A new Hilbert-Polya (approximate) Operator?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Karlisbad
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Approximate Operator
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a paper related to the Hilbert-Polya conjecture and a proposed operator involving a specific potential. Participants explore the validity of the paper, the peer review process, and the implications of publication status on the acceptance of scientific ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the validity of the proposed operator and the integral equation associated with it, suggesting there may be flaws or errors in the argument.
  • Others argue that the lack of peer review does not inherently indicate a lack of value or correctness, citing historical examples of rejected ideas that later gained acceptance.
  • Concerns are raised about the peer review process, with some suggesting it can be arbitrary and influenced by factors unrelated to the quality of the work.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the author's previous posting behavior and the quality of their contributions, suggesting a pattern of indecipherable arguments.
  • Another participant defends the peer review process, stating that rejections can occur for various reasons, including clarity and quality of exposition.
  • There is a mention of the potential for bias in the publication process, with references to historical injustices in scientific acceptance.
  • Some participants express suspicion towards papers that appear poorly formatted or lack depth in their arguments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the validity of the paper, the peer review process, and the implications of publication status on scientific discourse.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include assumptions about the peer review process, the subjective nature of evaluating the quality of scientific arguments, and the varying definitions of what constitutes a valid scientific contribution.

Karlisbad
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
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) :confused:

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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
- 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" :redface:
 
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.
 
If the author had the article rejected without giving any "objective" reason, flaw in the argument, math error.. this is just censorship :frown: 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 ??
 
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 because 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:
^ 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.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Raising and lowering operators
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate What happens when an operator maps a vector out of the Hilbert space?
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
6K
Graduate An ab initio Hilbert space formulation of Lagrangian mechanics
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Show that the Hamiltonian operator is Hermitian
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Undergrad Question regarding a Free particle and Hilbert space (QM)
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
MHB Differential Approximation Task II
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate Dirac-Delta from Normalization of Continuous Eigenfunctions
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad Using the Schrodinger eqn in finding the momentum operator
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate DMD is better without Ergodic Theory and Koopman Operators
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate Is the Inverse Momentum Operator an Essential Tool in Quantum Mechanics?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K