2009: Second warmest year on record; end of warmest decade
in [Physics]
|
Prev: NASA to Earth: Global Warming Is for Real, Folks!
Next: Second warmest year on record; end of warmest decade
From: JohnM on 4 Mar 2010 03:25 On Mar 2, 8:07 pm, Earl Evleth <evl...(a)wanadoo.fr> wrote: > On 1/03/10 19:21, in article YaadndbRpY9fmBHWnZ2dnUVZ_u9i4...(a)giganews.com, > "Marvin the Martian" <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > We call it Bose-Einstein Condensates because the > > racist journals wouldn't publish Bose's paper until Einstein put his name > > on it, taking half credit for the discovery. > > I find no reference of racism to this. > > The term Condensates does have a racial connotation. > > his wiki says > > While presenting a lecture  at the University of Dhaka on the theory of > radiation and the ultraviolet catastrophe, Bose intended to show his > students that the contemporary theory was inadequate, because it predicted > results not in accordance with experimental results. During this lecture, > Bose committed an error in applying the theory, which unexpectedly gave a > prediction that agreed with the experiment. (He later adapted this lecture > into a short article called Planck's Law and the Hypothesis of Light > Quanta.) > > The error was a simple mistakeâ¹similar to arguing that flipping two fair > coins will produce two heads one-third of the timeâ¹that would appear > obviously wrong to anyone with a basic understanding of statistics. However, > the results it predicted agreed with experiment, and Bose realized it might > not be a mistake at all. He for the first time took the position that the > Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution would not be true for microscopic particles > where fluctuations due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle will be > significant. Thus he stressed the probability of finding particles in the > phase space, each state having volume h?, and discarding the distinct > position and momentum of the particles. > > Physics journals refused to publish Bose's paper. It was their contention > that he had presented to them a simple mistake, and Bose's findings were > ignored. Discouraged, he wrote to Albert Einstein, who immediately agreed > with him. His theory finally achieved respect when Einstein sent his own > paper in support of Bose's to Zeitschrift für Physik, asking that they be > published together. This was done in 1924. Bose had earlier translated > Einstein's theory of General Relativity from German to English. > > *** > > It is not unusual for a person to have trouble publishing a new idea. > If you make a mistake, attitudes are sometimes frozen. I find no > racism in the above statement. > > He did the right thing in appealing to a "high authority" in this > field. > > Highly theoretical papers have a hard time getting reviewed. > Perhaps none of the referees understand, the real meaning > or were prejudiced by his earlier mistake. > > I had one colleague who in reviewing are article > submitted to the J. Chem. Phys by one of top people > in thermodynamics (an area of my colleague) told > me he did not understand the math of the paper > "but that is must be correct" since T.H. (the > actual initials of the top person) does not > make mistakes.  If the article has been submitted > by a young unpublished scientist it would have > had a harder time getting published. > > Marvin, go back to Mars! In his head he lives there all the time. > You don't understand the real world of science. In a rather strange, alien kind of way, I think he probably does. What he doesn't understand is that there are more people looking at science critically than just him. > The peer review system has it faults but there is nothing better. One could almost paraphrase Churchill's famous remark about democracy here.
From: Earl Evleth on 4 Mar 2010 05:51 On 4/03/10 9:25, in article a4ddeb8e-ae3e-4691-9b92-e173306bcdeb(a)c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, "JohnM" <john_howard_morgan(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> �The peer review system has it faults but there is nothing better. > > One could almost paraphrase Churchill's famous remark about democracy > here. Web addicts want a completely open and free system, free speech for all. That does occur, as we see on this group, the deniers distort and some of those on the other side feel constrained to argue with them. The peer system has its problems, those referees are more permissive than others. One well known scientist told me that he never really judged the paper, but checks it to make sure the figures and tables are clear, with good captions. He lets stuff said in the text so by with comment. I only went a little farther but mostly checked to make sure the information was correct. In theoretical chemistry this is not too hard, I often could run the calculation myself and I never found an error. You can't do that with experimental work. This is why some fraud occurs in the biological sciences and only found out about later. If the paper is important fraud will eventually show up since scientific writing has a predatory nature. Finding a major author wrong is a positive feature in one's career. Scientific writing is variable and one has to be tolerant of those whose maternal tongue is not English. If they write enough their papers usually become clear. In our French lab virtually all papers were in English, which my colleagues ask me to correct. I in turn used my wife who is a better proof reader than I. Mostly their papers only had a few things not said just right. Internet posts are sloppy, there is no standard, no review. From my view, some of the junk science is appalling, and a reason why some papers don't get published regularly. Muehlbauer often cites articles which have been prepared and possibly submitted but never published. There are even a very few junk journals around, Example: the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons ran by the gang from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. We Won" Is Not an Excuse for Tyranny by Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. was published last year and clearly a political article in a review which by name should be professionally oriented. You can visit their site and see http://www.jpands.org/ In peer review, the reviewer makes sure that all pertinent prior publications have been cited. When writing a paper I became a devil's advocate taking the role of a critical reviewer. The first thing I did was do a literature search and include the pertinent prior work. Then the job is showing that "your" work is really new, not mere crossing ts and dotting "I" from prior studies. So the denier technique of cherry picking is out, their papers will never be accepted if they only present the facts which agree with their positions. If they try it their paper will be rejected on that basis alone. It is considered cheating and scientists are victorian on cheating.
From: OG on 4 Mar 2010 13:50
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap.AT(a)AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message news:g22uo51bp5mqi4pb2fr7uq0m2mjh906ut7(a)nntp.frankenexpress.de... > "OG" <owen(a)gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote: > >> >> "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap.AT(a)AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message >> >> >> > Of course. >> >> >> > If you'd have read along here, you'd know. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > http://sceptics.umweltluege.de/vostok/vtrendz.png >> >> >> >> >> >> Global? >> >> > >> >> > AGWers and IPCC take it for global. >> >> >> >> Cites please? >> > >> > www.ipcc.ch >> > >> >> You'll need to be more specific than that. >> If you're not going to even try to back up your claim... > > I'm not your search engine. > It was published in AR4 and also in your science bible Wikipedia. > Or ask Sam Wormley. He sure knows it. You made the claim - has it disappeared? |