getting vixrA feedback and critique.

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

getting vixrA feedback and critique.

Postby hyksos on June 27th, 2020, 8:56 pm 

A incident took place over on the other forum, whose name won't be mentioned.

woops my finger slipped

So I had started a thread there about the mass of the Higgs, which was created with sufficient amount of "?" question marks to warrant any sorts of amendments, clarifications, and corrections from the locals there.

Over several replies , the locals twisted my arms and demanded I produce immediate full citations to some of the claims that my posts there "implied". I complied with their demands, producing title, chapter, page number, and full ISBN citation. The book I had quoted was written by none other than Sir Roger Penrose, professor emeritus of mathematics at Oxford. The amount of scientific awards Penrose has won are so large I had to put them in a pastebin https://pastebin.com/raw/TDMxc3Gu

One would suppose that educated , mature adults would realize that my "implications" in my posts were not my own, and were the products of Penrose. Upon coming to this realization, they should engaged with the topical material being posted. Nothing of the kind took place prior to the thread being locked by a moderator.

I was essentially told the book I had quoted was "not a peer-reviewed publication in a journal" thus somehow excusing every last person on the entire website from having to engage with it -- even if the engagement would have been one of correction, clarification, and amendment. In general, the "violent" reaction (if I may use that word) to what I had posted almost made it seem like what I had posted was too dangerous/controversial for their little website.

professional feedback
While knocking around the internet I came upon this particular publication on vixrA.

Spin½ 'plane' & Simple
To fully characterize any spin requires identification of its spin vector and its plane of rotation. Classical presumptions obscure both for “intrinsic” spin. Here, Euclidean interval-time coordinates literally "lift the veil" of space to reveal it. Probability amplitude is also physically realized.

Comments: 7 Pages.

Download: PDF
Submission history
[v1] 2019-01-09 15:44:40
[v2] 2019-04-08 14:11:09

I found the vixrA article after watching a video about gs factor being set arbitrarily to gs = 2 on the magnetic moment of the electron. Consequently the arbitrary 2 gets coincidentally factored out by the convention that the spin is 1/2.

The strange little incident on the above-mentioned forum got me thinking in light of the vixrA article. If quoting Penrose gets your thread locked on a forum dedicated to physics --- I try to imagine what it would be like to try to get a physicist to read this vixrA article, even on the internet.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Faradave liked this post


Re: getting vixrA feedback and critique.

Postby BurtJordaan on June 28th, 2020, 2:52 am 

That Forum is not a chat forum like this one and is dedicated to academic discussions of textbook stuff and peer-reviewed articles, papers, etc. suitable for answering questions from undergrad students. Although they have relaxed it a little bit to allow ArXiv preprints, due to some degree of screening that happens through the endorsement process. The problem with viXra is that it is so loosely endorsed (if any) that it is seen as dissident science and not without some justification.

Popular books, articles, lectures, videos etc. mostly are pop-science and quotes from them are not seen as academically helpful and perhaps downright confusing to students. Take into account that the mentors/science advisers there have there hands full to help keep students on the canonical track (which is what they will write their exams on).

Whatever one's view of their processes are, it is one of the best forums for getting solid answers from academics/quasi-academics on mainstream science. AFAIK, they did had a section for Personal Theories with very strict submission guidelines, but it has created so many controversies that it has been discarded.

The problem with Sir Roger Penrose is that because of his reputation as a top-notch mathematician, he sometimes gets away with pretty weird physics ideas for some time (at least), before he himself retracts them. He is not alone in that category...

Ps: Excerpt from their rules for posting:

In recent years, there has been an increasing number of "fringe" and Internet-only journals that appear to have lax reviewing standards. We do not generally accept references from such journals. Note that some of these fringe journals are listed in Thomson Reuters. Just because a journal is listed in Thomson Reuters does not mean it is acceptable.

References that appear only on http://www.arxiv.org/ (which is not peer-reviewed) are subject to review by the Mentors. We recognize that in some fields this is the accepted means of professional communication, but in other fields we prefer to wait until formal publication elsewhere. References that appear only on viXra (http://www.vixra.org) are never allowed.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: getting vixrA feedback and critique.

Postby hyksos on June 28th, 2020, 6:23 pm 

The problem with Sir Roger Penrose is that because of his reputation as a top-notch mathematician, he sometimes gets away with pretty weird physics ideas for some time (at least), before he himself retracts them. He is not alone in that category...

Just to round out this story ...

In most (/almost all) cases a particle's supersymmetric partner is significantly more massive than its regular version. But in the case of the Higgs boson, Roger Penrose asserted that its supersymmetric particle , the Higgsino, should be backwards in this rule. That is, the Higgsino should be significantly less massive than the Higgs.

The implication here is that experimentation should have already found and documented the Higgsino years ago, since its mass is well within the range of existing particle accelerators. There is zero evidence of any Higgsino. A further deduction would entail that this suspicious absence of Higgsinos is strong evidence that supersymmetry is wrong.

In natural scenarios of SUSY, top squarks, bottom squarks, gluinos, and higgsino-enriched neutralinos and charginos are expected to be relatively light , enhancing their production cross sections.

(The above is from wikipedia, which we may take for a grain of salt. Nevertheless . . . )

It seems to me that the preceding material is perfectly in bounds of the physics forum. It could be replied to with corrections, amendments, and criticisms, and nobody would get hurt.

But no. The moderators shouted some warning about peer review and the thread was locked before anyone could blink.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: getting vixrA feedback and critique.

Postby BurtJordaan on June 29th, 2020, 2:57 am 

The 'more rounded out story' seems to be that a Science Advisor did give you a reasonable reply that was worth more discussion.
Vanadium 50 wrote:In SUSY, the SM Higgs sector has at least five particles.
There are therefore five SUSY partners.
These particles mix with gauginos, so in general there is no particle that is a pure "higgsino".
Obviously then a statement about mass is meaningless.

But then, on request from a Mentor/Moderator, you went and spoil it all by giving a pop-sci book as reference. I think it was a little premature to immediately close the thread, but I understand the reluctance of Moderators there to involve themselves into quotes from pop-sci writings/videos, especially from highly regarded scientists. It would imply reading/watching the best part of the thing to determine the context and also possibly indulging into private correspondence with the scientist involved.

On the other hand, in such cases there should be a published paper, preprint or journal letter from the scientist where he made such claims and supported them by fact/math. But then the onus is still on the OP to find and provide the reference.

A bit of a Catch-22.

I'm sitting on both sides of this Forum divide and here we have a lot more freedom. But then, we probably lack the physics expertise of the other side.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Gated Community

Postby Faradave on June 29th, 2020, 10:56 am 

The viXra article cited in the OP is also available on Research Gate, which vets its members to a degree similar to arXiv. I doubt that would make it more acceptable by PF.

I don't expect Jorrie to answer for all PF policy. As someone who has been "banned for life" by PF five times (different names from different computers), I've given up on PF. Nuances of the Standard Model aside, I was concerned that my last ouster related to simple classical physics - aerodynamics.

A moderator had hastily (I think) asserted that a flat wing (zero camber) and zero angle of attack cannot generate lift. I stated otherwise citing a Bernoulli grip but Wikipedia was considered unacceptable despite its own valid references. I cited my own patent for a more efficient AC version, which was denied as shameless self-promotion (rather than expertise). I offered photos and YouTube of Bernoulli grips in use by reputable companies - also denied. I uploaded a video demonstration of my own that anyone can reproduce at home.

That was the final straw. I was booted and the thread not just closed but expunged. I got the impression that one simply does not contradict a moderator at PF.

SPCF is far more tolerant.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: getting vixrA feedback and critique.

Postby BurtJordaan on July 2nd, 2020, 2:35 am 

Faradave » 29 Jun 2020, 16:56 wrote:I don't expect Jorrie to answer for all PF policy. As someone who has been "banned for life" by PF five times (different names from different computers), I've given up on PF.

Dave, do you realize that what you have just admitted may potentially earn you a lifetime ban forum this as well? ;-)

That aside, I also find the moderation on PF a tad touchy, but I would not support references to viXra, Research Gate or pop-sci books. I don't know Research Gate, but the press on it has not been very positive for quite some time now, e.g. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/16870/researchgate-an-asset-or-a-waste-of-time.

Some bad 'papers' also slip through the arXiv referral system, but most that you see there are pre-print worthy papers for refereed journals. If not, strong reaction normally appear shortly afterwards in a debunking submission. It is surely much better than the others.

The OP's case of a popular book by creditable pops-sci author is more difficult. Those books inform readers about science, they do not teach or publish science. They sometimes speculate and get away with far more than what refereed science would tolerate - publishers of pop-sci books love speculation, it sells. Controversy sells even more, as is also evident in clicks on forums like this one.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Rebel at Heart

Postby Faradave on July 2nd, 2020, 11:02 am 

BurtJordaan wrote:Dave, do you realize that what you have just admitted may potentially earn you a lifetime ban forum this as well? ;-)
Life is full of risks. I guess that was just my form of peaceful protest (which seems to have become the only national sport currently allowed in the USA).

I admit what I did was immoral. Let me reassure everyone that I have only ever appeared on SPCF as Faradave. My alias memberships at PF were entirely sequential i.e. they never enacted pseudo-discussion, which is blatantly deceptive.

In my admittedly weak defense, I felt I was pushed into my life of crime. I'm a fairly frugal person but had, on the first two PF memberships, paid a voluntary membership fee (one annual, another for "lifetime" membership), not realizing how brief my life would be (≤28 days). Of course, no offers of refund.

Then (2009), as if to rub salt in the wounds, I was not even permitted read-only access, which any non-member is welcome to (they just can't post). Instead, each attempt to view PF was met with a full page banner reminding me "You have been banned. Duration: lifetime." So, in order to regain equity with any non-member who can at least read the posts, I was forced to employ another computer. As that worked, I soon found the temptation to rejoin (under an alias) irresistible.

Guilty as charged. I never had malice, only the overwhelming desire to discuss physics. I throw myself on the mercy of SPCF.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)
BurtJordaanTheVat liked this post


Re: getting vixrA feedback and critique.

Postby BurtJordaan on July 2nd, 2020, 2:02 pm 

Plea bargain accepted... :-)
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: getting vixrA feedback and critique.

Postby hyksos on July 2nd, 2020, 6:03 pm 

I was forced to employ another computer. As that worked, I soon found the temptation to rejoin (under an alias) irresistible. Guilty as charged.

Image
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: 28 Nov 2014



Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests