6 ms·

Read this and thought it made sense, but I'm not physicist. I'd really like to know what actual physicists make of this.

by anc2020 18y ago

lisper 18y ago
Back in the day, I submitted this paper to the American Journal of Physics. It was rejected, not because it was incorrect, but because it didn't say anything new. If you like I can post the review.
- scott_s 18y ago
  I would like to see that review.
  - anc2020 18y ago
    Seconded
    - lisper 18y ago
      Here it is. (Gotta love modern search tools.) Edit: couldn't figure out how to paste in pre-formatted text, so here's a link instead: http://www.flownet.com/ron/ajp_review.txt http://www.flownet.com/ron/ajp_review.txt
      - lisper 18y ago
        Oh, you might find this amusing too: http://www.wikipatents.com/7126691.html http://www.wikipatents.com/7126691.html
      - scott_s 18y ago
        Did you feel it was a fair review? Did you take their suggestion and submit it to the Foundations of Physics journal?
        lisper 18y ago
        I thought it was somewhat fair. One the one hand, it is true that the paper says nothing new. On the other hand, it doesn't claim to say anything new. It just claims to present old results in a more accessible way, which I believe it does. Furthermore, these results are clearly not widely known even within the physics community because even today you can find lots of card-carrying physicists (and a few patent examiners apparently, to say nothing of journalists) who do not understand the simple idea that measurement and entanglement are the same physical phenomenon, so clearly there is a need for some better pedagogy in this area. AJP is ostensibly devoted to physics education, which is why I chose to submit it there. So I think it would have been an appropriate venue, and I think it would have made a contribution. On the other hand, the point that I do not have adequate references for a scholarly publication is valid. So I thought the decision not to publish it was defensible, even if I didn't agree with their reasoning. I did not submit it to Foundations of Physics. Physics is not really my field of expertise, so the benefit to me from having an accepted peer-reviewed publication in this area is pretty small. This paper was the result of an exploration driven by personal curiosity. If self-publication on the web were not an option I might have been more motivated to polish it up and resubmit it, but it is so I wasn't. I'm actually between gigs right now (my partner in a startup I was trying to get off the ground had to bow out) so I may try to update it and take another whack at publishing. I actually have some new ideas about how entanglement can explain the (perceived) flow of time, but the last time it took me nearly ten years to figure it out (though it all finally came together in a wonderful "aha" moment, which almost made it all worthwhile) and I have other fish to fry.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]

Read this and thought it made sense, but I'm not physicist. I'd really like to know what actual physicists make of this.

by anc2020 18y ago

Read this and thought it made sense, but I'm not physicist. I'd really like to know what actual physicists make of this.

lisper 18y ago

Back in the day, I submitted this paper to the American Journal of Physics. It was rejected, not because it was incorrect, but because it didn't say anything new. If you like I can post the review.

scott_s 18y ago
I would like to see that review.
- anc2020 18y ago
  Seconded
  - lisper 18y ago
    Here it is. (Gotta love modern search tools.) Edit: couldn't figure out how to paste in pre-formatted text, so here's a link instead: http://www.flownet.com/ron/ajp_review.txt http://www.flownet.com/ron/ajp_review.txt
    - lisper 18y ago
      Oh, you might find this amusing too: http://www.wikipatents.com/7126691.html http://www.wikipatents.com/7126691.html
    - scott_s 18y ago
      Did you feel it was a fair review? Did you take their suggestion and submit it to the Foundations of Physics journal?
      - lisper 18y ago
        I thought it was somewhat fair. One the one hand, it is true that the paper says nothing new. On the other hand, it doesn't claim to say anything new. It just claims to present old results in a more accessible way, which I believe it does. Furthermore, these results are clearly not widely known even within the physics community because even today you can find lots of card-carrying physicists (and a few patent examiners apparently, to say nothing of journalists) who do not understand the simple idea that measurement and entanglement are the same physical phenomenon, so clearly there is a need for some better pedagogy in this area. AJP is ostensibly devoted to physics education, which is why I chose to submit it there. So I think it would have been an appropriate venue, and I think it would have made a contribution. On the other hand, the point that I do not have adequate references for a scholarly publication is valid. So I thought the decision not to publish it was defensible, even if I didn't agree with their reasoning. I did not submit it to Foundations of Physics. Physics is not really my field of expertise, so the benefit to me from having an accepted peer-reviewed publication in this area is pretty small. This paper was the result of an exploration driven by personal curiosity. If self-publication on the web were not an option I might have been more motivated to polish it up and resubmit it, but it is so I wasn't. I'm actually between gigs right now (my partner in a startup I was trying to get off the ground had to bow out) so I may try to update it and take another whack at publishing. I actually have some new ideas about how entanglement can explain the (perceived) flow of time, but the last time it took me nearly ten years to figure it out (though it all finally came together in a wonderful "aha" moment, which almost made it all worthwhile) and I have other fish to fry.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]