disturbing is the reason given for the retraction: " ... we have concluded that your result is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact, i.e., violation of local realism that has been demonstrated not only theoretically but experimentally in recent experiments, and thus your result could not be generally accepted by the physics community."

I invite the editors to provide the theory by which local realism violation is a 'proven scientific fact' (or even how ANY theory can be 'proven'). Certainly, Richard Gill has failed in that challenge, and I have asked him many times. What has been generally accepted in the physics community is an inductive conclusion, dressed in the trappings of science -- the editor's statement an article of faith.

I'm disgusted.
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:30 am

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:15 pm

Heinera wrote:It's obviously my opinion that the paper shouldn't have been accepted in the first place.


Please point out the exact fatal flaw in the paper as to why it shouldn't be published. I don't see it. And I want your "opinion" not anyone else's opinion.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:41 pm

Ben6993 wrote:Be patient? For if they cannot see the importance of torsion in the universe, they may not even realise that their knickers are in a twist?

The torsion in Joy's EPR framework may not be the same as the torsion due to spin density squared for fermions. However, it is possible they might be related in a deeper theory of the quantum "vacuum". It did lead me to ask Joy one day about how to quantify torsion and the result ended up being this paper. Another major breakthrough in physics. Now we have two major breakthroughs.

But there is no doubt that some of these people definitely have "their knickers in a tightly wound up twist". :D
...
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:14 pm

***
Ben6993 wrote:
Be patient? For if they cannot see the importance of torsion in the universe, they may not even realise that their knickers are in a twist?

Ben, Tom, Jay, Fred, thank you all for your kind comments. Ben, brilliant comment! I am still "spinning" on the floor laughing! They still can't tell 2pi from 4pi. :lol:

The real problem here is that Bell-fanatics and hit-men like Richard D. Gill and their Mafia bosses are absolutely petrified of my results. I do pity them sometimes. :(

As for the current Editorial Board of Annals of Physics, they acted pretty spinelessly, just as FQXi had acted a few years back. By contrast, the Editor-in-Chief of IJTP, the late David Finkelstein, showed real class. Remember how Richard D. Gill threw his usual tantrum last year and bullied IJTP for months to have my other published paper retracted from IJTP, by harassing and bullying each and every member of the Editorial Board of IJTP? But David Finkelstein did not budge at all. He stood up to the bully and his politically extremely powerful mafia bosses. David did not retract my paper, which already disproves Bell's silly theorem. The editors of IJTP however did relent and published Gill's hilariously error-filled junk, which I later debunked, exposing Gill's mathematical incompetence: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393.

A very good friend of mine, a brilliant and famous young physicist, wrote to me just a couple of days ago which sums up the situation without saying much:

It is beyond me what they think they are doing (all of them, the journal, FQXi, people who talk about you). This kind of thing shouldn't happen.


Anyways, let me reproduce the essence of the "retracted" paper for your visual delight: EPR-Bohm correlations are correlations among the scalar points of a 3-sphere!

Image

From this experimental proposal: https://www.academia.edu/24765800/Propo ... ls_Theorem

Image

FrediFizzx wrote:I have extended Albert Jan's simulation to 9 degree increment resolution. Probably not much point in going further with it since we know the result of Joy's model is -a.b.
Image

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:44 pm

***
The Streisand Effect at work: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Image
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 01, 2016 12:37 am

As they say in Hollywood, "All publicity is good publicity".
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:32 pm

***
In my response to the supposed letter by the Editorial Board of Annals of Physics I wrote the following (see the beginning of this thread):

And here is a real gem from your “inadvertently not sent” letter to me: You now claim that my “result is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact.” But was it not you, the distinguished Editorial Board of Annals of Physics, who accepted and published my article for a month in your journal after seven long months of rigorous peer-review? Why was my article accepted and published in the first place if my “result is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact”? Does that not make you, dear Editorial Board, a bunch of overpaid, incompetent idiots? How on earth did you accept and publish my result that, according to you, “is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact”? You couldn’t see that for seven long months of rigorous peer-review until a third-rate statistician like Gill pointed out to you?

I want to explain to any neutral party reading this --- even if they are not familiar with the physics and mathematics involved in this dispute --- how absurd the above claim by the Editorial Board of Annals of Physics is (those familiar with what "a proven scientific fact" is in this context are of course already laughing). They claim

“your result is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact.”

Now there are only two logical possibilities here. Either the above claim by the Editorial Board of Annals of Physics is True, or it is False.

If their claim is True, then that proves that the Board members were at best grossly negligent and at worst outright incompetent in accepting my paper in the first place. Why should I then pay the price for their negligence and / or incompetence by having my work and my good name stigmatised and defamed for all eternity in the manner they are trying to stigmatise and defame by establishing a permanent record in the scientific archives of the removal of my paper from their website?

On the other hand, if their claim is False (but of course it is false), then there is absolutely no scientific reason whatsoever for removing my published paper from their website without even notifying me for over two months. It is then not unreasonable to see their callous act as purely politically motivated antic.

So do you now see, dear neutral reader, why I am puzzled by this move by the distinguished Editorial Board members of the august physics journal Annals of Physics?

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:36 pm

What is even more obnoxious is that just like Heine they can't point to an exact fatal flaw so that you can explain to them their error.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:11 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
What is even more obnoxious is that just like Heine they can't point to an exact fatal flaw so that you can explain to them their error.

I think the Board members are misled by Richard D. Gill's deceitful misrepresentation of my Clifford-algebraic calculation. But instead of taking his word for it, if they spend only a few minutes on his silly claims, then they would quickly discover for themselves just how extraordinarily incompetent and ignorant he really is. Or, as you say, they can also ask me about his bogus claims, and then I can easily dispose them off. For example, here is an example of Gill's misleading claim. Elsewhere on the Internet Gill makes the following claim about this preprint of mine, https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355, which is the preprint that was published by Annals of Physics.

Richard D. Gill wrote:
According to (55) and (56), A(a, lambda) = lambda and B(b, lambda) = - lambda where lambda = +/-1.

This short sentence is all that is needed to be alarmed by his level of understanding. Contrary to his misrepresentation, A(a, lambda) = +/-1 is an outcome of Alice's measurement, whereas lambda is a random variable representing the orientation of the 3-sphere, which is a hidden variable in my model. It is therefore quite silly of him to write A(a, lambda) = lambda. Since he misunderstands this very first step, it is not surprising that he gets everything else wrong as well. I have not bothered to reproduce the rest of his argument here, but each line of his argument can be shown to contain similar, or worse, schoolboy howlers. It is therefore quite unfortunate that the Editorial Board of Annals of Physics has not bothered to look at his argument themselves, or appoint an independent reviewer to peer-review his silly claims.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby guest » Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:10 am

According to (55), A(a, lambda) = +1 if lambda = +1, A(a, lambda) = -1 if lambda = -1

So though A(a, lambda) and lambda stand for different things, they do happen (in your model) always to take on the same value.

Maybe I'm missing something. I suppose that (55) is correct.
guest
 

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:29 am

guest wrote:According to (55), A(a, lambda) = +1 if lambda = +1, A(a, lambda) = -1 if lambda = -1

So though A(a, lambda) and lambda stand for different things, they do happen (in your model) always to take on the same value.

Maybe I'm missing something. I suppose that (55) is correct.

You are missing a couple of things. One of them you seem to have appreciated, at least partially, but let me stress it anyway: A function and the values it can take are not the same thing, at least conceptually, even if they happen to be the same numerically. A(a, lambda) is a function of a and lambda. It represents the measurement outcome of Alice along the direction a, for a given orientation lambda of the 3-sphere.

Eq. (55) is trivially correct. But it is silly to write A(a, lambda) = lambda, because A = +/-1 is an outcome of a spin measurement, whereas lambda is the orientation of the 3-sphere, which is the random hidden variable in my model. Now according to eqs. (55) and (56) it is true that A = +/-1 and B = -/+1 for lambda = +/-1. Thus, naively, if one ignores the fact that lambda is an initial orientation of the 3-sphere and ignores the fact that initial spin-zero is conserved in the EPR-Bohm experiment leading to eq. (59), then AB = -1 and consequently E(a, b) = -1 always. But the claim “E(a, b) = -1 always” can hold only if the conservation of spin angular momentum is violated. And if one respects the conservation of the initial spin-0 angular momentum, then E(a, b) = -a.b, as proved in eqs. (60) to (68). There is no way to obtain anything other than E(a, b) = -a.b without ignoring the geometry and topology of the 3-sphere as well as violating the conservation of initial spin angular momentum.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Heinera » Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:59 am

Here is a simple question for Joy:

According to (55), A(a, lambda) = +1 if lambda = +1, A(a, lambda) = -1 if lambda = -1

What is the role of the detector setting a in this expression? Do you mean that A(a, lambda) is always +1 if lambda is +1, or could some vaule of a make A(a, lambda) equal -1 even when lambda = +1?
Heinera
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:14 pm

Heinera wrote:Here is a simple question for Joy:

According to (55), A(a, lambda) = +1 if lambda = +1, A(a, lambda) = -1 if lambda = -1

What is the role of a in this expression? Do you mean that A(a, lambda) is always +1 if lambda is +1, or could some vaule of a make A(a, lambda) equal -1 even when lambda = +1?

I have answered all of your questions many times. You can find the definitions of all the functions and all the variables in my paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Next

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library