4 ms·

It took me a couple re-readings of the first page or so, because I didn't understand that these were responses to some objections you got. I spent several minu

by warwick 17y ago

It took me a couple re-readings of the first page or so, because I didn't understand that these were responses to some objections you got. I spent several minutes trying to decide if French Literary profs might be able to publish physics journal articles in your scenario. I eventually decided they would be able to, since the physics journals would now be run by French Literary theorists.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
dennisgorelik 17y ago
That's a good point about publishing physics articles in physics journals ran by French Literature theorists :-)
jodrellblank 17y ago
As a physics journal editor you could publish articles by French lit. profs which would save their lives, but which any competent physicist would see were clearly bluffs, so wouldn't you be somewhat obliged to do so?
- Tichy 17y ago
  I am not that sure about the integrity of physics. Maybe with quantum physics, you can also get away with talking a lot of nonsense. Edit: I don't claim that quantum physics is nonsense, just that in the name of quantum physics a lot of strange ideas have been put forward. My impression is that quantum physics is sound (mathematically), but I remain doubtful about "many worlds", for example.
  - pmjordan 17y ago
    I'm not entirely sure (my physics days are a few years back), but I think the most nutjob papers are probably published in particle physics. (leaving aside metaphysics, which is philosophy, not physics) I doubt you can publish a QM paper which doesn't use any fairly involved maths, and the maths is probably the easiest giveavay. In particle physics, you might be able to get away with postulating particles you just made up if your justification is long enough and you have pretty diagrams showing where in the hierarchy of particles it appears. As a bonus, come up with yet another model to explain the existing particles. In fairness, I'm partly basing this on my experiences with professors in the subjects, all of whom managed to publish papers in their fields. :) The other strong factor determining your success would be the choice of journal you're submitting to. You're hardly going to pick Science, Nature or Physical Review Letters (PRL). In any case, my money is still on physicists getting published in French literary journals.
  - Create 17y ago
    It is sound, as long as you are allowed to tune it with "constants" that aren't and "variables" that won't. Why the mass hierarchy? And three generations (now that is odd...)? All that just to ignore gravity? Given some tuning parameters, any formula can be made to be a model accurate enough.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    No "maybe" about it. The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is still the dominant ontology (plenty of people get away with it), and yet it is nonsense. Granted, it is a different sort of nonsense than what the french literary theorists do...
    - cynicalkane 17y ago
      The Copenhagen interpretation is nonsense not because it's wrong, but because it's the minimal explanation for what is actually happening. It gives us a single-history picture of reality without making any other assumptions--the quantum wavefunction isn't even considered "real" in the traditional version of the interpretation. Compare this to academic nonsense, where all kinds of unneccesary nonsense is introduced to satisfy the academic's whims. It's nonsense by inclusion, not exclusion.
kurtosis 17y ago
I'm surprised that noone has mentioned the case of Igor and Grichka Bogdanov here. These were borderline literary theorists that actually did have a complete nonsense physics article published. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
- pfedor 17y ago
  How are they borderline literary theorists? One of them has a PhD in theoretical physics, the other one in mathematics.
  - kurtosis 17y ago
    Maybe only sci/fi critics? Also I once tried to read their papers and it reminded me of experiences where I've tried to read lit-crit. There were some superficial stylistic similarities, between the two.

by warwick 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

dennisgorelik 17y ago

That's a good point about publishing physics articles in physics journals ran by French Literature theorists :-)

jodrellblank 17y ago

As a physics journal editor you could publish articles by French lit. profs which would save their lives, but which any competent physicist would see were clearly bluffs, so wouldn't you be somewhat obliged to do so?

Tichy 17y ago
I am not that sure about the integrity of physics. Maybe with quantum physics, you can also get away with talking a lot of nonsense. Edit: I don't claim that quantum physics is nonsense, just that in the name of quantum physics a lot of strange ideas have been put forward. My impression is that quantum physics is sound (mathematically), but I remain doubtful about "many worlds", for example.
- pmjordan 17y ago
  I'm not entirely sure (my physics days are a few years back), but I think the most nutjob papers are probably published in particle physics. (leaving aside metaphysics, which is philosophy, not physics) I doubt you can publish a QM paper which doesn't use any fairly involved maths, and the maths is probably the easiest giveavay. In particle physics, you might be able to get away with postulating particles you just made up if your justification is long enough and you have pretty diagrams showing where in the hierarchy of particles it appears. As a bonus, come up with yet another model to explain the existing particles. In fairness, I'm partly basing this on my experiences with professors in the subjects, all of whom managed to publish papers in their fields. :) The other strong factor determining your success would be the choice of journal you're submitting to. You're hardly going to pick Science, Nature or Physical Review Letters (PRL). In any case, my money is still on physicists getting published in French literary journals.
- Create 17y ago
  It is sound, as long as you are allowed to tune it with "constants" that aren't and "variables" that won't. Why the mass hierarchy? And three generations (now that is odd...)? All that just to ignore gravity? Given some tuning parameters, any formula can be made to be a model accurate enough.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  No "maybe" about it. The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is still the dominant ontology (plenty of people get away with it), and yet it is nonsense. Granted, it is a different sort of nonsense than what the french literary theorists do...
  - cynicalkane 17y ago
    The Copenhagen interpretation is nonsense not because it's wrong, but because it's the minimal explanation for what is actually happening. It gives us a single-history picture of reality without making any other assumptions--the quantum wavefunction isn't even considered "real" in the traditional version of the interpretation. Compare this to academic nonsense, where all kinds of unneccesary nonsense is introduced to satisfy the academic's whims. It's nonsense by inclusion, not exclusion.

kurtosis 17y ago

I'm surprised that noone has mentioned the case of Igor and Grichka Bogdanov here. These were borderline literary theorists that actually did have a complete nonsense physics article published. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair

pfedor 17y ago
How are they borderline literary theorists? One of them has a PhD in theoretical physics, the other one in mathematics.
- kurtosis 17y ago
  Maybe only sci/fi critics? Also I once tried to read their papers and it reminded me of experiences where I've tried to read lit-crit. There were some superficial stylistic similarities, between the two.