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

B factory experiments at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in the USA and at the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) in Japan have reached a new milestone in the quest to understand the matter-antimatter imbalance in our universe. These experiments are used by scientists from around the world, including the UK, to probe such fundamental questions.

Experimenters have leaped from inference to direct knowledge of the proportions of the B unitarity triangle. Not just a simple geometric shape, this triangle summarizes knowledge of the rare processes that contribute to the universes partiality for matter over antimatter. Understanding the difference between matter and anti-matter is fundamental to understanding why our Universe looks the way it does.

Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060624115839.htm

"The amount of asymmetry found experimentally is still far too small to explain why we live in a universe of matter rather than antimatter."

Existing theory therefore

1) contains an overlooked consequence, or

2) existing theory contains a weak founding postulate, or

3) existing theory omits a subtle necessary component.

Any improvement of contemporary theory must be consistent with prior observations within experimental error and must be vigorously predictive for testing and utility. Where could there be slack in the gears?

EASY! All of existing theory can be written in two ways. The simple way is even-parity math. Consider raising numbers to even powers. If you measure physical distance of separation it always defaults to a positive number. Negative separations (by defining a suitable reference frame) had better give the same answers. Gauge symmetries are only labels. They do not couple to translation or rotation.

The nasty way is theory written in odd-parity math (that includes even-parity as a special case). Consider raising numbers to odd powers. Negative numbers give different answers if you can somehow obtain a physically real negative number.

If a true description of reality contains large even-parity contributors and very small odd-parity contributors, even-parity theory is good enough - until somebody looks at far decimal places. Then, even-parity theory fails.

Is there any physical process wherein turning the universe inside-out in all directions makes a difference in the resulting physics? As an experiment, does a a single crystal solid sphere of left-handed quartz vacuum free-fall identically to an externally indistinguishable like sphere of right-handed quartz? If so, one need simply use theory written to odd-parity maths and the correct answers will obtain.

Somebody should look.

Also,

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/tip/special/cp.htm

Uncle Al writes:

"Existing theory therefore

1) contains an overlooked consequence, or

2) existing theory contains a weak founding postulate, or

3) existing theory omits a subtle necessary component. "

I'm not sure about 1). Consequences follow from hypotheses. The hypothetical aspects of current physics has been pretty well farmed for their consequences. The journals are filled with LPUs that speculate on this kind of thing.

But 2) seems like safe bet. Physical theory has a host of assumptions - alway has and always will. Advances in physics come from critical analysis of postulates or new experimental findings. You "gotta lift the paint somewhere".

That brings up 3). Hidden elements are metaphysics until an experiment, observation, null-results or some such shows that something is missing.

I get the feeling Uncle Al seems to think that running the maths will get answers. There is something to this - but I believe more in physical reasoning than mathematics. My personal feeling is physics first then math if you want to avoid getting lost in Plato's heaven.

Uncle Al is mostly advertising his ideas on using crystals to check for equivalence principle violations.

If you take the time to look over his work, you will find that while there is a lot of computer generated arithmetic involved, a connection with physical reasoning is lacking.

Hi J. A. God,

You sort of lost me on this one. Are you speaking of the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass?

The article that DA Morgan noted is about recent events at SLAC's BABAR. One of the things BABAR is supposed to do is to examine the assymmetry in the decay rates of B-particles and anti-B-particles. The idea is to get some experimental data concerning CP violation - the sine-two-beta parameter. (Of course they do other things.)

Uncle Al seems to be talking about using quartz crystals to accomplish the same thing - I think?

What am I missing here?

Dr. R.

What you are missing is that Uncle Al, for a decade or more, has been seriously trying to get someone to run an experiment he calls: Parity Eotvos.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/message_board9/messages/21.shtml

Equally serious is the world physics community that has found Uncle Al's suggestion lacking in merit thus it seems it will not be run unless he does it himself.

Thanks for the input DA Morgan. A little insight goes a long way.

According to Uncle Al's website, the experiment is "completed". Based on the statement, I gather that he does not think highly of the experimental team.

My impression is that Uncle Al doesn't think highly of anyone but that may just be an impression he has cultivated over the years.

Oh, I can think of one person he thinks very highly of...

There are only two internally consistent ways to build observed physical reality:

1) The Equivalence Princple is true, gravitation is gerade, inertial and gravitational mass are fundamentally identical, spacetime is achiral. Parity violations (e.g., the Weak Interaction) are inserted exceptions due to local symmetry breakings.

2) The Equivalence Principle can be violated, gravitation is ungerade, inertial and gravitational mass can be decoupled, spacetime is chiral. Parity violations (e.g., the Weak Interaction) are the consequence of a vacuum pseudoscalar background (spacetime is intrinsically left-handed).

A left foot can only be tested by a (snugly fitting) right shoe. Left shoes and socks will all fit identically. Therefore,

3) What is geometric (not optical) chirality? All chemical compositions of matter fall identically. Only relative mass distribution (atom positions) is active in the experiment. Parity is chirality in all directions,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/invert.gif

4) How can we calculate geometric parity divergence to identify the most extreme opposite
examples?

5) How can we reduce theory to practice, to an actual experiment? Solid single crystal spheres of enantiomorphic space groups P3(1)21 versus P3(2)32 quartz are maximally parity divergent by theory and calculation,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
A three-month parity Eotvos experiment

The same result can be obtained in two days in a chem lab, with 32,000 times greater sensitivity,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm

Inertial and gravitational masses would be non-equivalent for a contrasted pair of enantiomorphic crystals (for their parity-divergent atom locations) but not in their identical amorphous achiral melts. E=mc^2. The difference must show as an anomalous differential heat of fusion.

Critic troll J. Arthur God is playing his vile little game. The truth is

6) Weak Interaction asymmetry is insufficient to explain the observed preponderence of matter over antimatter from an otherwise unbiased Big Bang,

http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Nw/triangle.asp
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060624115839.htm
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/tip/special/cp.htm

7) Biological homochiralty has no reasonable source (all chiral protein amino acids are L-configuration, all chiral sugars are D-configuration).

8) Nobody has examined gravitation for a parity anomaly. If it exists it would easily explain both (6) and (7) and have no effect whatsoever on common matter. Note that meat and wood cancel in Earth's biosphere so there is no hope of a detectable parity Nordtvedt effect.

The preceding technical claims have solid refereed literature backing,

HD Flack, "Chiral and achiral crystal structures"
Helv. Chim. Acta 86 905 (2003)
http://www.flack.ch/howard/cristallo/cacs.pdf
http://www.flack.ch/howard/cristallo/Howard.Flack.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flack_parameter

M. Petitjean, "On the root mean square quantitative chirality and quantitative symmetry measures"
J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)
http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
Theoretical slope is -2 exactly. Intercept depends on crystal structure.
CHI=1 is maximum geometric parity divergence
CHI=1-[10^(-15)], 1 cm diameter quartz solid sphere
CHI=1-[10^(-16)], 3 cm diameter quartz solid sphere

D. Yogev-Einot and D. Avnir "Quantitative Symmetry and Chirality of the Molecular Building Blocks of Quartz"
Chem. Mater. 15 464 (2003)
"Pressure and temperature effects on the degree of symmetry and chirality of the molecular building blocks of low quartz"
Acta Cryst. B60, 163?173 (2004)
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/employee/avnir/topics.html

Wow! Uncle Al, I now feel an idiot. Maybe my chirality does not fit space-time?

I guess "nobody" means everyone except for Jun Luo? Or, is your website mistaken in listing that the experiment is completed?

I don't seem to recall claiming that your points 6 and 7 were incorrect. I don't recall it because I didn't do it. I did and do claim that point 8 ( Nobody has examined gravitation for a parity anomaly) is incorrect. I use your own words to make that claim.

Well, at least you resurected your favored troll subject.

Hey J. Arthur God,

While I am sure that for Uncle Al there is "one person he thinks very highly of..." and that his writing style is not beyond reproach, he does have some things going in his favor.

Looking at the above post my inital reaction was jeez what a gas bag. For example: "1) ... Parity violations (e.g., the Weak Interaction) are inserted exceptions due to local symmetry breakings." Here I thought that these are not just "inserted" into a theory. Parity violations are based on solid experimental evidence.

In 1956 Tsung Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang, in their studies of sub-atomic particle interactions began to suspect that parity might not be conserved in weak interactions. Others had suspected as much and some felt that the assumption of parity conservation needed to be checked as a matter of principle, but no one had anything solid to go on. In 1957 Chien Shiung Wu showed experimentally that beta decay, a weak interaction, in cobalt-60 is anisotropic depending on the spin of the nuclei.

Any respectable theory must deal accordingly with these facts. Gluing things in as an after thought will not do. Then I got to thinking how symmetry come into the standard model. Some of it was just glued in while much of it is part and parcel of the wider theroy. A pretty good discussion of symmetry, broken or otherwise, can be found at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/symmetry-breaking/

So the point I am trying to make is that while our Unc's writing style is less that clear and direct, it does have some content. Of course he is still rather pompous, overbearing, etc. etc.


Dr. R.

I have no gripe with pompous, overbearing people if they can back it up with ability.

Of course there is a reason to test all characteristics of matter for EP violation. It isn't like the community with Eovos balances sat back and said, "Dang, parity. Why didn't we think of that". What they may have said is, "Dang, single crystals, why didn't we think of that?".

Uncle Al spent over a month of high-end CPU time calculating a number that can be had in an instant using your brain. (the chirality of a single crystal). In the end, that number isn't useful for theory or experiment in the EP test.

So, the noise/signal ratio on this subject is just too high.

Hey God,

Signal/noise ratio, good way of putting it. (LOL)

There is something I had to learn and it has helped me immensely to do so. Science is a human enterprise and so people and communication skills are very important.

I'll give you an example of how things can go wrong and right. Julius R. von Mayer(1814–1878) was the first to propose the modern principle of energy conservation (Erhaltungssatz der Kraft) in 1841. Mayer was trained as a physician not as a physicist. In the medical science of the times more latin dogeral was used than was found in the physics journals. (This is still true today!) When he submitted his ideas to Zeitschrift f?r Physik it was not only rejected but severely ridiculed. This abuse spread even so far as the local news paper in his home town. They really blasted him. Now, in 1843 James P. Joule (1818–1889) made the same discovery as Mayer, but he presented himself differently. Joule took the time to present his ideas in the current scientific format in a meeting of the BAAS and above all he was a gentleman in fact. When Lord Kelvin, of absolute temperature fame, heard Joule's ideas he was skeptical - even contrary. However, he took Joule seriously and eventually became a leading champion of the energy law.

The moral of the story, at least for me, is that it really helps to put the human factor back into the equation.

Dr. R.

Yes, how sad. Why do scientists claim objectivity when they are no more objective than the Vatican in the time of Galileo?

Hi Johnny,

Galileo's case makes my point. Galileo was a genius, but arrogant and abrasive with his colleagues, especially those who had different views than his. In Galileo's time Experimental Philosophy" was cutting edge stuff and several other investigators were also jumping on the band wagon. Galileo, in no uncertain terms, pounded the Aristotelian Scholastics. There response was to bring out the thumb screws. They managed to get Robert Bellarmine S.J. to bring the powers of the "Holy Office" down on Galileo. You might recall that Bellarmine and Galileo were friends.

As I say science is part of the human scene. So is the Vatican!

Dr. R.

Are you not a member of the science community? Are you not a scientist?

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".

I think human nature is such that some people would actually believe the Emperor was clothed (and be very difficult to convince otherwise).
Others will agree with whatever they think will give them some kind of advantage - prestige, promotion, etc.
Most of the rest will then go with the flow - either due to peer pressure, or just following the latest fashion.

That only leaves a few ragged individualists and the fringe ratbags. Unfortunately the bureaucratically minded are not good at seperating the two, and usually throw out the baby with the bathwater (or keep the bathwater and throw out the baby).

When will we ever learn? People will believe it especially if the dressmakers have set them up as THE experts and only allowed opinions "peer reviewed" by them. If an opinion does not pass their peer review it must be crank! Only a crank will insult an emporer by saying he is walking around naked; is it not?

Theory must always be handmaiden to observation. Observation cannot be gainside in science. Theory is rigorously derived, self-consistent, and survives empirical falsification. It can still be wrong.

Theory cannot defend its founding postulates or they would not be postulates. Any proposed experiment consistent with prior observation that nevertheless brings down theory by falsifying a founding postulate is hot stuff. It must be performed - certainly if it is cheap in consummable resources and labor.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm

Is gravitation metric or teleparallel? Two days' work with $(US)16 of chemical is calculated to be 33,000 times more sensitive than 90 day orthodox inquiries.

Amen! That is why peer review should be objective and not in defense of existing dogma. It is very subtle. As pointed out by you theory might be consistent but still wrong. Another theory might be equally consistent and correct. According to Occam's razor the theory which simplifies interpretation should be considered as correct. But even this approach might also be misleading? Nonetheless, a theory that cannot explain everything about a phenomenon must contain some inherent flaws; like the BCS theory.

"Rocket scientist Robert Goddard found his ideas bitterly rejected by his scientific peers on the grounds that rocket propulsion would not work in the rarefied atmosphere of outer space."

JB, it seems that many people have had to go through the mill to find success. See:

http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/OnFailing.html


Myth: Scientists are Particularly Objective


Scientists are no different in their level of objectivity than are other professionals. They are careful in the analysis of evidence and in the procedures applied to arrive at conclusions. With this admission, it may seem that this myth is valid, but contributions from both the philosophy of science and psychology reveal that there are at least three major reasons that make complete objectivity impossible.


Many philosophers of science support Popper's (1963) view that science can advance only through a string of what he called conjectures and refutations. In other words, scientists should propose laws and theories as conjectures and then actively work to disprove or refute those ideas. Popper suggests that the absence of contrary evidence, demonstrated through an active program of refutation, will provide the best support available. It may seem like a strange way of thinking about verification, but the absence of disproof is considered support. There is one major problem with the idea of conjecture and refutation. Popper seems to have proposed it as a recommendation for scientists, not as a description of what scientists do. From a philosophical perspective the idea is sound, but there are no indications that scientists actively practice programs to search for disconfirming evidence.


Another aspect of the inability of scientists to be objective is found in theory-laden observation, a psychological notion (Hodson, 1986). Scientists, like all observers, hold a myriad of preconceptions and biases about the way the world operates. These notions, held in the subconscious, affect everyone's ability to make observations. It is impossible to collect and interpret facts without any bias. There have been countless cases in the history of science in which scientists have failed to include particular observations in their final analyses of phenomena. This occurs, not because of fraud or deceit, but because of the prior knowledge possessed by the individual. Certain facts either were not seen at all or were deemed unimportant based on the scientists's prior knowledge. In earlier discussions of induction, we postulated that two individuals reviewing the same data would not be expected to reach the same conclusions. Not only does individual creativity play a role, but the issue of personal theory-laden observation further complicates the situation.


This lesson has clear implications for science teaching. Teachers typically provide learning experiences for students without considering their prior knowledge. In the laboratory, for instance, students are asked to perform activities, make observations and then form conclusions. There is an expectation that the conclusions formed will be both self-evident and uniform. In other words, teachers anticipate that the data will lead all pupils to the same conclusion. This could only happen if each student had the same exact prior conceptions and made and evaluated observations using identical schemes. This does not happen in science nor does it occur in the science classroom.


Related to the issue of theory-based observations is the allegiance to the paradigm. Thomas Kuhn (1970), in his ground-breaking analysis of the history of science, shows that scientists work within a research tradition called a paradigm. This research tradition, shared by those working in a given discipline, provides clues to the questions worth investigating, dictates what evidence is admissible and prescribes the tests and techniques that are reasonable. Although the paradigm provides direction to the research it may also stifle or limit investigation. Anything that confines the research endeavor necessarily limits objectivity. While there is no conscious desire on the part of scientists to limit discussion, it is likely that some new ideas in science are rejected because of the paradigm issue. When research reports are submitted for publication they are reviewed by other members of the discipline. Ideas from outside the paradigm are liable to be eliminated from consideration as crackpot or poor science and thus do not appear in print.


Examples of scientific ideas that were originally rejected because they fell outside the accepted paradigm include the sun-centered solar system, warm-bloodedness in dinosaurs, the germ-theory of disease, and continental drift. When first proposed early in this century by Alfred Wegener, the idea of moving continents, for example, was vigorously rejected. Scientists were not ready to embrace a notion so contrary to the traditional teachings of their discipline. Continental drift was finally accepted in the 1960s with the proposal of a mechanism or theory to explain how continental plates move (Hallam, 1975 and Menard, 1986). This fundamental change in the earth sciences, called a revolution by Kuhn, might have occurred decades earlier had it not been for the strength of the paradigm.

http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

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

JB, it must be hard when you have invested so much of yourself in your work to see it get such short shrift. Keep chipping away and keep sending it for review - and if you are destined to sit on the sidelines of accepted science then you are certainly in good company.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Well said Blacknad!

Thanks Blacknad,

You have summarised the problem well. To fight it, journals should not allow reviewers to reject anything without motivating it. To state that "we already have a theory" is NOT a motivation. Neither is it a motivation for an editor, and in this case a Nobel Lauriate (Frank Wilczek) to reject a manuscript because he finds it "too speculative". Such an argument is is NOT a motivation but a subjective prejudice (like Apartheid). In fact if it is applied to Frank Wilczek's publications, not one of them should ever have been published.

For the most part, peer review reduces the amount of junk published in journals. If one person can read a paper and save 100 people from wasting their time, the referee has done a good job.

Yes a lot of quality work was delayed because it did not follow current understanding. I used to have a collection of physics books from the 1800's. I recall reading something describing a picture of a galaxy stating, "some have described these as island universes, much farther away from us than most of the stars we see. Of course, we know that no to be the case."

I.e. they were giving a thumbs down to the concept of galaxies.

However, there were many many more ideas that were just plain wrong or too qualitative to have any real meaing. Discussions of electrical essences and the like.

What I see from JB's discussions is a lot of qualitative discussion and nothing quantitative. How is someone on this forum supposed to make an real judgement of the quality of the work? Gee, he can fit data for tin. How? I can fit the data as well, using the price of gold, the birthdate of Ohnes, and a lot of other obviously unphysical inputs. Give me enough variables and let me pick whatever equations I want and I can fit anything.

Doesn't make it physics.

I pointed out to JB in a different thread that a paper using Wigner crystals to model superconductivity has already been published. This demonstrates two things: (1) the scientific community will publish in this general area, even though the BCS theory exists and (2) JB didn't do his homework. A paper such as this which can be found so easily on the databases shouldn't be news to someone working in the area.

You are in good company, sure. Doesn't make your statements correct. They put guilty people in the Birmingham jail. Doesn't mean that the burglar is in the same league as Martin Luthur King.

But, the question is,

Are you or the established theory the emperor?

You may be correct. But, given the information you have out so far, who can decide other than the referee?

We seem to have two frustrated authors here; JB and extraNONsense. Neither seems to quite get what is required to be published so I'll give them the guidelines I used back when I had to play the publish or perish game.

1. Be an expert on prior art.

Have a copy of every important paper on the subject ever published and a good working knowledge of its contents and its authors.

Be prepared in what you've written to explain how what you are writing agrees with prior art and how it disagrees with or extends prior art. Provide concrete examples (math or lab results) to support where you disagree or extend.

2. Be an expert on prior failures.

Be prepared in what you've written to explain any prior suggestions of ideas similar to yours that have made it to the dustbin of science. Have concrete examples (math or lab results) showing either where the prior authors went wrong or why they were right and those that "proved them wrong" were incorrect.

3. Find your own reviewers.

Have your paper reviewed by peers, grad students and professors, and take their suggestions seriously. If they have nothing bad to say they are not of any value so thank them nicely and find someone else willing to be helpful.

4. Get a co-author.

Put your d..n ego into the closet and find someone with a PhD to co-author your first paper or two. If you are not in the citation indexes yet the endorsement won't hurt. If no one is interested in being your co-author there is a 99.95% probability that you are a wacko and need to learn to make a Boolean choice between these two options:

Option A: Seek professional counselling
Option B: Seek another profession

DA Morgan has summed it up rather neatly!

Real scientists do everything on this list and then some. That's why they have advisors in Ph.D. programs: just so that you learn this stuff.

DA Morgan

1) you could add Uncle Al to your list of frustrated authors

2) JB appears to be well versed in getting publications out. He has a few in his own field, and I can see that he already has answers to many of your suggestions.

JB is an emiritus professor. I'm puzzled why he can't post on arXiv. If he needs endorsement, he should email Hirsch:

http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0508471

He also works on alternative theories of superconductivity.

Al certainly seems to be a bundle of angst. But I've yet to see him whining and bemoaning his fate vis-a-vis publishing papers. When he does he too will earn (or should that be urn) similar advice.

JB seems the best of the bunch. In fact I have rarely found reason to disagree with him. His recent whining seems rather out of character. He just needs to put the past behind him and realize that there are limited publishing opportunities and a huge pool of authors: Time to move on.

As Robert Heinlein said:
"Of course the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you--if you don't play, you can't win."

JB seems in many ways reasonable. I don't have a problem with his theory--since I haven't seen it I can't. I see a problem with his presentation. He asks us all to believe him without presenting the acutal theory.

Wow what a great reaction (taking into account all the postings since my last). I am really impressed and feel as if we are becoming friends. I do not expect you all to just believe me. Therefore, I have asked some questions, here and on other threads (see "modelling superconduction"); however, I do not get any response. Nonetheless, your criticism that I have not posted on archive has merit; it also has a history which I do not want to enter into. I have sent the manuscript to my webmaster and will chase him to have it posted on my website. Will you all then be prepared to ask scientific questions? I think you all are capable of doing so; and I am looking forward to it. Lets give science a chance!

JB asks:
"Will you all then be prepared to ask scientific questions?"

I think some of us will be prepared to read it. But whether you get questions or a serious critique is not preordained. You need to be prepared for both and take them in-stride.

I am happy to get serious critique; that is what science is all about. Just remember that "serious" requires motivation. I phoned my webmaster this morning (here in South Africa) and he said he will try and attend to the posting of my article this evening (SA time). So it should be available within a day; I hope.

I agree with Dr. Rocket that this is good advice, except for point 4. All authors of a paper must have made significant contribution to the results in the paper. If you submit a paper to Phys. Rev. you now have to sign a statement that everyone who made significant contribution was offered the opportunity to become a co-author and that all the co-authors made significant contributions.

Of course, it's difficult to check if people are violating this ethical rule. But it is a form of scientific fraud/corruption to give a paper more weight by offering some well known Prof. who hasn't made a significant contribution to the results to become a co-author.

Hi all,

If you are interested in my paper on the basic mechanism for superconduction; which is at the moment being considered for publication, you can get a preprint at www.cathodixx.com It has been inserted under newsletter.

Count Iblis wrote:
"I agree with Dr. Rocket that this is good advice, except for point 4. All authors of a paper must have made significant contribution to the results in the paper."

I didn't mean to suggest a co-author would not make a significant contribution. I doubt anyone would sign onto the paper without carefully reviewing the work. And that, for JB, would be a very significant contribution.

Why will it be? I have a very good citation index. Check for yourself. I have never allowed my name on a paper if I did not make a substantial contribution to it. Sometimes I have found that my name has been added without my consent. I have always rebuked this practice in the strongest words possible.

As I have posted above, the manuscript on the mechanism for superconduction is now available on my website. So "review it carefully" and argue scientifically about it if you are able to do so.

Good job putting it out there. A very (very) quick look shows that it is more quantitative than I had worried based on your posts. I will try to give it some sort of read soon.

Thanks, I am looking forward to a serious opinion based on physics.

You could also ask

Jorge Hirsch for his opinion. I also looked at it and although it looks ok., I don't work in the field so I won't be able to notice any subtle mistakes/problems.

"4. All authors of a paper must have made significant contribution to the results in the paper.""

I like that phrase "the results in." In addition to the very few works I've had published under my own name, there are two (one formal, one informal) that I got my name on without having written anything on the paper. On the formal paper (which one best paper at a conference) I was coauthor of the program that was used to analyze the data and had many conversations with the fellow who wrote the paper; on the informal paper, I wrote the code and helped to produce the analysis that he gave to the sponsor. I wasn't actually expecting to get authorship credit, but these guys are already so widely published (PhDs in CS and Physics with more than a 100 articles between them in physics A & B, IEEE pubs, and many others) and their character is such that they didn't feel comfortable leaving my name off.

Weird thing: when I was in school, I contributed a good deal in debugging help to a number of people's thesis work. Never asked for a credit, never expected it. The thought never even occurred to me. However, one fellow - different department, eventually a good friend - was discussing a problem he had and was wishing he had somebody who could do something in assembler for him. I wrote this puny little piece of assembler - maybe 10 or 15 lines, if that - to interface to his >100K lines of fortran. He writes this full paragraph acknowledgement in his thesis. I was really floored. Such a classy thing to do. I didn't get co-authorship (that would have been stupid). But the real researchy types I've found tend to be pretty grateful for help and very gracious in acknowledging it - either in an acknowledgements section, or as coauthor depending on how significant the contribution.

Thanks for this reponse. Any model (even a new one) could eventually be found to be wrong. Thus all I require from a person is to state that with his/her knowledge as it is at present he/she could not find a scientific fault. What I have experienced is that the experts on superconduction do not come back with any statement. Before I send the paper to them I am ridiculed and even vilified; but not in a single case did anyone come back with any comments after reading the paper. I am thus greatly indebted to you and J. Arthur God. Thanks!!!

Maybe I should know, and I apologise that I do not know, who Jorge Hirsch is. I will, however, follow the lead you have posted.

Dear TheFalliblefiend,

One should always acknowledge the help of other people. Unfortunately co-authorship is in many cases misused for manipulating and misusing other people. I think I can write a thesis on it. ALL authors contributions should be great enough that each should be able to present the contents at a conference and field questions about the paper. Furthermore, you should not use co-authorship to bask in the sun of a super new idea if you did not contribute to this idea. One of my graduate students came up with a stunning good idea, and I told him that this means a solo paper by him; even if I assist.

Dear Count Iblis II

I have decided to follow up the lead that you have posted:

Dear Dr. Hirsch,

It has been suggested to me that you might be interested in my manuscript entitled: "Superconductivity: coherent "tunnelling" by a dielectric array of charge carriers". This suggestion has been made on the scientific discussion forum scienceagogo, by one of the persons who have read my manuscript; I have complained that it is being ignored by everybody who believes in the BCS model as if it is religious dogma. I will appreciate it greatly if you would be willing to e-mail me your opinion.

Sincerely yours,

Jorge is a decent fellow (or at least was, 20 years ago). However, a phrase "I have complained that it is being ignored by everybody who believes in the BCS model as if it is religious dogma." is bound to put off people.

Do yourself a favor, drop the Vatican Rag.

Thanks for the advice. I will try to heed it.