# A new Hilbert-Polya (approximate) Operator?

1. Dec 18, 2006

A new Hilbert-Polya (approximate) Operator??..

IN the Arxiv. they have put a paper on Hlbert-Polya conjecture..so the operator:

$$H= -\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}+V(x)$$

Where the potential V is "constrained" to satisfy the (approximate ) INtegral equation:

$$AZ(u)u^{1/2}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dxCos(uV(x))$$

and the link is at: http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GM/0607095

2. Dec 18, 2006

### dextercioby

The fact that it hasn't been published in any peer-reviewed journal is an indication for its value and possibly for its validity.

Daniel.

3. Dec 19, 2006

- the question is.. there any "flaw" or error, in the argument??..

- Although you have mentioned the "peer-review" journal this does not proof its correctness,.. just remember the "hoaxes" by Peter Lynds (the boy who solved nothing and that is even supposed NOT to exist) or the "Bible Codes" (it seems strange, but some of its foundation appeared in a journal about probability and some NObel-prize winners and NASA scientist believed in them to be correct)... By the way thanks for your honest opinion "dextercioby"

4. Dec 19, 2006

### matt grime

Oh look, a paper by some one called Jose. I wonder if that is any relation to the Jose who used to post here as eljose until he was banned under that name. He came back as another poster, and I think he was banned again then. His posting style is very reminiscent of yours, by the way. The same over reliance on smilies, the same interests, the same habit of posting questions which haven't been thought through, and linking to papers a lot like those.

Stop it, please. You're fooling no one.

5. Dec 23, 2006

If the author had the article rejected without giving any "objective" reason, flaw in the argument, math error.. this is just censorship not peer- review just as if you reject or jail a man for being black is just racism not justice, in general they only prefer a good-looking paper that can sell lots and lots of journal so they earn  money with it rather than seek for te truth, it's just the same that happened to Galielo with "Spanish Inquisition"..."If i don't like your ideas they aren't worthy to be looked at" and by the Way "Berry conjecture" is worst than this paper..however it was published only 7 years ago what's going on ??

6. Dec 24, 2006

### matt grime

Do we have to explain this for you *again*? The peer review process of a publication occurs after it has been published. Publication is not a guarantee of correctness. Rejections are based upon many criteria, as are selections, obviously. One of them is quality of exposition - if the reviewer can't decipher the content of the article they're not going to give it a favourable review.

Journals do not make the reviewers any money. They all work for free. The only people who make money from journals are the publishers and they have no control over what goes into the journal. That is down to the editors, who are again academics working for the good of the subject, not money.

There are certainly flaws in the journal process, and some papers are overlooked, perhaps becuase they are just unfashionable. But your criticism is completely unwarranted. Your writings are indecipherable. They are just a bunch of 'what ifs' that most people have had, and that you need to expand on. The idea of applying some transform is one of your favourites, and it is not new (has been used for decades), nor do you demonstrate that your transforms actually allow one to do anything.

You get peer review all the time, Jose. It's just that you don't like what people say, and instead of trying to rework your ideas, you just start this victim of censorship rant. Anyone would think that you are the only person in the world not to get a paper published.

Last edited: Dec 24, 2006
7. Dec 29, 2006

### AlphaNumeric

^ Some journals do pay their reviewers, but it depends on how much time they put in, how much expertise they have, what exactly they are reviewing and what kind of journal is it (subscription, free etc). My father gets paid for doing reviewing for a journal.

I'm always suspicious of papers which are nothing mroe than Word documents converted into PDF. Particularly ''papers'' which have too many ''inverted commas'' around their ''specialist words''.

Anyone who has to explain a Wick rotation is a rotation by i is obviously not in touch with the physics very much.