How to correct english in physical article

exponent137

Can you give me links on forums, where I can correct grammar of the article by one to one sentence (i am not native speaker)? Maybe it is not necessary to find peoples with physical knowledge.

Any other suggestions?

tiny-tim

Hi ¹³⁷!

Try http://www.englishforums.com/search/physics.htm or http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum....tag=ab-grammar or anything else you find by googling "physics grammar"

or look at J. Eastwood's English Grammar Exercises published by the Oxford University Press and available free here

or just paste some of your work on this forum, and ask for corrections.

™

exponent137

Hi Tiny-Tim, thanks for answer.
So I please for correction of a few sentences from my article, that I will see where a typical errors are.

Duff discussed the conversion factors c_x, c_y, and c_z between rectangular lengths in space (x, y, z). He obtained conversion factors, which are, of course, equal to one [1]. He compared c, as the conversion factor between time and distance, with these conversion factors. The conversion factors cx, cy, and cz are really mainly unnecessary, because space is isotropic. Bur furthermore, he tried to tell us that similarly as the height has the same unit as the width, the time unit could be the same as the length unit. He thinks that c is only a conversion unit, which is not necessary in calculations and its value could be equal to 1.

But sometimes it is important to differentiate, what a width is and what a length is, or what an angle between directions is.

In truth, Einstein's four dimensional space-time is not completely isotropic. An example of anisotropy is indicated already by the formula:
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2 ; (2.1)

tiny-tim

Hi exponent137!
(So please would you correct a few sentences from my article, so that I can see where my typical errors are.)

Duff discussed (we usually use the present tense when referring to another text … "discusses", "obtains", …) the conversion factors c_x, c_y, and c_z between rectangular lengths in space (x, y, z) (Cartesian coordinates (x,y,z)). He obtained conversion factors, which are, of course, equal to one [1]. He compared c, ((as)) the conversion factor between time and distance, with these conversion factors. The conversion factors c_x, c_y, and c_z are really (mainly either they're unnecessary or they're not… make up your mind!) unnecessary, because space is isotropic. Bur furthermore, he tried to tell us (uhh? either he did tell us or he didn't! … do you mean "he argued"?) that (similarly) just as (the) height has the same unit as (the) width, the time unit (could) can be the same as the length unit. He thinks that c is only a conversion unit, which is not necessary in calculations and (its) whose value could be equal to 1.

But sometimes it is important to differentiate, between what a width is and what a length is, or what an angle between directions is.

In truth, Einstein's four dimensional space-time is not completely isotropic. An example of anisotropy is indicated already by the formula:
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2 ; (2.1)

™

Pinu7

Blast! englishforums.com, our biggest rival. LOL

exponent137

So, Tiny_Tim very thanks for this.
I read the next sentence:
"The P_i's satisfy local field equations."
But I prefer:
"The P_is satisfy local field equations."
because " ' " stands for posesive forms but above it is only a plural form.

tiny-tim

Hi exponent137!
hmm … you've started a very controversial topic.

Some people think that merely adding an s when forming the plural of an "unnatural" word sometimes looks ridiculous and misleading, and so they prefer to insert an apostrophe.

For example "Don't forget your F = mas", or "2πrs", seems to me difficult to understand, compared with "Don't forget your F = ma's", or "2πr's".

An inserted apostrophe is certainly correct in phrases such as "Mind your p's and q's!" … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grocer%...ertain_plurals

But it's usually wrong … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grocer%...27_apostrophes

In this case, I agree with you … so long as "s" is not a symbol already being used, "The P_is satisfy local field equations" is clear and unambiguous, and an apostrophe is unnecessary.

(but it's near the borderline, and so I would only call it unnecessary, rather than wrong! )

HallsofIvy

I personally prefer either 'P_i's or "P_i"s.

turin

I'm with HallsofIvy: just wrap the object in quotes first, then pluralize. However, another consideration is that, if you're LaTeXing the document, and the object is in math mode, then it will be in a different font, and then the "s" will appear distinct. So, I also suggest an alternative: put the object to be pluralized in a distinct font.

I wouldn't even bother to read an article that said, "Don't forget your F = mas," or, "Don't forget your F = ma's," either way. I guess what I'm saying is, if there is an alternative that doesn't even require pluralization, such as, "Don't forget Newton's Second Law," then you should use that.

exponent137

Please would you correct a few sentences from my article, so that I can see where my typical errors remain.


Introduction

Comprehension of the elementary physical theories and of their various aspects is important for students and for researchers of still undiscovered theories, for instance, of quantum gravity. Relativistic mass m_r is used here for a different interpretation of the theory of special relativity (SR). The shortest way to m_r is to say that

m_r = W/c² (1)

where W is the total energy and c is the speed of light.

The main argument against m_r is that it is without a sense (1,2,3,4), because it does not tell us anything more than W tells us. But:

• One sense is to show a relation between time dilatation and m_r.
• This relation can be further used to present connection between space-time and matter more clearly, and to show that space-time does not exist without matter. This means simpler presentation than it is shown with Einstein's general covariance (5,page 847).
• The next sense is to show, how phenomenon of enlargement of m_r with velocity can be used for gradual transition from Newtonian mechanics to SR.
• The modified postulates of SR additionally clarify SR and the derivation of Lorentz transformations.
• Such derivation gives a more realistic example for debate regarding Duff's claims (1,2) that physical units are physically nonexistent (PNE). Therefore, the debate about Duff's claims becomes clearer.
• Other senses can be found in (6,8) and in references therein.

One of Duff's provocative questions is also, why there are precisely three elementary units (kg, m and s), why not less or more. Some clarifications or contra-arguments will be given in this paper.

tiny-tim

hi exponent137!

("dilatation" is a primarily medical word; and you need more "a"s and "the"s )

Introduction

Comprehension An understanding of the elementary physical theories and of their various aspects is important both for students and for researchers of still undiscovered theories, for instance, of such as quantum gravity. Relativistic mass m_r is used here for a different interpretation of the theory of special relativity (SR). The shortest way to define m_r is: to say that

m_r = W/c² (1)

where W is the total energy and c is the speed of light.

The main argument against using m_r is that it is without a sense there is no reason to do so (1,2,3,4), because as it does not tell us anything more than W tells us. But:

• One sense reason is to show a relation between time dilatation dilation and m_r.
• This relation can be further used to present a connection between space-time and matter more clearly, and to show that space-time does not exist without matter. This means a simpler presentation than it is shown with Einstein's general covariance (5,page 847).
• The next sense reason is to show, how the phenomenon of enlargement increase of m_r with velocity speed can be used for gradual transition from Newtonian mechanics to SR.
• The modified postulates of SR additionally clarify SR and the derivation of the Lorentz transformations.
• Such derivation gives a more realistic example for debate regarding on Duff's claims (1,2) that physical units are physically nonexistent (PNE). Therefore, Thus the debate about Duff's claims becomes clearer.
• Other sense reasons can be found in (6,8) and in references therein.

One of Duff's provocative questions is also, why are there are precisely three elementary units (kg, m and s), why not less or more. Some clarifications or contra-arguments will be given in this paper.

exponent137

Thank you. I can return a favour with excel advice, for instance date-time manipulations, statistics, graphs, macros...

I heard that expressions with personal names do not have "the"? For instance "Lorentz transformations". Or, that it is difference of use of "the" in "Lorentz transformations" or in "Lorentz's transformations"??

I please still for the abstract and the conclusion grammar correction, because they are also the most grammar important.

abstract
The main argument against relativistic mass is that it does not tell us anything more than total energy tells us. But, one reason is to show a relation between time dilation and relativistic mass. This relation can be further used to present a connection between space-time and matter more clearly, and to show that space-time does not exist without matter. This means a simpler presentation than it is shown with Einstein's general covariance. Therefore, this opposes that special relativity (SR) is only a theory of space-time geometry. The next reason is to show, how phenomenon of enlargement of relativistic mass with speed can be used for a gradual transition from Newtonian mechanics to SR. The postulates, which are used for the definition of SR, are therefore still clearer and the total derivation of Lorentz transformation is clearer. Such derivation also gives a more realistic example and counter-arguments for the debate regarding Duff's claims that the dimensionful units and quantities are physically nonexistent (PNE).
Therefore, the debate about Duff's claims becomes clearer. Still other counter-arguments against PNE are added.

Conclusion
It is not easy to imagine SR with only c=constant. But the additional presentation with m_r helps us to imagine it better. The presentation with m_r together with more precise common interpretation of SR also opposes that SR is only the theory of space-time geometry. It is not enough only symmetry of four dimensional momentum to space-time. It should be shown why this symmetry. The connection of space-time and mass shows that kg, m and s form one triplet. This used to oppose Duff's claims that the physical units and the dimensionful conststants are PNE.

For a theory of everything we need to go to foundations. The postulates are also foundations of physics, not only formulae. A property of the equations in SR is that they are hyperbolic. But this is a consequence of the postulates, it is not a fundamental property. Some dimensionless constants are also foundations of physics. It is beneficial that they appear already in pre-theories of theory of everything, such as in SR.

Such many sided interpretations of formulae should also be written in other fundamental physical theories, for instance in quantum mechanics. One example, where this is done, is Zeilinger-Brukner interpretation of quantum mechanics [25].

The author is unsatisfied, because SR was not presented to him in school also in this way. This is one example of incompleteness of the common interpretation of SR. It is a trend in teaching of fundamental physics, that it should be as abstract as possible. For instance, they force us to imagine our universe without outer space. But, although outer space does not exist, it is easier to imagine it. Similarly, it is better to imagine m_r.

tiny-tim

your repeated use of "also", although not wrong, looks strange, and you should reconsider it each time

here's a few specific suggestions:

"than it is shown with Einstein's general covariance" delete "it"

"dimensionful" … no such word

"imagine" is ok, but you might want to consider using "visualise" instead

"together with more precise common interpretation" insert "a"

"It is not enough only symmetry of four dimensional momentum to space-time." i don't understand this

"It should be shown why this symmetry." needs another verb

finally, i don't understand what you mean by "outer space"
it's because there's only one set of Lorentz transformations …

there are many quadratic equations, so one says "the use of quadratic equations", but "the use of the Lorentz transformations" (in fact, now i come to think of it, common usage (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation) is to use the singular, since the four Lorentz equations make up only one Lorentz transformation)

exponent137

Word "dimensionful" was used in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pd.../0110060v3.pdf .
The reason is probably, because word "dimensional" has not so specific meaning as "dimensionful".

So "Einstein's general covariance" is without "the". I suppose that it si not so precisely determined as the "Lorentz Transformation"?

By outer space I meant that:
Our universe is closed according to general relativity. Outer space out of our universe does not exist.
But anyway, it is easier to imagine it, so that we easier visualize this closed universe.


"symmetry of four dimensional momentum to space-time."

I meant that:
Mathematically, the relation between space and time is similar as the relation between momentum and energy. But this is only a symmetry, this is not yet explanation of connection of energy, momentum to space-time.

p.s.
I have idea for search engine, where we wrote, for instance,
"Such ADJECTIVE ADJECTIVE NOUNs of NOUNs should also be VERBed in other ADJECTIVE ADJECTIVE NOUN."
So, we search similar sentence structures and correction of grammar would be a little better.
Maybe something such exists on some Corpuses of english language, or is it possible to programming this?
One possibility is to find native english speakers with knowledge of physics, and offer something for their time: money or some my knowledge or...
But, however, I think that internet gives enough possibilites for grammar corrections, but I do not know them. One good option was you, which gave me a higher grammar lever of this text.

tiny-tim

"frictionless", so "frictionful" ? i don't think so!
no, that's because of the 's … you can't say "the Lorentz's Transformation", but you do say "the Lorentz Transformation"
oooh! no, we mean something completely different by "outer space" … it always means space outside the Earth …

you need to say something like "a fourth dimension"
ah i understand now … it's your habit of leaving out a verb …

It is not enough only symmetry of four dimensional momentum to space-time. It should be shown why this symmetry.

… you mean something like "It is not enough to show the symmetry of four dimensional momentum to space-time, it should also be shown why this symmetry exists."

(btw, "four-momentum" is commonly used, and much shorter!)
never use both!

sfhdweb

visit english grammer websites

exponent137

Yes, this is a useful idea, but the problem is worse knowledge of physics on those forums.

Do you have any review of those forums?