Why I don't use regular journals.
Jack Sarfatti
Several people have asked why I don't publish in regular journals.
I have one 22 page paper on this faster than light stuff in a peer
reviewd journal called Physics Essays (Vol 4, No 3, Sept 91) from
University of Toronto Press.
They billed me over a $1100.00 in page charges which I did not pay since
I am generally broke and do not have an institution to pay page charges
much less put ms in proper formats etc. Physical Review is even more
expensive - what would 22 pages cost in Physical Review?
So no more elitist cracks or pot shots about regular journals - we
homeless hobos can't afford them, also they are too slow anyway. It's
a new world of instant communications with feedback - gorget 16th century
technology it's the 21st century.
The Feynman picture suggests connection communication is possible but the
Dirac kets with unitary maps, completeness, orthogonality absolutely forbid
it - problem with Feynman picture is ambiguity of decifing when alternatives
are indistinguishable or not.
Invariance of the bra-ket forbids the connection signal - what kind of
theory could break that invariance? Does Weinberg's (if any one has access
to Weinberg's paper in Annals of Physics please let me know. I am not near a
proper library.
*replace "decifing" by deciding above*
I need a device that will transform <ae+|ao-> = 0 to <ae+|ao+> = e^ix
that is a device such that
<ae+|D*D|ao-> = e^ix when <ae+|ao-> = 0, this D is not unitary I agree
so it is not allowed in standard quantum mechanics. Brian Joesphson in
Fdn of Physics Letters implies that living matter can make such a D - the
elan vital?
Also if we look at Penrose's claim that quantum gravity affects ordinary QM
measurment collapse - we might get back into the FTL business. But as of now
it looks like a long shot and I'm not placing bets or holding my breath any
more - good thing I got super-lungs!
BECKMANN PETR
>
>Several people have asked why I don't publish in regular journals.
>I have one 22 page paper on this faster than light stuff in a peer
>reviewd journal called Physics Essays (Vol 4, No 3, Sept 91) from
>University of Toronto Press.
> They billed me over a $1100.00 in page charges which I did not pay since
>I am generally broke and do not have an institution to pay page charges
>much less put ms in proper formats etc. Physical Review is even more
>expensive - what would 22 pages cost in Physical Review?
the article is reviewed and accepted it is printed free of charge. Clearly it
is not a crackpot journal if it prints articles by physics professors of the
U. of Conn., U. of Wisc., U. of Nevada, Taft Univ., U. of Texas, and numerous
foreign universities.
Petr Beckmann
David Frenkel
>I have one 22 page paper on this faster than light stuff in a peer
>They billed me over a $1100.00 in page charges ...
>So no more elitist cracks or pot shots about regular journals - we
There are plenty of European Journals which do not have page charges.
"Nuclear Physics", the most popular particle physics and field
theory journal does not have page charges, so far as I know.
Neither do "Modern Physics A" or "Modern Physics B", journals
published by World Scientific (I believe).
I think "Journal of Physics" (British) has no page charges.
So, this is no excuse.
--
David Frenkel | e-mail: fre...@stcst1.mrl.uiuc.edu
Department of Physics, |
University of Illinois at |
Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA |
Steven Timm
In fact, the page charges are zero for Physical Review for the next
year.They are experimenting with this format to see how it works.
Steve Timm
Steven Timm
John C. Baez
> Galilean Electrodynamics does not charge a cent in page charges. After
>the article is reviewed and accepted it is printed free of charge. Clearly it
>is not a crackpot journal if it prints articles by physics professors of the
>U. of Conn., U. of Wisc., U. of Nevada, Taft Univ., U. of Texas, and numerous
>foreign universities.
Another example of an error that I referred to earlier - namely, that
teaching at a university somehow proves one is not a crackpot!! Why
should this have anything to do with it? For one, people who succeed in
getting a job teaching X may be utter loonies when it comes to subject
Y. For two, people who manage to get a job teaching X can, after
getting tenure, relax and begin spreading their kooky ideas with little
fear of being booted as long as they maintain the basic social
proprieties. If Idi Amin could rule a country, just think of what sort
of people can teach at universities!
No, crackpottery can only be determined by a good look at the work in question.
Of course, the fact that Petr feels it necessary to claim that Galilean
Electrodynamics is *not* a crackpot journal naturally raises ones
suspicions. I have never heard it claimed, for example, that Phys. Rev.
Lett. is not a crackpot journal.
BECKMANN PETR
>Another example of an error that I referred to earlier - namely, that
>teaching at a university somehow proves one is not a crackpot!!
professors. Nevertheless, I would think that a professor of theoretical
physics would not write in a crackpot journal, especially in the field
of relativity, where such crackpot journals abound.
>[...]
>No, crackpottery can only be determined by a good look at the work in question.
claims that GE is a crackpot journal and that I am a liar and fool by
people who have never seen GE. One of them even posted that he would throw it
in the waste paper basket unread if he received it. You are the first
one to make this seemingly obvious statement. Congratulations and thanks again.
>Of course, the fact that Petr feels it necessary to claim that Galilean
>Electrodynamics is *not* a crackpot journal naturally raises ones
>suspicions.
*I* don't feel it necessary. It has been called a crackpot and even
"creationist" [????] by others in this group, so I wanted to forestall
their further attacks.
Petr Beckmann