Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Accepted physics paper. Woo hoo.

  1. Mar 12, 2010 #1

    sylas

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, word has just come through so I'm going to announce it here. I'm now officially a published physicist! If you really go into the details it isn't quite as impressive as might appear at first glance, but hey. I'll accept congratulations in any case! :approve:

    I'm very pleased, but to keep this in perspective, it is in a comparatively minor journal, and the accepted paper is a "comment" on a preceding paper, and the paper we comment on is an oddity which has no real scientific influence, and the content of our paper is easily within what is accessible to an undergraduate studying the relevant aspects of thermodynamics. Originally I had felt it wasn't even worth writing a paper on it, but I was persuaded to join in the project. None of my co-authors are prominent as physicists.

    The reference is:
    • Joshua Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann (2010) Comment On "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics", (to appear in) http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/ijmpb.shtml [Broken], Vol 24, Iss 10, March 30 2010.
    I'm Chris Ho-Stuart. I've already given my own name here at PF in my blog article https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=1316" [Broken], but I like to keep my life online distinct from my life offline, so I use a pen-name online. I don't mind my name being known; it isn’t a secret. But I prefer to be known here as "sylas", and the name now feels very natural to me, and I don't like having my own name in routine use online. I've even used my pseudonym on occasion in real life when booking a restaurant or something, as "Chris" is just a bit, well, common. (No offense, all my many fellow Chrises out there. :cool:)

    Chris Colose is also a member here, but currently inactive, I think.

    The subject matter of our paper is climate, but only at a very elementary level. In particular, it isn't about "climate change", and neither is the paper we respond to, although it tends to present itself in that light. The point at issue is much simpler; it is whether or not the "greenhouse effect" as described in conventional atmospheric thermodynamics is a violation of the second law. Hence it is probably technically within the current guidelines for discussion, but in practice it rarely stays that way. I won't be opening any new threads on the content in any case; and I'll support without qualification or qualm the mentors in applying the guidelines to any discussion anyone else might bring up. Personally, I now devote pretty much all my PF content discussions to cosmology matters, which is a long standing interest of mine.

    Relevant links:
    • The http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/ijmpb.shtml [Broken].
    • The paper we comment upon (GT09).
    • My PF blog article, https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=1493 [Broken]. This is actually a more general piece, as part of a series of 4 posts I used to kick off my PF blog "What is mainstream science", "Journals to avoid", "When peer review fails", and "How to debate online". The paper GT09 was one of four examples I used where peer review slipped up, and one member here queried that, so we talked a bit about that in the comments. That blog also has some links to threads in the main forum, which should not be reopened for discussion.

    I'm not wanting to open this thread to detailed discussion of the content here -- just let friends and colleagues here know of a forthcoming physics publication for which I am a co-author. I'm sure even people who disagree with me on the now completed climate discussions will still be happy for me and my co-authors simply at a personal/professional level! Some of the content of the paper actually appeared originally in my posts on climate at physicsforums.

    Cheers -- sylas
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 12, 2010 #2
    Well done! Nice to see you've carried on discussing climate
     
  4. Mar 12, 2010 #3

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Congrats! Even if such things are minor in some scales, they can make someones day, week, or even month :smile:
     
  5. Mar 12, 2010 #4
    congratulations sylas. :smile:
     
  6. Mar 12, 2010 #5
    Congratulations Sylas. It doesn't matter how small a publication it is, there are many, many people who would love to be in your situation right now. Me included:blushing:
     
  7. Mar 12, 2010 #6

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Congrats! I know how you feel, Sylas. It's a kick!
     
  8. Mar 12, 2010 #7
    Congrats sylas!
     
  9. Mar 12, 2010 #8

    Dembadon

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Congratulations, sylas!
     
  10. Mar 12, 2010 #9
    Congrats, One paper complete, a hundred more to go. :approve:
     
  11. Mar 12, 2010 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Congrats Sylas! Not bad for a computer science geek! :biggrin:
     
  12. Mar 12, 2010 #11
    What a coincidence, I just got my first publication too:
    • Zhou Li, D. Baillie, C. Blois, and F. Marsiglio, Ground-state properties of the Holstein model near the adiabatic limit, Physical Review B (Vol.81, No.11)
    http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v81/i11/e115114" [Broken]
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.1952" [Broken]

    Congratulations sylas!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  13. Mar 12, 2010 #12

    rhody

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Sylas,

    Way to go....

    From my brief time here at PF, I can honestly say you could not be in better company.

    Thanks for your suggestion the other day too, BTW.

    Rhody...:biggrin:
     
  14. Mar 12, 2010 #13
    I think that publishing is what defines a scientist. This is a wonderful landmark in your career, despite how "unimportant" your paper is, you have made a contribution to science and humanity as a whole. You should be proud of yourself, so go grab that Heineken beer and celebrate!

    If you are persistent, it is only a matter of time before major journals would be ferociously competing for your papers and you give talks and keynote speeches at prestigious conferences.


    Edit: Congrats to NeoDevin too!
     
  15. Mar 12, 2010 #14
    That is really very impressive. We are really proud of you. WTG !
     
  16. Mar 12, 2010 #15
    Newton, Maxwell, Dirac, Einstein, sylas. All had first publications.
     
  17. Mar 12, 2010 #16

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Lest we forget, so did Hitler and Kaczynski. It's up to the scientific community to figure out what we value, and what to respect. There's a lot of weird stuff out there, and it seems to be proliferating. I'll admit that my examples were sociological/political (considered sciences these days) but there are fringe publications in "hard" sciences. Multiverses, multiple undetectable dimensions, universal creation "bounces"... There is a lot of weirdness out there, though much of it seems to be tolerated if the authors have affiliations with prestigious institutions and have nominal support of others with good connections.
     
  18. Mar 13, 2010 #17
    Way to go, sylas! Getting published is huge recognition. Very cool.
     
  19. Mar 13, 2010 #18
    Big deal sylas. I am soooo unimpressed. In fact, I am shocked at you.
     
  20. Mar 13, 2010 #19

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Finally got some free time to follow your links, read your blog, etc. Please post a link to your paper when it is published, or if you post it to ArXiv

    You are quite right about the occasional failure of peer-review. I have been meaning to write a detailed refutation of a very sloppy and inaccurate paper on gravitational interaction in galaxy groups. The paper was written as an attack on a very prominent observational astronomer who made some inconvenient observations, and the authors used some "statistical" techniques that weren't even wrong. The paper should never have gotten past a middle-school student, much less a referee for an astronomy journal.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  21. Mar 13, 2010 #20

    sylas

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Thanks very much everyone. It's likely to make a bit of a splash across some of the blogs when it comes out at the end of the month; particularly blogs which had highlighted the paper we are commenting on. We'll see.

    And congratulations NeoDevin! I had a look at your paper. I need to learn more about optical phonons and polarons before I could begin to follow it; but it looks very impressive!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Accepted physics paper. Woo hoo.
  1. WOO-HOO! Spring Break (Replies: 14)

  2. Woo! Free money (Replies: 11)

  3. Woo hoo (Replies: 3)

Loading...