Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature?

Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? - Physics Forum

Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-23-2003, 03:03 AM
Perfectly Innocent
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature?



"Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are
rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because
it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
published." Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.

[Only registered users see links. ]

Eugene Shubert
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-23-2003, 01:42 PM
Gregory L. Hansen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature?

In article <[Only registered users see links. ] >,
Perfectly Innocent <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


I remember a quote that was something like "It doesn't get into
Fundamentals of Physics Letters unless it's wrong." Also a quote about
APS journals soon filling library shelves faster than the speed of light,
but not violating relativity since no information would be transmitted.

Maybe you're taking the quote more seriously than Dyson meant it.

--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-23-2003, 02:21 PM
Uncle Al
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature?

Perfectly Innocent wrote:

“Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific
Speculation”

Empirically discredited.

<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
[Only registered users see links. ]
Relativity in the GPS system

--
Uncle Al
[Only registered users see links. ]
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-24-2003, 09:34 PM
Perfectly Innocent
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature?

[Only registered users see links. ] (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<bkpiku$c2a$[Only registered users see links. ].indiana.edu>...

Gregory, Your reference to faster-than-light, non-luminal journals is
hilarious.


I'm certain that Dyson meant his remark to be taken in a lighthearted
way but the question remains. How much of his statement is true? "Do
physicists understand their own peer-reviewed literature?"

We've all read stuff in the "scientific literature" that we know for
a fact would have a much easier time qualifying as "highfalutin
pomposity" than "a clear exposition." How do we know that physicists
today aren't running amok, pretending that they understand everything
and successfully publishing incomprehensible gibberish on the remote
edge of decipherability and clarity?

Eugene Shubert
[Only registered users see links. ]
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-24-2003, 09:58 PM
Robert J. Kolker
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature?



Perfectly Innocent wrote:

By learning the field. Then you can read papers with discernment.

Bob Kolker

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-25-2003, 01:11 AM
Gregory L. Hansen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature?

In article <[Only registered users see links. ] >,
Perfectly Innocent <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Every quip like that has some grain of truth to it, I'm sure. But then we
have the interesting situation of some people saying journals will publish
anything the reviewers don't understand, while at the same time other
people are saying journals won't publish anything that doesn't look like
"the party line". Luckily there are lots of journals, some more tolerant
of novelty than others.

--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-25-2003, 01:21 AM
Gregory L. Hansen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature?

In article <bktfca$n7b$[Only registered users see links. ].indiana.edu>,
Gregory L. Hansen <[Only registered users see links. ].indiana.edu> wrote:


An interesting example, I think, is an article published by Van Flandern,
"The speed of gravity -- What the experiments say", Phys Lett A 250, 1-11
(1998). Van Flandern argues from data that the speed of gravity must be
at least 2e10 c to avoid noticeable decays of orbits and transverse
acceleration of the Earth. Carlip replies, "Aberration and the speed of
gravity", Phys Lett A 267, 81-87 (2000), that Van Flandern would be right
if the forces were strictly central, but he showed by explicit
calculation that non-central forces in electromagnetism and then gravity
cause an acceleration that points towards the source's "extrapolated
position", and then argues on more general principles that it's a
necessary consequence of any Lorentz-covariant force.

Strictly speaking, the reviewers should have already known that, and
recognized Van Flandern's argument as not worth publishing. But because
they published it, I learned about an issue and got some insight that I
might not have come across otherwise. Maybe it was an exchange more
worthy of Am J Phys than Phys Lett A, but what the hell, I still got
something out of it.

--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-26-2003, 01:00 AM
Perfectly Innocent
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature?

[Only registered users see links. ] (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<bktfca$n7b$[Only registered users see links. ].indiana.edu>...

I see no contradiction between the two claims and believe the first is
only exaggerated slightly.

Why can't both statements be true?


Eugene Shubert
[Only registered users see links. ]
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-26-2003, 02:29 PM
Randy Poe
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature?

[Only registered users see links. ] (Perfectly Innocent) wrote in message news:<c45b45b3.0309251700.4e15272a@posting.google. com>...


You write an incomprehensible anti-relativity article. The
reviewers can't make head or tail of it. Which rule
applies?

- Randy
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-27-2003, 09:49 AM
Perfectly Innocent
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature?

"Robert J. Kolker" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<bkt42j$5immr$[Only registered users see links. ].uni-berlin.de>...


I assume that the many postdocs and GR experts at the newsgroup
sci.physics.research have discernment. I've asked an extraordinarily
simple question of them regarding VSL relativity. It's obvious that
no one there has an answer and those that are just pretending to
understand the physics are totally clueless.

See VSL (Variable Speed of Light) Relativity at sci.physics.research.

[Only registered users see links. ]

Eugene Shubert
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
literature , peerreviewed , physicists , understand


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Moving Dimensions Theory Book Due Out in Fall 05--Very Rough Draft: 4th Dimensions Expanding Relative to 3 Spatial Dimensions jollyrogership@yahoo.com Physics Forum 64 03-31-2012 10:24 AM
Simply put, MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY is THE NEW MODEL: http://physicsmathforums.com drelliot@gmail.com Physics Forum 0 08-29-2006 06:32 AM
Moving Dimensions Theory!! Rock On!! drelliot@gmail.com Physics Forum 1 07-06-2006 05:19 PM
Physicists Losing Their Grip?? Consc Physics Forum 218 01-06-2005 01:20 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.20797 seconds with 16 queries