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.

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

***