Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum B Factory Results

Are you not a member of the science community? Are you not a scientist? [/QUOTE]
Yes I am trying to be a scientist with an open mind. There are scientists and scientists. I agree with dr_rocket; it is my opinion that Galileo was not persecuted by the Church but by his fellow scientists who advised the Church. I think we are largely back in those times. For example, the BCS theory of superconduction cannot explain why there cannot be an electric field between two contacts to a superconductor, but it is instinctively defended because "it is already in textbooks". "We do not need a new model for the low temperature superconductors". Why not? All possible models should be considered objectively.

I am off to the African bush to visit my ancestors. See you guys again next week!

Just because Gallileo's theory wasn't originally accepted doesn't mean that all theories initially rejected are correct.

Perhaps you need to "objectively" consider that your theory has been considered "objectively".

Sometimes an objective review of a new theory results in a rejection.

The fact is that Aristotle's theory on which Ptolemy based his model of the Universe has been accepted as correct for nearly 2000 years. This illustrates that not all theories being accepted as correct are correct. My theory has not been considered objectively because it was rejected without pointing out any scientific flaws in it. It was rejected purely because the reviewer does not want to consider the possibility that the BCS theory might be flawed.

The fact is that for an electric field not to be present between two contacts, the charge carriers must not scatter within the phase AS WELL AS WITHIN THE CONTACT INTO WHICH THEY ARE MOVING. It is ironic that John Bardeen who was THE Guru on electronic interfaces did not pick this up. In the superconductor the speed of the charge carriers can be increased by increasing the emf around the circuit. This speed need not be the same as the drift speed within the contact (it could be higher; in fact the contact material can be chosen so that it is higher), which requires the charge carriers to scatter within the contact. This will register as a resistance just as in the case of a vacuum diode. Thus to explain superconduction between two contacts one has to also explain how the superconducting charge carriers can increase their velocities WITHOUT increasing their kinetic energies. In fact, if they cannot do so one cannot argue that the phase is a Bose-Einstein Condensate in which all the carriers have minimum energy. So where does the BCS model explain this? It cannot. Neither can it really explain Josephson tunnelling. As Bardeen correctly pointed out, Josephson tunnelling should not be possible in terms of the BCS model because Cooper pairs should not be able to exist within the tunnelling layer. From my model it follows logically that Josephson tunnelling must manifest. It also explains how the charge carriers can increase their velocities when one increases the applied electric field while at the same time not increasing their kinetic energies AND cancelling the electric field.

The time has come to take the C out of BCS.

By the way JB,

nice hijack of a thread.

You are complaining because your theory paper has been turned down by one referee? One? Geez--submit it somewhere else. You claim that at least two profs have been won over by your work--some guy in Holland who read your paper and another guy in RSA who did some experiments. Sounds like you have a 2:1 acceptance ratio. This is hardly cause for complaint that the community won't give you a fair chance.

I know you also complained about getting past the editors elsewhere. That implies Science or Nature or journals of that type. It is hard to get past them, no doubt. This is not an argument that the world is against you.

Look, you post a bunch of qualitative descriptions of your theory on this forum. You claim--without real proof, mind you--that your theory calculates all sorts of things about superconductors and all sorts of other things. We are supposed to take your word on this and tell you how brilliant you are?

It was suggested that you post your paper on Arxiv. Have you done so? If not, why not just post it on your own website?

Step back a moment and see things from the outside. Let's say I have a grand unified theory. I can predict everything from the gravitational constant to the stock market. I even show graphs on my website where my theory fits experimental data. However, I don't give you any quantitative background on my theory. I won't actually let you read the paper. I claim that I can turn lead into gold, but I tell you that my patent attorney won't let me show you.

Now, why don't you believe me?

You are complaining because your theory paper has been turned down by one referee? One? Geez--submit it somewhere else. You claim that at least two profs have been won over by your work--some guy in Holland who read your paper and another guy in RSA who did some experiments. Sounds like you have a 2:1 acceptance ratio. This is hardly cause for complaint that the community won't give you a fair chance.

I think you are missing the point here. One should expect that reviewers should be aware of the scientific approach; i.e. every theory and model should at all times be examined for their validity, applicability and scientific consistency. Thus if a reviewer writes that "we do not need another model for low temperature superconduction", he/she cannot be a scientist. This is the attituide that one expects from a zealot; "we do not need any other books because the bible contains everything of importance." In other words, if a person is willing to act as a referee, he/she should at least be able to give scientific reasons why a new approach should be rejected. An argument that the old model is already in the textbooks and therefore sacrosant should NEVER be written or utterred by a REAL scientist.

[/QB]I know you also complained about getting past the editors elsewhere. That implies Science or Nature or journals of that type. It is hard to get past them, no doubt. This is not an argument that the world is against you.[/QB]

I am not saying that "the world is against me" but just pointing out that referees has gone back to the Vaticam days. They reject new ideas when these are not in agreement with what they have become to believe is correct, and even more so when it makes some of their own previous research redundant. Furthermore, they do not even try to counteract the scientific arguments in the manuscript with other scientific arguments. The "beauty" of one argument I came across is as follows: when I asked why there is no electric field between two contacst to a superconductor I was given the answer that it is because the superconductor has zero resistance. When I then asked why such a superconductor has zero resistancce, I was told it is because there is no electric field. This superb logic came from a guy who heads a physics department.

[/QB]
Look, you post a bunch of qualitative descriptions of your theory on this forum. You claim--without real proof, mind you--that your theory calculates all sorts of things about superconductors and all sorts of other things. We are supposed to take your word on this and tell you how brilliant you are? [/QB]

I claimed that it models all types of superconducters by the same mechanism (which does not relate to Cooper pairs in any way). Examples of experimental fits are given on my website for Tin, Ta, YBCO and p-type diamond. My curves fit the data on Tin far better than BCS theory is able to do. Must I now calculate all the experimental data ever published on superconductors? Then I will have another book which I cannot get published.

[/QB]It was suggested that you post your paper on Arxiv. Have you done so? If not, why not just post it on your own website?[/QB]

I tried to do so last week but required somebody as some type of guarantor. I will try again. Alternatively I will post it on my webpage. I will announce it on this thread when I have done so. Critical comments based on actual physics will be welcome. I have also again submitted the paper. Somewhere there must be referees who are able to think in terms of physics.

[/QB]Step back a moment and see things from the outside. Let's say I have a grand unified theory. I can predict everything from the gravitational constant to the stock market. I even show graphs on my website where my theory fits experimental data. However, I don't give you any quantitative background on my theory. I won't actually let you read the paper. I claim that I can turn lead into gold, but I tell you that my patent attorney won't let me show you.

Now, why don't you believe me? [/QB]

Obviously I will not. This is, however, NOT what I am doing. The theory is done in detail in my book, and I am now trying to get papers published which outlines the essentials of my theory, so that a wider scientific audience can read them and comment on them. It is, however, difficult when it gets blocked; not because of scientific content, but because of prejudice and more possibly politics. My patent attorney does not keep me from making my theory known; but only from making it known how and which materials I can modify to become superconducting.

To give you an idea how a research field can be manipulated by the "scientific cardinals": Late in the 1990's I discovered that I could dope diamond n-type by oxygen-ion implantation followed by suitable annealing to form oxygen-vacancy complexes. There exists a (Vatican?)school on ion implantation into diamond which claims that if they cannot reproduce a result, the result is not possible. They claimed that my results are not possible and that I am fabricating results. A Chinese team in Beijing subsequently reproduced my results and improved on them. They have now so-far tried in vain for more than 4 years to get their results published. It is consistently blocked because the "Vatican", this time situated in Israel, says it is not possible. I can assure you that the Chinese study is scientifically thorough; they measured all the parameters required to prove their case.

Johnny Boy wrote:
" think you are missing the point here. One should expect that reviewers should be aware of the scientific approach; i.e. every theory and model should at all times be examined for their validity, applicability and scientific consistency. Thus if a reviewer writes that "we do not need another model for low temperature superconduction", he/she cannot be a scientist. This is the attituide that one expects from a zealot"

Now juxtapose this with J. Arthur Gold's comment:

"You are complaining because your theory paper has been turned down by one referee? One? Geez--submit it somewhere else."

Scientists are human. Referees are human. What's the issue? Do you want to be published or pontificate about the injustices done to you personally?

I agree that scientists are human. The only problem is that scientists claim to be objective and that they have learned from Galileo's experience. Unfortunately, that is not so anymore. In all my papers I have written in which I made small incremental progress and did not seriously challenge the status quo, I have had no problems. In contrast, in all the papers I have written which challenged the exsisting mainstream beliefs I have been consistently rejected and the rejections were NEVER scientifically motivated. This is extremely worrying. I can list the cases and argue them all here; but it will serve no purpose. Unfortunately, the internet and the amount of crank ideas on the internet are contributing to this attitude. When an editor or reviewer receives a manuscript that is out of the ordinary, it is immediately rejected; because the "probability is very high that it could actually be cranky"; however, by doing this the baby can be thrown out with the bath water. It is my policy NEVER to prejudge a manuscript sent to me for reviewing but to argue scientifically to support my arguments when I have to reject it. In fact I make it my business to be scientifically correct in such a case because the writer might learn from it. It is irresponsible to slam a person down and insult him when he thinks that he has a contribution to make. It is our duty to rather help him/her to think more clearly if we can see where the mistake has been made. After all scientific discourse should be about facts and logic and not about insulting another person; or alternatively not helping him/her to realise where he/she has made a mistake. No wonder the public is turning against scientists.

Johnny Boy wrote:
"The only problem is that scientists claim to be objective"

Which is it? You don't get it or you DON'T WANT to get it? One reviewer is not ALL reviewers. And no scientist claims to be objective. Scientists claim to strive for objectivity: There's a difference. One I presume you can fathom if you want to.

You can not make wine out of whine unless you get the "H" out. Which is what I'd suggest to you if you were my student.

It takes a lot of gall to try to paint ALL scientists or ALL reviewers based upon the comments of a single individual. Given your attitude, lack of perspective, and lack of perseverence, perhaps you should reconsider your career options. You demonstrate a total lack of objectivity while complaining about the objectivity of another.

Johnny Boy,

DA Morgan has a point here. Actually several. Johnny Boy you are whining and beating a dead horse.

When a scientist has a new idea there is almost always slow acceptance. The author has to be a champion for the new thing. Intelligent response to criticism is more effective than insults and polemics. Not only are good responses more effective, they are in fact the only thing that really works. When a new idea fends off all comers it will almost certainly be accepted.

This thread started off on the topic of new things at the "B-factory." A number of participants had interesting input. Somehow it seems to be coming back to some alternate notion of superconducting. A notion, I might add, that seems to have little if any substance. I've looked at this website (cathodixx.com) you always sign with and have found no content whatsoever.


It would be nice to have a discussion about a scientific topic rather than dead horse flesh!

Dr. R.

You are ascribing things to me which are false. Nowhere, have I claimed that one reviewer is all reviewers. If I thought such I would not have submitted my paper again. All I am saying is that I have consistently found that when I discovered an aspect which requires a change in accepted dogma, I always experienced opposittion in getting it published. It has also been this way to a certain extent in the past; e.g. The Ostwald-Vatican opposing Boltzmann (suicide!!), Bose having to ask Einstein to intervene (then winning the Nobel Prize), De Broglie's thesis accepted again after Einstein intervened; etc. I am just suggesting that at present the situation is even worse. It is more difficult to find an Einstein to look objectively at a new isea. It probably relates to how science is funded. It also probably relates to the advent of the PC. It is now easy to write a manuscript; the publishers get flooded and decisions are made according to rules which do not apply in each case.

A further point to note is that the scientific method requires from scientists to be open minded about new discoveries. Theory and dogma should not lead our thinking but experiment and observation. Furthermore we should always consider a new model objectively. It could be simpler and more realistic than the accepted model; which then requires one to compare the two models by using Occam's razor.

It would be nice to have a discussion about a scientific topic rather than dead horse flesh!

Dr. R. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Which topic can be more important than to explain all superconducting materials discovered to date by a single mechanism which in addition also explains those aspects which the BCS model could never explain to date. I will raise these on the new thread.

Johnny Boy wrote:
"All I am saying is that I have consistently found that when I discovered an aspect which requires a change in accepted dogma, I always experienced opposittion in getting it published."

As well it should be. You said it yourself in what I copied above: "Accepted dogma." If it was not dogma the issue would not exist and neither would the burden of proof you are expected to provide.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Perhaps you should read the children's story: "The Emperor's New Suit."

Johnny Boy wrote:
"I find you are deliberately insulting."

I think you are over-reacting here just as I think you are over-reacting to the rejection of your paper by a single reviewer or even if it was the majority of reviewers at a single pubication.

If you can't work within the system then you really have two choices.

1. Change yourself
2. Change the system
3. Leave

Again I think you are over-reacting and hope you strive for the first of the three options.

It is amusing, because I wanted to advise YOU to read the "Emporer's new suit". It applies better to your myopic view of science and peer review. When the peers say that the Emporer's suit is fine; beware the boy who says otherwise. He will get a hiding and will be sent to bed without food (recoginition).

BTW I have given the proof but nobody wants to either acknowledge it or prove me wrong. Is this a scientific discourse?

All I can say is that this is the MOST pathetic comments I have come across in my life. I pity your students!

I will NOT leave the system unless I am forced to do so by house arrest (as in the case of Galileo). This, however, does NOT remove the obligation to try and change the sytem, EVEN when the defenders of the status quo accuses me falsely of "whining".

Being objective ... the point of my example was that the boy was right ... and with time and perseverence ... that was acknowledged by all.

Had he criticized the adults who disagreed with him they would have gotten defensive and he'd have been ignored.

Human nature, good, bad, and ugly, is what it is.

Unfortunately for many of us a lot of the time.

By just saying that the Emporer is naked, the adults disagreeing with the boy would have been on the defensive and they will tell him to keep quiet or "leave the kitchen when things become too hot" because they "believe" that the Emporer has clothes. How else could the boy then persevere but to restate his observation and pointing out to the adults that they are not wanting to look at the facts? It seems to me that your analogy is flawed?

no, they did not beleive it. they beleive that everyone else did. that is a big difference. as soon as anyone said that they were not alone in the beleive that he did not have cloths, the illusion of believe created by the scammers disappeared.

Yes but you are missing the fact that human nature is not that waay. Even if they also know that the Emporer is naked, one voice will not sway them to agree. Peer pressure is too large for that; for example, many books have been written about the problems encountered in Physics: e.g. renormalisation, interpretation of QM, entanglement etc.; however, if anyone "outside the accepted adult group" should point out a reason for these difficulties, he is ignored. It is unlikely that the adults would have immediately agreed with little boy. They would still have been to afraid that they would lose their standing amongst the "adults".