财经社区女性社区汽车社区军事社区文学社区社会社区娱乐社区游戏社区个人空间
上一主题:应该想办法让北京大学物理学院表态 下一主题:反相之路该怎么走?
“蒋春暄现象”究竟暴露出什么致命弱点?
[楼主] 作者:x2009  发表时间:2009/06/09 09:19
点击:4114次

第1期: “蒋春暄现象”究竟暴露出什么致命弱点?
·方舟子·
[网友评论>]

  现代科学研究是高度专业化的,业余研究者几乎不可能 做出什么重大的发现,更不可能做出革命性的贡献。如果认为自己是科学天才,做出了重大的科学发现,那么也应该遵循正常的学术渠道,将 论文提交权威的学术期刊发表,才有获得科学界承认的可能。但是总有人不遵守学术界的行规,在学术界四处碰壁,正常渠道走不通,就想通 过大造社会舆论造势让自己的成果获得承认的。这些人,以研究歌德巴赫猜想和相对论者最多。在中国民间,自称证明了歌德巴赫猜想或推翻 了相对论的天才们,恐怕有成千上万,其大名时见报端。在中国报刊上,也经常见到有人文学者、记者自以为比专家们更有判断力,为这些想 靠不正常渠道出名的人喊冤叫屈,抨击学术界排斥、压制业余人才。《南方周末》2003年7月3日发表的《令人深思的“蒋春暄现象”》一文, 也属于此类,只不过换了个花样,试图拿国际学术界来打压中国学术界。>

   这篇文章的作者,中国社会科学院哲学研究所张浩和中国 科学院自然科学史研究所宋正海,做为人文学者,想必并没有能力自己判定“业余数学家”蒋春暄的研究成果成立与否。他们为蒋春暄打抱不 平,攻击中国学术界,认为蒋春暄研究是“墙内开花墙外香”,甚至很有可能获得国际数学界最高奖菲尔兹奖的唯一依据,只是国外有一家刊 物《代数·群·几何》发表了蒋春暄的论文,这个杂志的主编、美国强子理论创始人、数学家桑蒂利教授很推崇他。如果这份杂志是一份很著 名的学术杂志,如果桑蒂利教授是一位很有威望、学术地位很高的数学家,也许还有点香气(当然,个别专家的认可也香不到哪里去)。强调 桑蒂利教授是“强子理论创始人”,就是想让读者以为此人的学术地位非同小可。那么桑蒂利教授究竟是何许人也,他创建的“强子理论”又 是什么东西呢?

  桑蒂利(Ruggero Maria Santilli)是出生于意大利的美国人,在意大利获得物理博士学位,曾经在意大利、美国 的大学做物理方面的研究,所以他并不是专业的数学家,而是物理学家。从1983年起,他就脱离了正规的科研机构,在美国创建了一个“基础 研究院”(Institute for Basic Research),自任院长至今,并创办了几份刊物,《代数·群·几何》(Algebras, Groups and Geometries )即是这些刊物中最古老的一个。他创建了一个号称超越了量子力学的“强子力学”(Hadronic Mechanics)。

  在个人履历中,自 称自己是历史上独一无二的科学家,有能力去发现数学的一系列“结构性概括”(structural generalization),并将之应用到物理、超导、 化学、生物学、天体物理和宇宙学的一系列“结构性概括”,他对当代科学的影响,没有任何人能够与之相提并论,连和他做部分的比较都不 行(见他创建的网站www.i-b-r.org上的自我介绍)。简直就是人类有史以来最为伟大的科学天才,连牛顿、达尔文、爱因斯坦都要自叹不如。 但是如果我们用google检索一下,发现提到“Ruggero Maria Santilli”(桑蒂利)和“Hadronic Mechanics”(强子力学)的网页,都只有 三百多页,而且基本上都出现在他或其机构主办的网站上,那么就可以明白那些惊人的大话不过是自吹自擂,他的学术地位并没有获得学术界 主流的承认,他的影响并没有超出他那个小圈子,他创办的那些刊物,包括蒋春暄发表论文的《代数·群·几何》连SCI(科学引文索引)都不 收录,在那上面发表论文在中国甚至不能用来评定职称。这一位科学天才,实际上是一位科学狂人。一位科学狂人的评语,能有什么可信度? 一位物理学家对数学论文的评价,有什么权威性?在连SCI都不收录的期刊上发表论文,能算是被国际学术界接受?值得一提的是,这个“基础 研究院”似乎很支持伪科学的研究,例如我发现有一位中国人柳克希自称是美国基础研究院工程部教授、美国强子期刊编辑委员会委员、美国 强子出版社北京编辑部主任,给一位声称推翻了物理学基础的另一位科学狂人李映华著的《物理学的几个重大理论问题》发贺信。

  不管怎样,蒋春暄的研究并没有被国际数学界所接受,歌德巴赫猜想仍被公认为未被证明,费马大定理的证明者公认是威尔斯而不是蒋春暄。蒋春暄在国外其实并不吃香,只是有另类人士欣赏他,从未获得国际学术界主流的认可。说他很可能得菲尔兹奖更是笑话,菲尔兹 奖显然不可能颁发给未获公认的成果,也不颁发给超过四十岁的人(蒋春暄在1961年已经大学毕业,至少已有五十多岁)。一个自然科学史研 究人员,连菲尔兹奖的年龄限制这种常识都不懂,还为蒋春暄未获推荐愤愤不平,说是不学无术,也不为过。有的网站在转载《南方周末》的 这篇文章时,给加了一个《中国学术界有致命弱点?》的标题,作者也的确是在利用“蒋春暄现象”攻击中国学术界。但是我们从上面的调查 可以看出,从所谓“蒋春暄现象”并没有暴露出来中国数学界有什么致命弱点,倒是暴露出了许多中国人文学者的致命弱点:不学无术,信口 开河,却又自命不凡。

  2003.7.3.

本帖地址:http://club.xilu.com/hongbin/msgview-950451-191250.html[复制地址]
上一主题:应该想办法让北京大学物理学院表态 下一主题:反相之路该怎么走?
 [2楼]  作者:周宪  发表时间: 2009/06/09 10:42 

你们应该在学术上否定蒋春暄的理论。
从来就没有一篇指出蒋春暄的数学论文错在哪里的文章发表。你凭什么说蒋春暄错了?华罗庚也是民科出身。蒋春暄还是航天部的高工,至少比方舟子是官科吧?
方舟子身为民科却骂民科,不懂数学却指责蒋春暄数学得奖。他的脑子出毛病了。附和他的人脑子也有毛病。
人家喜欢数学,研究研究碍你们什么事?他难道没有他的自由?他得奖又关你们什么事?
你们反对别人搞科研的理论,就是阻碍科学发展的伪科学理论!
 [3楼]  作者:qstt  发表时间: 2009/06/09 11:00 

x2009:
你不过是个混混而已!
你不过是个方舟子类混混!
你引用的方舟子混混言论说明什么了?
蒋春暄的论文我未看到,不作评论。你x2009看到蒋春暄的论文了吗?你以数理逻辑指出其数学错误是什么了吗?你不作任何实质性批驳,就是方舟子类混混!
方舟子横说“另一位科学狂人李映华著的《物理学的几个重大理论问题》”,他指出李映华《物理学的几个重大理论问题》中什么地方错误了吗?为什么错误了吗?方舟子有任何数学表达进行否定吗?
 [4楼]  作者:周宪  发表时间: 2009/06/09 11:49 

从所谓“蒋春暄现象”并没有暴露出来中国数学界有什么致命弱点,倒是暴露出了许多中国人文学者的致命弱点:不学无术,信口开河,却又自命不凡。

  2003.7.3.


==================================================================================================
这句话倒是有道理的。你不能说身居高位的中国数学界权威在数学上没有水平。但是他们党同伐异,不许自己小圈子外的人搞数学研究,正是他们在人文道德上的缺陷。
蒋春暄的问题很简单,只要通过学术上的批驳,指出蒋春暄的论文错在哪里,而蒋春暄又无法进行答辩就行了。可是现在一些人不是对蒋春暄的论文仔细进行研究,却以此推而广之,公开反对爱科学,学科学,研究科学的群众性的科学革命运动,妄图剥夺广大群众研究科学的权利,妄图垄断科学界的话语权,这是我们一切正义的人们所不能同意的。
 [5楼]  作者:66.254.230.*  发表时间: 2009/07/04 10:43 

楼上的几位,我是数学系的博士生。
我看过蒋的论文,真是狗屁不通。
数学家之所以不来反驳他,是因为这种民科实在太多了。
他证明黎曼猜测的文章里的推论就是所有COS(X)>=0
我想你是大学生,学过高等数学的就知道问题了吧。

你们骂方舟子的,拜托先去看看论文吧。
 [6楼]  作者:刘岳泉  发表时间: 2009/07/04 11:55 

对【5楼】说:

    “倒是暴露出了许多中国人文学者的致命弱点:不学无术,信口开河,却又自命不凡”这是对方舟子之流自己的真实写照!你既然是数学系的博士生,你就应该真名实姓地写篇专题文章从学术上来批判蒋春暄的“论文”,可是为什么你们数学界的大小专业人士没有任何人站出来,却要靠“不学无术”的方舟子之流在这象疯狗一样到处咬人?它凭什么可以对任何专业方面的“民科”人士都能乱咬一通?它简直就是混入中国科技界靠一帮打手拥有话语权的流氓地痞!


※※※※※※
相对论误导科学走邪路,是非曲折待历史见证;引力场以太旧貌焕新颜,定海神柱将扭转乾坤。.................... 想当初时空迷思闯科海,荣辱以乐可生命当歌;看如今闲庭信步攀高峰,重构宇宙再平展时空。
 [7楼]  作者:刘岳泉  发表时间: 2009/07/04 12:59 

对【5楼】说:

    我认为既然蒋春暄能够帮桑蒂利解决强子力学中的一个数学难题而受到桑蒂利如此追捧,就已经有力地证明了蒋春暄的数学水平很不一般。如果他的数学水平真的象你所说的这么臭,数学界可以对一个没有多少影响力的“臭水平”“民科”事件不屑一顾,可是他的事件在媒体界已经引起了这么大的风波,为什么至今没有任何一个数学界人士站出来说话?他们为什么竟然都成了缩头乌龟了?

    我是实在看不惯一帮“不学无术,信口开河,却又自命不凡”的“人文学者”在国内象疯狗一样到处咬人,还有那个什么叫“水博”的对张颖清恶毒攻击,“全息生物学”理论的生命力已经在现代干细胞动物克隆技术得到充分展示,那一帮疯狗竟然还要对一个死去的张颖清狂吠,它们究竟想要干什么???


※※※※※※
相对论误导科学走邪路,是非曲折待历史见证;引力场以太旧貌焕新颜,定海神柱将扭转乾坤。.................... 想当初时空迷思闯科海,荣辱以乐可生命当歌;看如今闲庭信步攀高峰,重构宇宙再平展时空。
 [8楼]  作者:黄新卫  发表时间: 2009/07/04 13:04 

哥白尼、伽利略质疑权威理论的论文能在权威的学术期刊发表吗?肯定不能!
我的论文能让美国《物理评论A》主编Gordon W.F. Drake(加拿大温莎大学物理系主任)、《物理评论A》编委委员Mikhail V. Fedorov(俄罗斯科学院普通物理研究所研究员)、美国物理学会总编Gene D. Sprouse(美国纽约大学教授)审稿数月,无法指出任何问题,这等于默认我的论文是正确的,相对论是错误的。但是他们不肯承认相对论是错误的,只好用滑稽的理由拒稿。


※※※※※※
欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog
 [9楼]  作者:季灏  发表时间: 2009/07/04 13:30 

支持刘岳泉,黄新卫先生!
 [10楼]  作者:陆道渊  发表时间: 2009/07/04 13:33 

我对‘方小子’不感兴趣,一因为他年令轻,且没有理学实质性论述,文棍一个,理学与文学不同,不是凭单才气的,还要凭年令,没有50岁,有些物理他是想不到的;二因为不知他是专哪性(同样年令,有人近文,有人近理,有人近画……,为什么小儿可成为音乐家,而不能成为画家,这是因为前者仅需灵感,而后者还需要空间结构感——同理,理学比文学难得多。);三因为他自己没来这里,无法与他当面对质。
 [11楼]  作者:xqhuang  发表时间: 2009/07/04 13:37 

对【8楼】说:
这位朋友,你说的肯定不是事实的全部!你显然不了解国际学术界的审稿规则,我为美国《物理评论》审了十几年稿,也在上面发表了几篇论文,审稿是匿名的,作为作者是不可能知道他的稿件是谁审的。《物理评论》要枪毙一篇稿件太容易了,编辑可以以你的论文无法引起广泛兴趣为由拒稿,对于质疑相对论的论文,他们肯定比较谨慎,但是要找一个冠冕的拒稿理由应该不难,不会弱智到无法指出任何问题的地步。(要证明你说的都是事实,可以把所有的审稿材料贴上来。)
 [12楼]  作者:黄新卫  发表时间: 2009/07/04 13:47 

对【11楼】说:

你不相信?我正在整理,我准备把所有通信发出来。

我的论文两次appeal到美国物理学会总编Gene D. Sprouse那里,第一次是PRA主编让我上诉的,因为他给不出拒稿理由,但是又不敢拍板接收,把球踢给总编。

第二次是我指出Mikhail V. Fedorov搞错了对象,他抨击我的论文不适合在任何期刊杂志发表,而那篇文章已经在美国出版,审稿人说good。而我要投的论文,他没有作任何评价。于是PRA主编发起第二次appeal。

能够appeal到总编那里的文章,一年也不会有几篇,我只发现中科院张志东研究员有一次这样的经历,一般到主编那里就为止了。



※※※※※※
欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog
 [13楼]  作者:黄新卫  发表时间: 2009/07/04 13:54 

这是总编指定的审稿人Mikhail V. Fedorov的审稿意见,非常滑稽,他抨击的是我过去发表的文章,而对我要发表的文章只字不提。

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of the Editorial Board Member -- LY11626A/Huang
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support the rejection of the paper from PRA and I am sure that such a paper is inappropriate for publication in any journal on physics. Actually, the text of this paper represents a series of speculations having no scientific background. The 5D substitution of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) is not a theory at all. The absolute time is something mythical rather than well defined and justified, as well as all suggested relations for the velocity with respect to this absolute time. The criticism of STR in the paper is based mainly on what the author calls "paradoxes" of STR and on mentioning some problems of the modern astrophysics which are interpreted as contradicting to STR. The latter is not evident or proved to be true, and cannot be proved by a simple citation of sayings of some scientists. As for the "paradoxes", they are mostly not related to STR and they are not paradoxes at all. In particular, the author is worried mostly about masses acquired by particles during their acceleration and occurring owing to the Einstein's relation E=mc^2. According to the author's formulation, if a particle is accelerated and if the increase of its energy is interpreted as the increase of a mass, then in the rest-frame of this particle other objects will be seen as accelerated and increasing their energies and masses. As these other objects were not affected by any forces, increase of their energy seen from the particle's rest-frame is considered as an STR paradox. But in fact, this effect is not a specific feature of STR. It occurs even in the case of a starting train at a railroad. For a person sitting on a bench in the train and watching in a window for what's going on at the platform, all objects will seem being accelerated and, hence, increasing their energies whereas in the platform-frame all these objects remain at rest. Is this a paradox? Of course it is not, but even if some people can think this is a paradox, the effect is not related to STR. Two comments more. 1) STR is valid only for inertial frames, i.e., frames moving with respect to each other with constant velocities. Rigorously, processes of acceleration are beyond STR. 2) In STR the relation E=mc^2 is simply a definition of the relativistic mass m. The latter does not bear in itself any additional information compared to the energy E. Relativity of the concept of kinetic energy is illustrated quite well in the above described "railroad paradox", and it's hardly surprising at all. A simple substitution of the word "energy" by the word "mass" hardly adds any elements of a surprise to the fact of relativity of these physical quantities. Discussion of other "paradoxes" could be continued in a similar way. But it's hardly reasonable because all this leads to the conclusion formulated in the very beginning of the report: the paper is not appropriate for publication in any scientific journal on physics.

Mikhail V. Fedorov
Editorial Board Member
Physical Review A


※※※※※※
欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog
 [14楼]  作者:黄新卫  发表时间: 2009/07/04 13:59 

这是当我指出Mikhail V. Fedorov搞错了对象,PRA主编Gordon W.F. Drake也觉得说不过去,于是发起第二次appeal后,总编Gene D. Sprouse的回信。看看多么可笑,他竟然说审稿人是公平和负责任的,因此他必须维持审稿人的裁判。


Re: LY11626A
Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by
Michelson-Morley experiment?
by Xinwei Huang


Dr. Xinwei Huang
Equipment Department
Dongfeng Motor Corporation
Frame Plant
Shiyan 442000 Hubei, CHINA


Dear Dr. Huang,

I have reviewed the file concerning this manuscript which was submitted to Physical Review A. The scientific review of your paper is the responsibility of the editor of Physical Review A, and resulted in the decision to reject your paper. The Editor in Chief must assure that the procedures of our journals have been followed responsibly and fairly in arriving at that decision.

On considering all aspects of this file I have concluded that our procedures have in fact been appropriately followed and that your paper received a fair review. Accordingly, I must uphold the decision of the Editors.


Yours sincerely,

Gene D. Sprouse
Editor in Chief

※※※※※※
欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog
 [15楼]  作者:黄新卫  发表时间: 2009/07/04 14:02 

http://authors.aps.org/cgi-bin/wvman?acc=LY11626&auth=Huang这是我的投稿过程,其中有两次Sent on appeal,我相信有这种经历的论文寥寥无几。

※※※※※※
欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog
 [16楼]  作者:陆道渊  发表时间: 2009/07/04 14:03 

对5楼:
整个数学体系悖论泛滥,你用灌进你脑里的“知识”来评蒋,也行?
 [17楼]  作者:黄新卫  发表时间: 2009/07/04 14:06 

这是PRA主编Gordon W.F. Drake的拒稿信,可以看出,没有给出任何理由。他建议我上诉。


Re: LY11626A
Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by
Michelson-Morley experiment?
by Xinwei Huang



Dr. Xinwei Huang
Equipment Department
Dongfeng Motor Corporation
Frame Plant
Shiyan 442000 Hubei, CHINA


Dear Dr. Huang,

Your paper has been rejected. Further consideration can only be given
if you decide to exercise the option, available under this journal's
Editorial Policies (copy enclosed), of appealing the decision to reject
the manuscript. Adjudication of such an appeal is based on the version
of the manuscript that was rejected; no revisions can be introduced at
this stage.

Yours sincerely,

Gordon W.F. Drake
Editor
Physical Review A
Email: pra@ridge.aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://pra.aps.org/


※※※※※※
欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog
 [18楼]  作者:xqhuang  发表时间: 2009/07/04 14:08 

对【12楼】说:
所以说你没有把全部事实说清楚。你说的是美国《物理评论A》主编Gordon W.F. Drake(加拿大温莎大学物理系主任)、《物理评论A》编委委员Mikhail V. Fedorov(俄罗斯科学院普通物理研究所研究员)、美国物理学会总编Gene D. Sprouse(美国纽约大学教授)这些人审你的稿!Mikhail V. Fedorov是以审稿人的身份说那句话吗?能appeal到美国物理学会总编,你的论文一定经过了两轮的匿名审稿,他们的意见才是最主要的,主编主要判断审稿过程是否合理、有无歧视等行为,appeal到总编的文章能发表的几乎没有,我曾经有两篇文章appeal到总编,最后都枪毙了,PRA不发表,你可以选择其它杂志,个人认为,在网络上喊冤的方式不可取。
 [19楼]  作者:黄新卫  发表时间: 2009/07/04 14:16 

请看我的投稿经历http://authors.aps.org/cgi-bin/wvman?acc=LY11626&auth=Huang,我的论文没有经过外审,而是主编审了2个月左右。为什么他不经过外审了?我分析他自己就是这方面专家,他能推测到即使外审,审稿人也无法驳倒我的文章。再说,如果审稿人说我的文章good,他也不敢轻易拍板接受的,因为我的论文将终结相对论。
所以,他经过2个月思考,让我上诉。

※※※※※※
欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog
 [20楼]  作者:黄新卫  发表时间: 2009/07/04 14:22 

没有任何审稿意见,这就是事实。
如果有,Mikhail V. Fedorov就不会抨击我的过去发表的文章作为拒稿理由了。

※※※※※※
欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog
 [21楼]  作者:xqhuang  发表时间: 2009/07/04 14:29 

对【12楼】说:
前面的匿名审稿意见没有看到,后面的程序没有什么好挑剔的,总编和PRA主编的信都是模板化的,不是针对你个人,对所有的作者都一样!不过Mikhail V. Fedorov 的话有点说狠了,他的观点非常明确,狭义相对论就是正确的,他肯定要找各种理由拒绝你的论文(你也不能说他没有给出理由),这也很正常,说白了,就是话语权的问题。不过你的论文能够折腾到这一步已经不容易了,绝大部分的论文早早被编辑掐死了。
 [22楼]  作者:黄新卫  发表时间: 2009/07/04 14:31 

我的论文没有经历过匿名审稿,始终没有经历过Under Review,而是两次Under Appeal。等我把所有通信发出来你就明白了。

※※※※※※
欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog
 [23楼]  作者:黄新卫  发表时间: 2009/07/04 14:37 

这是PRA主编在收到PRD转过来的稿件当天,给我的拒稿信。显然,他没有仔细看我的论文。


Re: LY11626A
Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by
Michelson-Morley experiment?
by Xinwei Huang


Dr. Xinwei Huang
Equipment Department
Dongfeng Motor Corporation
Frame Plant
Shiyan 442000 Hubei, CHINA


Dear Dr. Huang,

The above manuscript which you submitted to Physical Review D
has been examined by the editors. It is their opinion that, in
view of its subject matter, your paper would be more suitable for
consideration in Physical Review A.

However, we regret to inform you that the manuscript is not
considered suitable for publication in the Physical Review.

As a general remark, the special theory of relativity (STR) has
survived for a century, despite many challenges based on alleged
discrepancies in its application, or on apparent inconsistencies
in its accepted interpretation. This historical background makes
the highest demands on the clarity and rigor of submitted papers
that find faults in STR or seek alternative structures for its
basic transformations, if they are to be considered as serious
contenders for publication in a scientific journal. In particular,
they need to provide unambiguous evidence of failings in the
theory and provide clear-cut identifications of past or future
measurements that display, or have convincing chances of displaying,
shortcomings in STR. Proposals for structural changes in the basic
transformations need to show a definite physical impact resulting
from novel predictions of observable effects.

Authors must justify publication by including a clear discussion of
the motivation for the new speculation, with reasons for introducing
new concepts. In addition, plausible arguments should be set forth
that these predictions and interpretations are experimentally
distinguishable from existing knowledge.

Adequate references must be made to previous work on the subject,
including pertinent parts of the extensive body of experimental
evidence which supports the STR. Among such, we should like to call
your special attention to the recent article by Pospelov and Romalis,
"Lorentz Invariance on Trial," in PHYSICS TODAY, July 2004, p. 40.

Your paper does not satisfy the criteria described above. Therefore,
with regret, we cannot consider it for publication in our journal.


Yours sincerely,

Gordon W.F. Drake
Editor
Physical Review A
Email: pra@ridge.aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://pra.aps.org/

and

Rashmi Ray
Senior Assistant Editor
Physical Review D
Email: prd@ridge.aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://prd.aps.org/


Physics - spotlighting exceptional research: http://physics.aps.org/
PRL Celebrates 50 Years: http://prl.aps.org/50years/



※※※※※※
欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog
 [24楼]  作者:黄新卫  发表时间: 2009/07/04 14:38 

这是我请他仔细阅读我的论文后,他再次给我的拒稿信。

Re: LY11626A
Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by
Michelson-Morley experiment?
by Xinwei Huang


Dr. Xinwei Huang
Equipment Department
Dongfeng Motor Corporation
Frame Plant
Shiyan 442000 Hubei, CHINA


Dear Dr. Huang,

I understand your feelings of disappointment on reading my previous
letter of rejection. However, it is important to remember that the
special theory of relativity is now over 100 years old, and it has
been intensively studied by many authors since then. It has also
been subjected to a large number of high-precision experimental
tests, and no defect has been found in the predictions of special
relativity. Under these circumstances, exceptional evidence
is required to overturn a well established theory. It is not
sufficient just to show that the same results can be obtained from
a different philosophical point of view, because then the paper
is about philosophy and not physics. In order to be acceptable for
publication, a paper in this area must show that existing theory is
not adequate in some way that is experimentally measurable, and then
propose a method to remedy the defect. Your paper does not meet these
criteria, and so it is not acceptable for publication. It is like
saying that Copernicus was also wrong in saying that the earth goes
around the sun, but without giving adequate reasons for your claim.

I hope that this explanation helps you to understand the reasons
for rejection.


Yours sincerely,

Gordon W.F. Drake
Editor
Physical Review A
Email: pra@ridge.aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://pra.aps.org/

Physics - spotlighting exceptional research: http://physics.aps.org/




※※※※※※
欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog
 [25楼]  作者:黄新卫  发表时间: 2009/07/04 14:40 

这是我回答了他的问题,并请他仔细思考我的问题后,他的回信。显然,此时他的态度有所改变。

Re: LY11626A
Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by
Michelson-Morley experiment?
by Xinwei Huang


Dr. Xinwei Huang
Equipment Department
Dongfeng Motor Corporation
Frame Plant
Shiyan 442000 Hubei, CHINA


Dear Dr. Huang,

In your last letter, you asked me to consider your alternative
explanation for the negative result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment by invoking the concept of ether drag. The problem is that
one cannot consider just this one experiment in isolation from the
many other outstanding successes of the special theory of relativity.

In proposing an alternative explanation for the Michelson-Morley
experiment, it is incumbent upon you as the author to show that the
alternative theory does not lead to contradictions elsewhere. One
of the most important examples is the energy levels of atomic
hydrogen. These are in precise agreement with experiment when the
special theory of relativity is included via the Dirac equation
(together with higher-order quantum electrodynamic corrections),
but not when they are omitted. If one abolishes the special theory
of relativity in favor of a picture involving ether drag, then you
must find some other way of restoring agreement between theory and
experiment for the energy levels of atomic hydrogen.

Unless you can do so, your proposal is incomplete and cannot be
accepted for publication because it leads to a contradiction with
the high-precision spectroscopic data for atomic hydrogen. You
must similarly take into account the many other tests, such as the
relativistic dynamics of particles in high energy accelerators,
and the conversion of mass into energy. Particle accelerators would
not work if the relativistic dynamics did not work correctly. It
is not sufficient just to quote famous people who speculated about
alternative theories. None of their speculations included ether
drag as a serious alternative.

I might suggest that you submit your paper to a journal that
specializes in publishing speculative ideas.


Yours sincerely,

Gordon W.F. Drake
Editor
Physical Review A
Email: pra@ridge.aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://pra.aps.org/

Physics - spotlighting exceptional research: http://physics.aps.org/




※※※※※※
欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog
 [26楼]  作者:黄新卫  发表时间: 2009/07/04 14:44 

当我按照他的要求,提交了我过去的代替相对论的论文后,论文状态首次由Not under active consideration

改变为With Editor。
但是,十几天后,他拒稿了,并让我上诉。回信见17楼。
确实没有经历外审过程,没有任何审稿意见。
如果有外审意见,总编就不会花70天时间思考怎么处理我的文章,并让Mikhail V. Fedorov给个拒稿理由。

※※※※※※
欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog
 [27楼]  作者:黄新卫  发表时间: 2009/07/04 14:46 

Mikhail V. Fedorov抨击我的代替相对论的理论,而对我的要发表的 Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment? 没有任何人指出任何问题。
因为这篇论文是无懈可击的,将终结相对论。


※※※※※※
欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog
 [28楼]  作者:xqhuang  发表时间: 2009/07/04 14:54 

对【26楼】说:

情况非常清楚,Physical Review 的编辑一开始就没有打算发表你的论文,直接拒稿,他认为没有必要送审,估计反相的论文太多了。一般作者收到这种信就算了,直接撤稿,没想到遇到你这么难缠的,如果是国内杂志根本就不理你,最后只好采用appeal的方式让你死心,现在我理解Mikhail V. Fedorov为什么说话那么难听,他对你的纠缠有点烦了,觉得你浪费了他们的宝贵时间。

 [29楼]  作者:xqhuang  发表时间: 2009/07/04 15:03 

Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment? 对这种题目的论文,他们应该非常眼熟,第一个提出来的肯定不是你,狭义相对论诞生的那一时刻就有人提出。我也认为MM实验不足以证明光速不变原理,相信有这种想法的人还有很多很多,只是现在没有话语权。
 [30楼]  作者:黄新卫  发表时间: 2009/07/04 15:07 

刚回的一个帖子被审核了。等等看能不能出来。
是的,现在就是没有话语权。
我后来不客气的批评他们。

※※※※※※
欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog

精彩推荐>>

  简捷回复 [点此进入编辑器回帖页]  文明上网 理性发言
 推荐到西陆名言:
签  名:
作  者:
密  码:
游客来访 
注册用户 提 交
西陆网(www.xilu.com )版权所有 点击拥有西陆免费论坛  联系西陆小精灵

0.20930695533752