Register to reply

Outside the Mainstream Forum

by Tom Mattson
Tags: None
Share this thread:
Nereid
#109
Jul21-05, 01:55 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
aren't diamonds transparent to UV? (no wait, that's quartz)
Chronos
#110
Jul21-05, 04:39 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,377
Not exactly what you asked for Zapper, but close:
http://saf.chem.ox.ac.uk/Instruments...TSoptprin.html
ZapperZ
#111
Jul21-05, 04:53 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 29,239
Quote Quote by Chronos
Not exactly what you asked for Zapper, but close:
http://saf.chem.ox.ac.uk/Instruments...TSoptprin.html
Thanks, Chronos. It's in the ball park, but unfortunately, I already have IR parameters. For some reason, the UV parameters are rather elusive. And since a number of people have kindly volunteered to look up stuff on this, I'll say exactly what I'm looking for. Anything "close" to these are acceptable:

material: UNCD (ultrananocrystalline diamond)
parameters: either penetration depth at 240 nm wavelength, or attenuation depth/skin depth at the same wavelength.

The best possible source would be an experimentally published result. And unfortunately, this has gone off-topic for this thread, so if you and anyone else have any more to ask or send to me, you are welcome to PM me with it.

Thanks!

Zz.
Zanket
#112
Jul23-05, 08:54 PM
P: 308
I think this new forum is a great idea, and the submission rules are good, with the following exceptions:

1) It seems from the rules that a link cannot be posted. If so, that's a problem for me, mainly due to the PF rule that “All content posted on this site is copyrighted to Physics Forums”. I think an abstract and a link should be acceptable.

2) I think the LaTeX requirement should be a suggestion rather than a requirement.

3) The 60 post limit sounds like censorship. Why potentially halt discussion before a submission is refuted? I see no good reason.

PF can have any rules it wants of course, but I’ve found plenty of smart people to bounce ideas off from on other forums that let me post a link and with no posting limit. The copyright issue and the 60 post limit would keep me from submitting to this new forum. That does not mean it’s not a great idea—it’s just not for me.
Tom Mattson
#113
Jul23-05, 09:46 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Tom Mattson's Avatar
P: 5,533
Quote Quote by Zanket
1) It seems from the rules that a link cannot be posted. If so, that's a problem for me, mainly due to the PF rule that “All content posted on this site is copyrighted to Physics Forums”. I think an abstract and a link should be acceptable.
I would not consider a link acceptable because it would effectively negate the 60 post limit. The discussion should be self-contained in the thread.

2) I think the LaTeX requirement should be a suggestion rather than a requirement.
That requirement is in place because mathematical expressions can be downright illegible when typed out. Of course, I wouldn't reject a submission if it contained something like:

E=mc2,

which is perfectly legible in HTML code. But something like this?

(hbar^2/2m)del^2(Psi)=i*hbar(d Psi/dt)

No way, Jose. It's up to to submitter to make his thoughts clear, not up to the reviewers to clear things up on his behalf.

Besides, LaTeX is not hard to learn.

3) The 60 post limit sounds like censorship.
Eh? It's the screening process that is censorship, not the 60 post limit. Once the submission makes it past the screening forum, its contents won't be removed from PF or edited in any way.

Why potentially halt discussion before a submission is refuted? I see no good reason.
The 60 post limit is there for a few very good reasons.

First, it is a way to regulate the posting of people who come to PF just to push an agenda. We've had many such types in the past who aren't so much interested in talking about physics as they are in talking about their own ideas about physics. The 60 post limit is our way of saying, "You can have your say, but after 3 pages enough is enough. Find something else to talk about." We don't want personal agendas becoming a focal point of this site, and so we won't allow threads on homegrown, unverified theories to hang around open forever.

Second, it is a way to keep the thread quality high. Science Forums Network and Philosophy Forums both have "Debate Forums". There are two debaters, each makes exactly 10 posts, then it's over. As one might expect, those 20 post threads are among the most worthwhile reading on the site. Besides, a lesson that we learned well from the old Theory Development forum is that threads that are allowed to go on for pages upon pages tend to turn ugly.

Third, the new forum is for work that has not yet been peer reviewed. If someone can't make his point in 3 pages of posting and responding to others' posts, then we see no reason to host a 4th page of it. And if the content from a closed thread from the new forum ever does eventually make it past peer review, I'll personally graduate the thread to the main section of PF and unlock it.

Fourth, speaking directly to your comment, if the people here can't refute the theory in the thread inside of 60 posts, then I cannot see how allowing a 4th page would change things. If our formidable army of scientists and mathematicians cannot find a chink in the armor, then that might just be an indicator that the thread is ready to move up to the next level.

As the moderator of the new forum, I am going to insist on highly substantive posts from both the "pro" and "con" camps. I'm not going to allow any cheap posts that do nothing but nitpick to eat up the thread. We will get more mileage out of 60 posts in the new forum than in any other part of the site.
Zanket
#114
Jul23-05, 10:25 PM
P: 308
Thanks for the response.

I don’t see how a link effectively negates the 60 post limit, since everything in the link could otherwise be put into the original submission—the first post. The copyright issue is a big one, don't you think? There is virtually no possibility that a submission to this new forum could be peer-reviewed if the holder of the copyright is in doubt.

Your last sentence especially is reassuring on the 60 post limit. I was thinking that, in other forums, it can often take 10 posts to clear up a minor misunderstanding.
Tom Mattson
#115
Jul24-05, 03:06 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Tom Mattson's Avatar
P: 5,533
Quote Quote by Zanket
I don’t see how a link effectively negates the 60 post limit, since everything in the link could otherwise be put into the original submission—the first post.
It should be obvious. A person could put 600 posts worth of material on his website and link it to the opening post. Hence, the 60 post limit could be easily short circuited.

The copyright issue is a big one, don't you think? There is virtually no possibility that a submission to this new forum could be peer-reviewed if the holder of the copyright is in doubt.
Call me dense, but I don't get it. We have a member (Garth) who has some published stuff, and some unpublished stuff. He is sending his unpublished stuff to the new forum, and as far as I know he has no worries about publishing that stuff later, despite the fact that it is being published in the new forum.

What do you know that we don't?
Zanket
#116
Jul24-05, 11:56 AM
P: 308
Quote Quote by Tom Mattson
It should be obvious. A person could put 600 posts worth of material on his website and link it to the opening post. Hence, the 60 post limit could be easily short circuited.
Call me dense, but I don't get it. If all “600 posts worth of material” on the website could be put into the opening post (assuming that’s what it took to state the case—and of course it’s likely to be way less than that), then how does the website have more than one post’s worth of material? How much material on a website is one post worth of material?

Call me dense, but I don't get it. We have a member (Garth) who has some published stuff, and some unpublished stuff. He is sending his unpublished stuff to the new forum, and as far as I know he has no worries about publishing that stuff later, despite the fact that it is being published in the new forum.

What do you know that we don't?
Journals require that all submissions be from the copyright holder, or an authorized agent. The act of posting on PF is an act of transferring to PF the copyright of the material posted, according to the PF user agreement. Then nothing posted on PF can be submitted to a journal unless PF authorizes that. Suppose something Garth posts in the new forum makes it into a journal sans PF's authorization. Then PF can legally demand damage (money) from both the journal and Garth for copyright infringement.
Garth
#117
Jul24-05, 01:09 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Garth's Avatar
P: 3,273
I wouldn't submit exactly the same article to a journal that I had posted on PF!

Garth
Tom Mattson
#118
Jul24-05, 01:28 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Tom Mattson's Avatar
P: 5,533
Quote Quote by Zanket
Call me dense, but I don't get it. If all “600 posts worth of material” on the website could be put into the opening post (assuming that’s what it took to state the case—and of course it’s likely to be way less than that), then how does the website have more than one post’s worth of material? How much material on a website is one post worth of material?
I don't know the exact limit, but there is a finite number of characters allowed in a single post. And when LaTeX is involved, the limit is imposed by the server itself, in that it can only process so much material in a post. I ran up against that in my differential forms thread.

Also if links to one's own website are allowed then it would be contrary to the screening process as well. Say a submission with a link to one's own site is approved. The owner of the site could then edit it after the fact in such a way that it would not have been accepted. At PF there is a 24 hour time limit on editing. By the time any submission is finished in the screening forum, that time limit will have expired, and the submission will appear "as is" if approved.

I think it's safe to say that none of the staff would be willing to undertake this venture if we could not regulate what appears in the forum.

Journals require that all submissions be from the copyright holder, or an authorized agent. The act of posting on PF is an act of transferring to PF the copyright of the material posted, according to the PF user agreement. Then nothing posted on PF can be submitted to a journal unless PF authorizes that. Suppose something Garth posts in the new forum makes it into a journal sans PF's authorization. Then PF can legally demand damage (money) from both the journal and Garth for copyright infringement.
See Garth's post above mine. Surely it would not be difficult to write a different article based on the same science to submit to a journal.
Zanket
#119
Jul24-05, 01:57 PM
P: 308
Quote Quote by Tom Mattson
I don't know the exact limit, but there is a finite number of characters allowed in a single post. ... I ran up against that in my differential forms thread.
Then using a link would benefit, because it would not limit the size of the case being made. If a typical scientific paper does not fit into a single post, then the forum is significantly limited in usefulness.

I think it's safe to say that none of the staff would be willing to undertake this venture if we could not regulate what appears in the forum.
Those are good reasons.

See Garth's post above mine. Surely it would not be difficult to write a different article based on the same science to submit to a journal.
The articles need only make substantially the same points.
Aer
#120
Jul24-05, 08:25 PM
P: 214
How were the following guidelines quoted below agreed upon? Since these theories are being discussed in a forum setting, I would suggest the following section format to be required:
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Derivations
4. Results
5. Conclusions

The reason I propose this is because most people who are going to submit such papers here are doing so because they cannot get it reviewed anywhere else as they most likely do not have appropriate credentials and the formatting they would choose to write their paper has much to be desired. Any other sections than those listed above shouldn't be neccessary, including appendices. A reference to a paper available online should be sufficient. If it's not available online and important to the discussion, the author can choose to include it in the derivations section with appropriate references.


1. The opening post must contain an abstract stating the results obtained and how the new theory is at variance with currently accepted theories.

2. If an independently researched theory makes claims different from those made by currently accepted theories then the opening post must contain a section that either cites experiments that have been done that decide between the new and old theories, or it must propose experiments that could be done to decide between the two.

3. If an independently researched theory is experimentally indistinguishable from a currently accepted theory then the opening post must contain a section that clearly explains the conceptual differences between the two, and what if anything is to be gained from the new perspective.

4. All references to relevant prior work must be documented in the opening post.

5. Quantitative predictions must be derived, wherever appropriate.

6. New theories must not be already strongly inconsistent with the results of prior experiments.

7. If a new theory is strongly inconsistent with prior experiments, but the theorist is insisting that the experiments were either misconducted or misinterpreted by the scientific community, then the thread will be rejected. Instead the theorist should rebut the contradicting scientists in an appropriate journal.

8. Theories containing obvious mathematical or logical errors will not be accepted.


The decision to accept or reject a thread for this Subforum rests with the Staff and Science Advisors of Physics Forums. Decisions will be reached by consensus, and will be based entirely on the guidelines listed above. No Staff Member or Science Advisor will participate in the discussion of his or her own thread.

Action will be taken on all threads within 7 days of submission. If a thread is accepted then it will appear in this Subforum. If a thread is rejected the theorist will receive a PM from me that states the reason(s) for rejecting it.

Threads in this Subforum will not exceed 60 posts. I will take care to delete responses which are not relevant to the topic.

If rejected, theorists will be granted one opportunity to address the stated reasons for rejection, and to resubmit. Threads submitted to this Subforum that are not substantially different from previously terminated threads (after the 3 page limit) or threads that have been rejected twice will not be considered.
Tom Mattson
#121
Jul24-05, 09:35 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Tom Mattson's Avatar
P: 5,533
Quote Quote by Zanket
Then using a link would benefit, because it would not limit the size of the case being made. If a typical scientific paper does not fit into a single post, then the forum is significantly limited in usefulness.
Well, the guidelines aren't set in stone. We don't really know how to do this, because we've never done it before! We realize that some bridges won't be crossed until we get to them, and this just might be one of those bridges. I can think of a possible remedy though: If this does become an issue, then perhaps we can make it so the opening post doesn't count towards the 60 posts, and impose a seperate limit on the number of posts that are used to start the thread.

I'd rather play around with those parameters than allow linked (and therefore unregulatable) material to qualify.

The articles need only make substantially the same points.
I'll look into this some more. We certainly don't want to confiscate other peoples' work.
Tom Mattson
#122
Jul24-05, 09:37 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Tom Mattson's Avatar
P: 5,533
Quote Quote by Aer
How were the following guidelines quoted below agreed upon?
They were agreed upon in the Mentor's Private Forum, by the Staff.

Since these theories are being discussed in a forum setting, I would suggest the following section format to be required:
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Derivations
4. Results
5. Conclusions
That's not a bad idea, and who knows? We may end up using something like it. But I didn't want to put too many rules into the guidelines, so I put in only those that I felt we couldn't live without.
Zanket
#123
Jul25-05, 12:04 AM
P: 308
Quote Quote by Tom Mattson
I'd rather play around with those parameters than allow linked (and therefore unregulatable) material to qualify.
OK, I think you have good reasons for disallowing a link, but if the rule changes, one thing that can mitigate the editable issue: as the mod, you could copy the site to your hard drive before allowing the original post, and then if editing was subsequently claimed, you could verify that by comparing to your copy.
CarlB
#124
Jul25-05, 03:58 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
CarlB's Avatar
P: 1,204
I think it's a good idea to get the non mainstream stuff out of the places where the general public might fail to recognize it as such. Eventually I may submit a series of topics to the new forum, but right now I'm too busy. But I thought I should coment on the idea.

Quote Quote by Aer
The reason I propose this is because most people who are going to submit such papers here are doing so because they cannot get it reviewed anywhere else as they most likely do not have appropriate credentials and the formatting they would choose to write their paper has much to be desired.
I think that if this were all that the new TD forum would provide it would be a useless service. The fact is that it is possible to get a forum for any sort of physics by simply joining the APS and giving parallel talks at the APS meetings. It's a blast and I would suggest it for others so interested.

But what I really disagree with here is the assumption that only refereed journals can contain truth. For example, look at the articles published alongside de Broglie's announcement of matter waves. [L. de Broglie, Ondes et quanta, Comptes Rendus 177, 507 (1923)]

No, the reason for having non peer reviewed publishing forums like this is two-fold. First, they are an opportunity to discuss with like-minded professionals new ideas, but with the added feature of creating a permanent record of who wrote what.

I've got my own interests (Clifford algebra and Euclidean relativity) and consequently I am a member of several Yahoo discussion groups on them. Yahoo allows threads that are not only moderated, but where you must be invited to post. These threads are completely free from clutter, but I prefer PF because on PF I can use LaTex. Consequently, I'd like to switch those discussion over to PF, but there is a bit of a threat of deletion hanging over PF.

Nowadays, even Arxiv.org is peer reviewed. And it is very difficult to get stuff eprinted there that is outside the mainstream. But that is not the point here. The point is that submitting a paper to Arxiv is a lot of work. One must make the paper meet specific standards. Even the effort required to upload the paper to Arxiv is a lot of effort. It is not the case that PF is providing an alternative to PRL or even Arxiv. What PF provides is a convenient place to have public discussion of interesting ideas with the ability to use LaTex.

There are ideas that are worth sharing but are too small for even an Arxiv article. PF is already mentioned at least once in the "Physics literature", if by that we mean the stuff that has passed muster at Arxiv. Look at reference #21 in this article:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0505/0505220.pdf

What I think PF should provide is a mechanism where several interested people can share non mainstream ideas without having to wade through crapola deposited into the thread. The best way of doing this is to mimic Yahoo and allow members to begin threads where posting is limited to invited members. And it should be clearly delineated as not mainstream thought.

Carl
ZapperZ
#125
Jul25-05, 05:05 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 29,239
Quote Quote by CarlB
No, the reason for having non peer reviewed publishing forums like this is two-fold. First, they are an opportunity to discuss with like-minded professionals new ideas, but with the added feature of creating a permanent record of who wrote what.
How about discussing with like-minded professional directly? Given the choice of chatting with a "like-minded professional" on here or a coffee break in between conference session, I take the latter any day. And what is the guarantee you have that who wrote what remains permanently recorded? Yahoo could, on any given day, decide to remove the group you participate in without any advance warning (you did read the "fine print", didn't you?). So you will understand that the two reasons you gave are rather flimsy.

Nowadays, even Arxiv.org is peer reviewed. And it is very difficult to get stuff eprinted there that is outside the mainstream. But that is not the point here. The point is that submitting a paper to Arxiv is a lot of work. One must make the paper meet specific standards. Even the effort required to upload the paper to Arxiv is a lot of effort. It is not the case that PF is providing an alternative to PRL or even Arxiv. What PF provides is a convenient place to have public discussion of interesting ideas with the ability to use LaTex.
No, it isn't reviewed, not by a longshot. But after it was innundated by all kinds of cranky papers, new authors with no established affiliation are required to be endorsed by authors who are already registered. This is not "peer-reviewed" per journal standards. There are still jaw-dropping papers that sometime got through.

Zz.
CarlB
#126
Jul25-05, 06:23 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
CarlB's Avatar
P: 1,204
Quote Quote by ZapperZ
How about discussing with like-minded professional directly? Given the choice of chatting with a "like-minded professional" on here or a coffee break in between conference session, I take the latter any day.
It's a specialization issue.

First, one can't live in conference sessions all the time. Second, physics has become amazingly specialized and the other people in one's department may not have any great interest in (or even the mathematical specialization to understand) what you're doing. For example, the University of Washington is my nearest large university, but there is not a single physicist there who has ever written a paper in Clifford algebra.

One of my interests is in Schwinger's measurement algebra. There is a total of one paper on the subject in Arxiv.Org, by a physicist who lives in Albuquerque. If there is to be a community of people interested in the subject, it must form on the internet. We are too small and scattered.

I work in a specialty of Clifford algebra called "geometric algebra". It's fairly rare as a subset of Clifford algebra, but my work, in addition, is in "complexified" geometric algebra with applications to elementary particles and fields. There is only one other person in the world in that subfield and he lives many thousands of miles away. My guess is that a lot of other physicists are in the same boat.

Quote Quote by ZapperZ
And what is the guarantee you have that who wrote what remains permanently recorded? Yahoo could, on any given day, decide to remove the group you participate in without any advance warning (you did read the "fine print", didn't you?). So you will understand that the two reasons you gave are rather flimsy.
I really don't see your point here.

For years physicists have worked on physics in conversations over coffee and the result has been the discovery that the internet, deficient though it may be, is quite superior to human memory as far as making permanent records. The conferences you mention are far less reliable than Yahoo.

It's very difficult for me to imagine a mode of quick communication that is superior, in terms of storage of information, to forums on the internet. Maybe there are some physicists out there who wander through conferences with a tape recorder in one hand but I've never seen one. And digging through all that tape would have to be a tough duty.

If saving a copy is important to you, then you can simply copy the website down from Yahoo to your own hard disk. You can print it out. Compare this to conversations with other physicists, which in many states you would have legal difficulty in recording without the prior permission of those involved. No, the examples you give are far inferior to the internet.


The subject of Arxiv's tendency to avoid papers by certain authors and subjects is infamous in the physics community with long arguments and even lawsuits. Even a Nobel prize winner, Josephson, got in trouble with them. But Arxiv is rather off topic here. Arxiv is a preprint server. PF is a place where people post a few paragraphs about physics or math. They really are not at all comparable.

There are subjects in physics that so very few people are interested in that the only way that they can realistically get together is with the internet. PF is a very convenient way of doing this because it provides LaTex. Sure, it would be nice if I could move to Portugal, at least until my interests converged with someone who lived somewhere else. Sure it would be nice if I could go to conferences 52 weeks out of the year. But it is precisely the internet that has eliminated the necessity of doing either of those sorts of thing.

Carl


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Looking for a mainstream explanation for gamma gays and nuetron capture signatures. Astronomy & Astrophysics 6
Where are the Outside Mainstream and Independent Research forums? Forum Feedback & Announcements 13
LQG in the mainstream press Glimpse of Time Before Big Bang Possible Beyond the Standard Model 1
Mind & Brain Scienes forum open; Logic forum merger Forum Feedback & Announcements 11
Strings, branes, & LQG forum should be Quantum gravity and theories of everyth Forum Feedback & Announcements 0