Recent content by Xela

Because, a number of authors I talked to have the same feeling. I was hoping to get a bigger statistical sample here.

P.S.: Again, I want to emphasize that I mean ONE specific editor that seems unfair for political reasons. The rest seem reasonably fair to me.

Well, I could just email them if that was the issue. My point is that there is no external checking mechanism. Just like you wouldn't expect a police department to be objective to itself. I'd want an external body for that. I never implied they were. The smartest people make mistakes, they...

And presidents of reputed countries know their jobs, so they should be trusted and keep ruling forever?

Ideally that would be the case, but the editors like all of us are human. Humans make mistakes, sometimes have conflict of interest etc. Other players in the game have a checking mechanism - editors don't. This is all I'm saying. How is this a witchhunt? An editor is a job done by humans...

Consistently being unfair to authors for political reasons Of course, many rejections are unpleasant, but reasonable.

I guess like many others here, I have several papers rejected from various journals, and especially from PRL. Rejections are always unpleasant, and you get used to them. But sometimes it seems especially unfair and the editor seems completely incompetent and unprofessional. Unlike with...

Actually, I don't. The classical calculation is done simply by calculating the trajectory of a point charge in a Coulomb potential - e.g. Rutherford scattering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_scattering or in more detail here...

Do you mean that this can be probably fixed by higher-order IR divergent terms? Similar to the solution of Bremsstrahlung IR divergence? I couldn't find anything like that in the literature

I appreciate your efforts to help very much, and it is not a matter of me "bothering writing down the formula". I'm just new here, and I have no idea how to display equations in posts. Here's a page in Mandl nad Shaw where the matrix element (Eq. 8.48a) diverges for p1=p1'...

Then why do QFT people worry so much about eliminating infrared and ultra-violate divergences in the theory? As much as going to string theory. If the theory has to be consistent only as far as experiment is concerned, and if no one can measure infinitesimal and/or infinite momenta - why bother?

I guess I'm not sure about one thing: Doesn't a theory have to be free of divergences regardless of the experiment. Is it a valid theoretical argument to say something like "this will take for ever to record" or "this requires infinite precision of equipment" so we don't have to worry about the...

Hi, As I see it - uncertainty is a fundamental concept, simply caused by the fact that in QM we're dealing with waves with all their inherent properties including diffraction. And with waves you can go only as small as their wavelength. So for your specific example, sending a low energy...

Thanks for the response. I also assumed that the divergence is false, but I want to understand why it is false. To be more specific: In QED, electron-electron scattering matrix there is a photon propagator with 1/(k1-k2), where k1 is the initial electron momentum and k2 is the final electron...

If I'm not wrong being a fermion/boson is irrelevant to having an antiparticle. What I remember is that the field has to be a complex one to have charge and antiparticles. Photon field is a real one. Charge conservation for for complex fields comes out of the invariance of the complex field...