My Formal Response to the Editors of Annals of Physics

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

My Formal Response to the Editors of Annals of Physics

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Oct 16, 2016 6:46 am

***
This post concerns this paper of mine which was published by Annals of Physics but later secretly removed from their website without a whiff of notification to me.

The following note now appears in place of my previously published paper, followed by 12 blank pages: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1616300975

Image

The following statement is My Response to the Withdrawal Statement by the Editors of Annals of Physics:

The withdrawal by Annals of Physics of my paper entitled “Local causality in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime” is scientifically flawed. It is motivated by political and ideological reasons without any scientific basis. In this Response I provide evidence to prove that the withdrawal of my paper is scientifically flawed.

The Editors of Annals of Physics have justified the withdrawal of my published paper citing two reasons:

(1) "... several experts in the field contacted the Editors to report errors."

(2) "... [my] results are in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact ..."

Both of their claimed reasons are demonstrably false. Below I prove this fact by providing detailed references:

(1) Fallacious and misleading reports of errors in my paper:

There are no errors in my paper, of any kind. The Editors of Annals of Physics have not provided any evidence for their claim of errors. The only individual who has publicly claimed to have reported errors in my paper is Richard D. Gill, who is not an "expert" on the subject discussed in my paper. He is a statistician, not a physicist or a mathematician, and who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper in his lifetime on Clifford Algebra or General Relativity on which my paper is based. In my personal experience in dealing with Richard D. Gill I have found him to exhibit extreme difficulties in understanding some of the most basic concepts in elementary physics and algebraic mathematics. Several scholars have independently shown that some of Gill's papers on the related subject of Bell's theorem contain elementary mathematical and conceptual mistakes. For example, see the following references, which only provide a very small sample of his numerous and frequent mistakes:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/D985B4 ... 22#fb27706

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Reality

More importantly, Gill's claims of errors in my paper have been repeatedly debunked, not only by me, but also by other scholars, in published preprints and online postings (cf. the references below, which provide only a small sample of Gill's mathematical and conceptual mistakes concerning the concepts presented in my paper).

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=271#p6808

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... jcrg-3.pdf

I very much doubt that any other credible “expert” ever reported errors in my paper. In any case, the Editors of Annals of Physics have not provided any irrefutable evidence of supposed errors in my paper (despite my repeated requests). Considering my experience in dealing with the journal and its publisher over the past few months, I have no reason to believe the journal or its Editors about anything they may tell me without proof.

(2) Fallacious claim of conflict with a proven scientific fact:

My results are not in conflict with a proven scientific fact. The following is a numerical plot of the analytical function -cos(a, b) versus the correlation prediction E(a, b) = -cos(a, b) of my local model, simulated using a geometric algebra based computing program. This simulation is publicly available, with the online links to the code and the codes for other event-based numerical simulations of the predictions of my model, referenced in my withdrawn paper. As anyone can verify, there is a perfect match between the predictions of my local model and the predictions of quantum mechanics, which have been verified in the "loophole-free" experiments. The one-to-one matching between the predictions of my local model and the observed (or "proven") experimental facts is not only verified independently, in several publicly available numerical simulations, but also rigorously derived in my paper analytically, using at least two different analytical methods. Given all this overwhelming and publicly available evidence, it is mind-boggling why the Editors of Annals of Physics blatantly claim that my "results are in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact." They have made a demonstrably false claim.

Image

Since both reasons given for withdrawal by the Editors of Annals of Physics are baseless, their action amounts to unjustified slander, which has already led to severe defamation and dilution of my reputation as a scientist.

Joy Christian

17 October 2016
Oxford, England


**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

The above response of mine is to the revised withdrawal statement posted online by Elsevier on behalf of Annals of Physics in place of my previously published paper:

The publisher Elsevier keeps changing the statement in order to protect themselves from any legal challenge. For example, the previous statement was quite cryptic:

Image

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Formal Response to the Editors of Annals of Physics

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:17 pm

***
The saddest part of the revised statement by Annals of Physics is not their blatant lying about its contents (as I have exposed here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=283#p6766), but the fact that their understanding of what constitutes "a proven scientific fact" within the context of local realism and Bell's theorem is so shockingly naive! :shock: :shock:

They claim that "violation of local realism" (whatever "violation" means here) is proven theoretically. But that is simply not true, not the least because my challenge to Bell's theorem remains uncontested to date: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=275#p6681. One would think that the Editors of Annals of Physics would have better understanding.

Given their naivety and incompetence in this regard, it is not surprising that they were not able to appreciate the role of 3-sphere and Hopf fibration in understanding the physics underlying the strong EPR-Bohm correlations, which I have attempted to explain here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=286#p6893. Physics is in dire straits. :( :( :(

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Formal Response to the Editors of Annals of Physics

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:50 am

***
I have made the following post on Retraction Watch, calling for the resignation of the entire editorial team of Annals of Physics:


I call for the resignation of the entire editorial team of Annals of Physics:

Let me prove here that the current Editorial team in charge of the journal Annals of Physics, led by Prof. Brian Greene, is not fit for their jobs. In fact they themselves have proven their incompetence, or at least exhibited serious negligence, in handling my manuscript.

First some facts: (1) My paper was accepted for publication, and in fact published online for a while, after seven months of rigorous peer review, involving two rounds of review. (2) The paper was then secretly removed from their website without a whiff of notification to me from anyone, until Retraction Watch got hold of the story of my frustrations with the journal. (3) The Editors of Annals of Physics now claim on their website that they withdrew my paper without telling me because my "results are in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact."

I am not concerned here about the fact (2) above, or about the veracity of their claim in fact (3). But what is obvious from the facts (1) and (3) is that the Editors of Annals of Physics were seriously incompetent, or at least grossly negligent, in handling my manuscript. Logic alone dictates that either my results are “in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact”, or they are not. If they are, then the Editors were seriously incompetent or grossly negligent in accepting my paper for publication in the first place. On the other hand, if (as I maintain) my results are not “in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact”, then again the Editors were seriously incompetent or grossly negligent in secretly removing my published paper from their website without a whiff of notification to me for over two months. In fact, as of today no one from the journal itself has contacted me since the acceptance of my paper on the 26th of June 2016. So either way the Editors have been incompetent and/or negligent in handling my paper. To be fair, they also claim that some "experts" reported errors in my paper. But even after my repeated requests they have not provided any evidence of "errors" in my paper.

Given these facts, why should the current Editorial team, led by the Editor-in-Chief Prof. Brian Greene, be allowed to continue being in charge of vital decisions of accepting or rejecting important physics papers on behalf of the august and historic physics journal Annals of Physics? I therefore call for a removal of the entire editorial team of Annals of Physics and its replacement with a more competent and conscientious team of editors. At least the Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Brian Greene, must resign.

Joy Christian

22 October 2016
Oxford, England

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Formal Response to the Editors of Annals of Physics

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:21 am

***
I have just sent the following email to Prof. Brian Greene, Editor-in-Chief, Annals of Physics:

Date: 24 October 2016; Subject: A call for your resignation

Dear Prof. Greene,

(Bcc: undisclosed recipients)

I am calling for your resignation from the Editor-in-Chief position of the journal Annals of Physics, together
with the resignations of your entire editorial team. For I believe you are unfit for the job. This is evident from
how badly you have handled my paper entitled “Local causality in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime”,
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355. You will find further details of my argument at the following link:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=285&p=6899#p6899.

In short, you were seriously incompetent and/or grossly negligent in accepting my paper for publication after
seven months of peer review, if (as you now claim on your website) my results are “in obvious conflict with a
proven scientific fact.” If, on the other hand, my results are not “in [any] conflict with a proven scientific fact”
as I maintain, then again you were seriously incompetent and/or grossly negligent (at least scientifically) in
having my paper secretly removed from Annals of Physics without informing me for over two months, despite
my repeated requests for clarification. In either case it is evident that you are unfit for leading an editorial team.

Therefore I call for your resignation from your position as the Editor-in-Chief of Annals of Physics, together with
the resignations of your entire editorial team. Physics deserves better than what you are capable of offering as
an Editor-in-Chief; and I have no intention of paying such a heavy price for your negligence and incompetence:

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

Sincerely,

Joy Christian

Oxford, England

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Formal Response to the Editors of Annals of Physics

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Apr 07, 2017 2:53 am

***
For the record, following is a summary of how Elsevier and Annals of Physics mishandled the publication process of my paper: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=283&p=6853#p6853

Elsewhere on that same thread I also spell out how the editors of Annals of Physics were manipulated and misled by Richard D. Gill to protect his own vested interests.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Formal Response to the Editors of Annals of Physics

Postby Joy Christian » Sun May 07, 2017 8:04 pm

***
“I firmly believe, and this belief will not waver, that it is utterly inappropriate for editors to repudiate an article they have accepted for publication (barring issues of plagiarism or falsification of data). In this respect, editors must stand behind the authors of accepted papers. That is where I stand. Professor Tuvel’s paper went through the peer review process and was accepted by the reviewers and by me.”

These are the words of Sally Scholz, Editor of the journal Hypatia, concerning an article by Rebecca Tuvel that the journal recently published, to great controversy. They are part of a statement which Professor Scholz sent to The Chronicle of Higher Education. So here we have an editor with dignity, intellectual integrity and a sense of responsibility for her actions: http://dailynous.com/2017/05/06/hypatia ... l-article/.

By contrast the editor of Annals of Physics, Brian Greene, in my opinion, has acted selfishly, irresponsibly and unprofessionally. I repeat my call for his resignation.

PS: The fact that the editors of Annals of Physics were manipulated by a psychopath does not exempt Brian Greene from his responsibility as an editor-in-chief.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Formal Response to the Editors of Annals of Physics

Postby Joy Christian » Tue May 09, 2017 2:39 am

***
Here is a video of the editor-in-chief of Annals of Physics, Prof. Brian Greene, who, according to their website, seem to have authorized the withdrawal of my paper:

https://www.facebook.com/worldscienceu/ ... 757404817/.

It is disappointing to see how incredibly naive his understanding of Bell inequality is. Here is my understanding of Bell inequality: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Formal Response to the Editors of Annals of Physics

Postby thray » Tue May 09, 2017 3:42 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
Here is a video of the editor-in-chief of Annals of Physics, Prof. Brian Greene, who, according to their website, seem to have authorized the withdrawal of my paper:

https://www.facebook.com/worldscienceu/ ... 757404817/.

It is disappointing to see how incredibly naive his understanding of Bell inequality is. Here is my understanding of Bell inequality: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876.

***


Astounding. When a scientist gives in to dual thinking, he has given up on the quest for unity.
thray
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

Re: My Formal Response to the Editors of Annals of Physics

Postby Joy Christian » Tue May 09, 2017 5:04 am

***
It is far worse than that, Tom. Instead of sensibly dismissing it, the Editor-in-Chief is shamelessly promoting the idea that there is some kind of voodoo in this world.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Formal Response to the Editors of Annals of Physics

Postby thray » Tue May 09, 2017 11:57 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
It is far worse than that, Tom. Instead of sensibly dismissing it, the Editor-in-Chief is shamelessly promoting the idea that there is some kind of voodoo in this world.

***


"Scientific" voodoo is the worst of all, because it does not acknowledge that voodoo is a religion. Woe is us.
thray
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

Re: My Formal Response to the Editors of Annals of Physics

Postby Joy Christian » Wed May 24, 2017 12:07 am

***
Nota bene: Under Brian Greene as Editor the journal Annals of Physics accepts and publishes papers whose "results are in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact."

So if you have any papers with results that are "in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact", then please submit them to Annals of Physics under Brian Greene. :)

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom


Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library