How to correct english in physical article

[exponent137]

Can you give me links on forums, where I can correct grammar of the article by one to one sentence (i am not native speaker)? Maybe it is not necessary to find peoples with physical knowledge.

Any other suggestions?

 

[tiny-tim]

Can you give me links on forums, where I can correct grammar of the article by one to one sentence (i am not native speaker)? Maybe it is not necessary to find peoples with physical knowledge.

Any other suggestions?

Hi ¹³⁷!

Try http://www.englishforums.com/search/physics.htm or http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&webtag=ab-grammar or anything else you find by googling "physics grammar"

or look at J. Eastwood's English Grammar Exercises published by the Oxford University Press and available free http://www.scribd.com/doc/9673768/English-Grammar-Exercises"

or just paste some of your work on this forum, and ask for corrections.

™

 

[exponent137]

Hi Tiny-Tim, thanks for answer.
So I please for correction of a few sentences from my article, that I will see where a typical errors are.

Duff discussed the conversion factors c_x, c_y, and c_z between rectangular lengths in space (x, y, z). He obtained conversion factors, which are, of course, equal to one [1]. He compared c, as the conversion factor between time and distance, with these conversion factors. The conversion factors cx, cy, and cz are really mainly unnecessary, because space is isotropic. Bur furthermore, he tried to tell us that similarly as the height has the same unit as the width, the time unit could be the same as the length unit. He thinks that c is only a conversion unit, which is not necessary in calculations and its value could be equal to 1.

But sometimes it is important to differentiate, what a width is and what a length is, or what an angle between directions is.

In truth, Einstein's four dimensional space-time is not completely isotropic. An example of anisotropy is indicated already by the formula:
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2 ; (2.1)

 

[tiny-tim]

Hi exponent137!

Hi Tiny-Tim, thanks for answer.
So I please for correction of a few sentences from my article, that I will see where a typical errors are.

(So please would you correct a few sentences from my article, so that I can see where my typical errors are.)

Duff discussed (we usually use the present tense when referring to another text … "discusses", "obtains", …) the conversion factors c_x, c_y, and c_z between rectangular lengths in space (x, y, z) (Cartesian coordinates (x,y,z)). He obtained conversion factors, which are, of course, equal to one [1]. He compared c, ((as)) the conversion factor between time and distance, with these conversion factors. The conversion factors c_x, c_y, and c_z are really (mainly either they're unnecessary or they're not… make up your mind!) unnecessary, because space is isotropic. Bur furthermore, he tried to tell us (uhh? either he did tell us or he didn't! … do you mean "he argued"?) that (similarly) just as (the) height has the same unit as (the) width, the time unit (could) can be the same as the length unit. He thinks that c is only a conversion unit, which is not necessary in calculations and (its) whose value could be equal to 1.

But sometimes it is important to differentiate, between what a width is and what a length is, or what an angle between directions is.

In truth, Einstein's four dimensional space-time is not completely isotropic. An example of anisotropy is indicated already by the formula:
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2 ; (2.1)

™

 

[Pinu7]

Blast! englishforums.com, our biggest rival. LOL

 

[exponent137]

So, Tiny_Tim very thanks for this.
I read the next sentence:
"The P_i's satisfy local field equations."
But I prefer:
"The P_is satisfy local field equations."
because " ' " stands for posesive forms but above it is only a plural form.

 

[tiny-tim]

Hi exponent137!

"The P_i's satisfy local field equations." …

hmm … you've started a very controversial topic.

Some people think that merely adding an s when forming the plural of an "unnatural" word sometimes looks ridiculous and misleading, and so they prefer to insert an apostrophe.

For example "Don't forget your F = mas", or "2πrs", seems to me difficult to understand, compared with "Don't forget your F = ma's", or "2πr's".

An inserted apostrophe is certainly correct in phrases such as "Mind your p's and q's!" … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grocer's_apostrophe#Use_in_forming_certain_plurals"

But it's usually wrong … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grocer's_apostrophe#Greengrocers.27_apostrophes"

In this case, I agree with you … so long as "s" is not a symbol already being used, "The P_is satisfy local field equations" is clear and unambiguous, and an apostrophe is unnecessary.

(but it's near the borderline, and so I would only call it unnecessary, rather than wrong! )

 

[HallsofIvy]

So, Tiny_Tim very thanks for this.
I read the next sentence:
"The P_i's satisfy local field equations."
But I prefer:
"The P_is satisfy local field equations."
because " ' " stands for posesive forms but above it is only a plural form.

I personally prefer either 'P_i's or "P_i"s.

 

[turin]

I'm with HallsofIvy: just wrap the object in quotes first, then pluralize. However, another consideration is that, if you're LaTeXing the document, and the object is in math mode, then it will be in a different font, and then the "s" will appear distinct. So, I also suggest an alternative: put the object to be pluralized in a distinct font.

I wouldn't even bother to read an article that said, "Don't forget your F = mas," or, "Don't forget your F = ma's," either way. I guess what I'm saying is, if there is an alternative that doesn't even require pluralization, such as, "Don't forget Newton's Second Law," then you should use that.

 

[exponent137]

Please would you correct a few sentences from my article, so that I can see where my typical errors remain.


Introduction

Comprehension of the elementary physical theories and of their various aspects is important for students and for researchers of still undiscovered theories, for instance, of quantum gravity. Relativistic mass m_r is used here for a different interpretation of the theory of special relativity (SR). The shortest way to m_r is to say that

m_r = W/c² (1)

where W is the total energy and c is the speed of light.

The main argument against m_r is that it is without a sense (1,2,3,4), because it does not tell us anything more than W tells us. But:

• One sense is to show a relation between time dilatation and m_r.
• This relation can be further used to present connection between space-time and matter more clearly, and to show that space-time does not exist without matter. This means simpler presentation than it is shown with Einstein's general covariance (5,page 847).
• The next sense is to show, how phenomenon of enlargement of m_r with velocity can be used for gradual transition from Newtonian mechanics to SR.
• The modified postulates of SR additionally clarify SR and the derivation of Lorentz transformations.
• Such derivation gives a more realistic example for debate regarding Duff's claims (1,2) that physical units are physically nonexistent (PNE). Therefore, the debate about Duff's claims becomes clearer.
• Other senses can be found in (6,8) and in references therein.

One of Duff's provocative questions is also, why there are precisely three elementary units (kg, m and s), why not less or more. Some clarifications or contra-arguments will be given in this paper.

 

[tiny-tim]

hi exponent137!

("dilatation" is a primarily medical word; and you need more "a"s and "the"s )

Introduction

[STRIKE]Comprehension[/STRIKE] An understanding of the elementary physical theories and of their various aspects is important both for students and for researchers of still undiscovered theories, [STRIKE]for instance, of[/STRIKE] such as quantum gravity. Relativistic mass m_r is used here for a different interpretation of the theory of special relativity (SR). The shortest way to define m_r is: [STRIKE]to say that[/STRIKE]

m_r = W/c² (1)

where W is the total energy and c is the speed of light.

The main argument against using m_r is that [STRIKE]it is without a sense[/STRIKE] there is no reason to do so (1,2,3,4), [STRIKE]because[/STRIKE] as it does not tell us anything more than W tells us. But:

• One [STRIKE]sense[/STRIKE] reason is to show a relation between time [STRIKE]dilatation[/STRIKE] dilation and m_r.
• This relation can be further used to present a connection between space-time and matter more clearly, and to show that space-time does not exist without matter. This means a simpler presentation than [STRIKE]it[/STRIKE] is shown with Einstein's general covariance (5,page 847).
• The next [STRIKE]sense[/STRIKE] reason is to show, how the [STRIKE]phenomenon of enlargement[/STRIKE] increase of m_r with [STRIKE]velocity[/STRIKE] speed can be used for gradual transition from Newtonian mechanics to SR.
• The modified postulates of SR additionally clarify SR and the derivation of the Lorentz transformations.
• Such derivation gives a more realistic example for debate [STRIKE]regarding[/STRIKE] on Duff's claims (1,2) that physical units are physically nonexistent (PNE). [STRIKE]Therefore,[/STRIKE] Thus the debate about Duff's claims becomes clearer.
• Other [STRIKE]sense[/STRIKE] reasons can be found in (6,8) and in references therein.

One of Duff's provocative questions is also, why are there [STRIKE]are[/STRIKE] precisely three elementary units (kg, m and s), why not less or more. Some clarifications or contra-arguments will be given in this paper.

 

[exponent137]

Thank you. I can return a favour with excel advice, for instance date-time manipulations, statistics, graphs, macros...

I heard that expressions with personal names do not have "the"? For instance "Lorentz transformations". Or, that it is difference of use of "the" in "Lorentz transformations" or in "Lorentz's transformations"??

I please still for the abstract and the conclusion grammar correction, because they are also the most grammar important.

abstract
The main argument against relativistic mass is that it does not tell us anything more than total energy tells us. But, one reason is to show a relation between time dilation and relativistic mass. This relation can be further used to present a connection between space-time and matter more clearly, and to show that space-time does not exist without matter. This means a simpler presentation than it is shown with Einstein's general covariance. Therefore, this opposes that special relativity (SR) is only a theory of space-time geometry. The next reason is to show, how phenomenon of enlargement of relativistic mass with speed can be used for a gradual transition from Newtonian mechanics to SR. The postulates, which are used for the definition of SR, are therefore still clearer and the total derivation of Lorentz transformation is clearer. Such derivation also gives a more realistic example and counter-arguments for the debate regarding Duff's claims that the dimensionful units and quantities are physically nonexistent (PNE).
Therefore, the debate about Duff's claims becomes clearer. Still other counter-arguments against PNE are added.

Conclusion
It is not easy to imagine SR with only c=constant. But the additional presentation with m_r helps us to imagine it better. The presentation with m_r together with more precise common interpretation of SR also opposes that SR is only the theory of space-time geometry. It is not enough only symmetry of four dimensional momentum to space-time. It should be shown why this symmetry. The connection of space-time and mass shows that kg, m and s form one triplet. This used to oppose Duff's claims that the physical units and the dimensionful conststants are PNE.

For a theory of everything we need to go to foundations. The postulates are also foundations of physics, not only formulae. A property of the equations in SR is that they are hyperbolic. But this is a consequence of the postulates, it is not a fundamental property. Some dimensionless constants are also foundations of physics. It is beneficial that they appear already in pre-theories of theory of everything, such as in SR.

Such many sided interpretations of formulae should also be written in other fundamental physical theories, for instance in quantum mechanics. One example, where this is done, is Zeilinger-Brukner interpretation of quantum mechanics [25].

The author is unsatisfied, because SR was not presented to him in school also in this way. This is one example of incompleteness of the common interpretation of SR. It is a trend in teaching of fundamental physics, that it should be as abstract as possible. For instance, they force us to imagine our universe without outer space. But, although outer space does not exist, it is easier to imagine it. Similarly, it is better to imagine m_r.

 

[tiny-tim]

your repeated use of "also", although not wrong, looks strange, and you should reconsider it each time

here's a few specific suggestions:

"than it is shown with Einstein's general covariance" delete "it"

"dimensionful" … no such word

"imagine" is ok, but you might want to consider using "visualise" instead

"together with more precise common interpretation" insert "a"

"It is not enough only symmetry of four dimensional momentum to space-time." i don't understand this

"It should be shown why this symmetry." needs another verb

finally, i don't understand what you mean by "outer space"

I heard that expressions with personal names do not have "the"? For instance "Lorentz transformations". Or, that it is difference of use of "the" in "Lorentz transformations" or in "Lorentz's transformations"??

it's because there's only one set of Lorentz transformations …

there are many quadratic equations, so one says "the use of quadratic equations", but "the use of the Lorentz transformations" (in fact, now i come to think of it, common usage (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation" ) is to use the singular, since the four Lorentz equations make up only one Lorentz transformation)

 

[exponent137]

Word "dimensionful" was used in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0110/0110060v3.pdf .
The reason is probably, because word "dimensional" has not so specific meaning as "dimensionful".

So "Einstein's general covariance" is without "the". I suppose that it si not so precisely determined as the "Lorentz Transformation"?

By outer space I meant that:
Our universe is closed according to general relativity. Outer space out of our universe does not exist.
But anyway, it is easier to imagine it, so that we easier visualize this closed universe. "symmetry of four dimensional momentum to space-time."

I meant that:
Mathematically, the relation between space and time is similar as the relation between momentum and energy. But this is only a symmetry, this is not yet explanation of connection of energy, momentum to space-time.

p.s.
I have idea for search engine, where we wrote, for instance,
"Such ADJECTIVE ADJECTIVE NOUNs of NOUNs should also be VERBed in other ADJECTIVE ADJECTIVE NOUN."
So, we search similar sentence structures and correction of grammar would be a little better.
Maybe something such exists on some Corpuses of english language, or is it possible to programming this?
One possibility is to find native english speakers with knowledge of physics, and offer something for their time: money or some my knowledge or...
But, however, I think that internet gives enough possibilites for grammar corrections, but I do not know them. One good option was you, which gave me a higher grammar lever of this text.

 

[tiny-tim]

Word "dimensionful" was used in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0110/0110060v3.pdf .
The reason is probably, because word "dimensional" has not so specific meaning as "dimensionful".

"frictionless", so "frictionful" ? i don't think so!

So "Einstein's general covariance" is without "the". I suppose that it si not so precisely determined as the "Lorentz Transformation"?

no, that's because of the 's … you can't say "the Lorentz's Transformation", but you do say "the Lorentz Transformation"

By outer space I meant that:
Our universe is closed according to general relativity. Outer space out of our universe does not exist.
But anyway, it is easier to imagine it, so that we easier visualize this closed universe.

oooh! no, we mean something completely different by "outer space" … it always means space outside the Earth …

you need to say something like "a fourth dimension"

"symmetry of four dimensional momentum to space-time."

I meant that:
Mathematically, the relation between space and time is similar as the relation between momentum and energy. But this is only a symmetry, this is not yet explanation of connection of energy, momentum to space-time.

ah i understand now … it's your habit of leaving out a verb …

It is not enough only symmetry of four dimensional momentum to space-time. It should be shown why this symmetry.​

… you mean something like "It is not enough to show the symmetry of four dimensional momentum to space-time, it should also be shown why this symmetry exists."

(btw, "four-momentum" is commonly used, and much shorter!)

But, however, …

never use both!

 

[sfhdweb]

Can you give me links on forums, where I can correct grammar of the article by one to one sentence (i am not native speaker)? Maybe it is not necessary to find peoples with physical knowledge.

Any other suggestions?

visit english grammer websites

 

[exponent137]

visit english grammer websites

Yes, this is a useful idea, but the problem is worse knowledge of physics on those forums.

Do you have any review of those forums?

 

[exponent137]

I try still with some paragraphs. Where are the main grammar errors? But I hope that all the article will be published on Physics Forums on independent research; and not only there.

A connection between matter and space-time
A remark is possible that we see larger mass inside the rocket, but from the rocket they see us that we have larger mass. Therefore it seems that increasing of mass is not realistic. But, this is exactly the same problem as in the common Lorentz equations, where relations for time show the same paradox. But, SR is a correct theory, and both the common interpretation of SR and the interpretation with m_r are correct. In short, it is not incorrect that relation mass-time is a one-way one. It is important that the introduction of m_r explains dilatation of time and connection between matter and time. It is not necessarily to look at the same time from two inertial systems, but it is enough to look at once from one inertial system and another time from another inertial system.

This slower speed of time with increasing of m_r can also be generalized out of SR to big and small elementary particles. If a human body was made from the same particles, but 1000 times lighter ones, the speed of time would seem to us much smaller than now. Hence one second would seem very long. This example is not relative, because it gives the same result from both observers.

This can be generalized still further. A fly feels a longer second than an elephant, because of smaller mass of the fly brain the brain processes are faster. Although particles are not smaller, this also can be an analogy for reduction of the ''mass''. Another example from biology is a cold lizard or a warm one. For the first one a second seems shorter. Therefore various examples of different time flows have a very similar key foundation, this is the momentum or movement.

We know from the common interpretation of SR that rest matter cannot be accelerated to v=c. It can only be approached to this speed. But, anywhere close to c this matter is moving, always we can find an inertial system, where this matter is at rest. The speed of a photon equals $c$. We cannot find an inertial system where it is at rest. Time flows where rest matter exists, but time does not flow for a photon. Therefore rest matter defines that time flows; hence that time is dependent of rest matter.

Interpretation of SR with m_r tells us still more. It tells us that speed of time is dependent from largeness of mass. Therefore this is another clarification that space-time does not exist without rest matter. Hence, this is a simplified explanation of what it is shown with general covariance [1,page 847].

Hence formally, one time is really attributed to every point of space, but truly time flows only if rest matter is present, or differently said, that matter is a reference for this space-time. Therefore space-time without rest matter does not exist.

But one detail should be clarified still. Seemingly, time flows for a photon

• because it has some frequency,
• if it is calculated for rest matter that time does not flow at v=c, this does
  not mean automatically that time does not flow for a photon. Precisely said, it means only that time does not flow for rest matter if it is accelerated to v=c. And, of course, it never reaches this speed.

Indeed, frequency of a photon is dependent from rest matter, or from inertial system, where this matter is at rest. But, privileged inertial system does not exist. Therefore rest matter cannot be ignored where the existence of photons is mentioned. Thus, photons exist because of rest matter. It is similarly in general relativity, where it is claimed that gravitational waves exist independently of matter. But indirectly they are connected with matter.

 

[exponent137]

Editing of a scientific article is expensive for amateurs who are non-native English speakers. The problem is if someone writes 10 versions of an article, s/he should pay editing ten times. Is here any option for much cheaper editing, where quality of editing is not 100% good? Thus, intermediate versions can be edited much cheaper, but the final version can be edited more good, but more expensive.

 

[Mute]

Editing of a scientific article is expensive for amateurs who are non-native English speakers. The problem is if someone writes 10 versions of an article, s/he should pay editing ten times. Is here any option for much cheaper editing, where quality of editing is not 100% good? Thus, intermediate versions can be edited much cheaper, but the final version can be edited more good, but more expensive.

I have heard of websites that offer editing as a form of language exchange. You can post something in English to be edited, and other native english speakers will edit parts of the work at their discretion. In exchange, it is expected that you will visit the appropriate section of the website to edit documents written by learners of your native language. I'm afraid I don't know any such sites personally; a friend of mine has used one for Chinese learning.

The odds that your editors scientifically knowledgeable are not good, but they can still improve the structure of your writing even without knowing all of the details. This is probably the cheapest way for you to get someone to help edit your documents when they are at an intermediate stage.

That said, if you are hoping to publish an article in a scientific journal, you should absolutely be discussing the work with people knowledgeable in the field (but not here - discussing independent, unpublished research is against the forum rules). If you have no university or scientific industry affiliation, nor any co-authors with a university affiliation, your paper is not likely to even get past the editor. Are you affiliated with any university at the moment? If you are, does the university have any services to help edit documents in English? If you are not affiliated with any university (or industry research institute), you should be if you want to publish your paper in a serious journal.

 

[exponent137]

Mute, thank you for those proposals. But in the language exchange cites the native speakers are rare.
1. Is it possible to exchange some other things, for instance Excel knowledge?
2. What are the most populated physical forums beside of this one? Maybe phys org?
3. How is it with other native English speakers inside of USA and UK? Malta is one cheaper example, what about others?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language
Is this table at the end correct? What is quality of those other native speakers?