Back    All discussions

2011-04-11
Quality of reviews in Physics
Dear all,

Lately I was wondering if there is any check on quality of review in e.g. Foundation of Physics.

A paper can be rejected on  

1. Stated dislike of the philosophy by the reviewer.
2. Claim that a proof is 'not convincing' while giving no further spoecification at all.

Does this kind of reviewing practices sound familiar to any of you?



Yours
Han Geurdes














2011-05-03
Quality of reviews in Physics
Reply to Han Geurdes
As an outsider, I have no direct experience on the matter, but am aware of many similar reports by well-qualified scientists, e.g. "our procedures defend entrenched assumption and delay challenge and progress" (Warren B. Hamilton, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Department of Geophysics, Colorado School of Mines) and "Something is wrong with the scientific enterprise as a whole if it routinely punishes innovation in this way" (Richard Greenberg, Professor of Planetary Sciences, Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona).

But I am aware of no better source of insight into the means by which entrenched errors can long retard progress than Dewey B. Larson's neglected classic The Case Against the Nuclear Atom (1963).  As far as I can judge, its arguments are just as valid and compelling today as when they were first written. I cannot recommend this book too highly, including its Chapter 11, which suggests some potential reforms in the general organization of science.  As things stand now, however, it is doubtful that any challenge to the nuclear atom hypothesis could be published in a physics journal, no matter how compelling the arguments, nor will potentially falsifying experiments be funded except with extreme difficulty.

I'm hoping 2013 might finally provide an occasion for Larson's book to finally be published by a respected academic publisher - the 50th anniversary of Larson's original and the 100th anniversary of the Bohr atom.  With this in mind, I'm very keen to find current academics who might be willing to set aside their own preconceptions long enough to actually review it.

Sincerely,
Steven Athearn


Recommended reading:
Dewey B. Larson, "Just How Much Do We Really _Know_?" (essay written in 1961; includes the bare outline of his case against the nuclear hypothesis, as well as highlighting the dubious foundations of several other generally accepted ideas improperly given factual status)
http://www.mediafire.com/?nowtqyadmdw

---- The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, (Portland: North Pacific, 1963): online at
http://library.rstheory.org/books/cana

See also "Proposal for a Crucial Experiment" by Ronald W. Satz on the Reciprocal System Database Status Report: An Aperiodic Blog.  This is pdf file is actually a collection of 7 papers written over 30 years.  But I recommend delving into this only after reading the above works by Larson himself.
http://transpower.wordpress.com/

"The books, lectures, and articles that Dewey Larson left behind offer exhilarating food for thought even for readers with modest scientific training. His writings challenge us to think critically and not take anything for granted."

--Richard Heinberg, “The Smartest Person I've Met,” Museletter, No. 183, July 2007

"If my work does nothing else in the long run, it will at least accomplish a worth-while purpose in calling attention to such weaknesses in present-day theory. This is probably what Dr. Fracastoro of the Catania Astrophysical Observatory had in mind when he concluded a review of my book in the journal 'Scientia' with the statement: 'The work furnishes a useful exercise for those who wish to review objectively their scientific ideas and beliefs.'"

--Dewey B. Larson, letter to astrophysicist Martin Harwit, August 30, 1961, citing Mario Girolama Fracastoro's review of The Structure of the Physical Uiverse, in Scientia (Bologna, Italy), Vol. 95 (1960), p. 299

 

"As an iconoclastic work, Larson's book is refreshing. The scientific community requires stirring up now and then; cherished assumptions must be questioned and the foundations of science must be strenuously inspected for possible cracks. It is not a popular service and Mr. Larson will probably not be thanked for doing this for nuclear physics, though he does it in a reasonably quiet and tolerant manner and with a display of a good knowledge of the field."

--Isaac Asimov, review of The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, Chemical and Engineering News, July 29, 1963


"Mr. Larson shows himself to be well-informed on the current status of physics research and there is very little in the book that is factually wrong."

--R. D. Redin, Department of Physics, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, review of The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, Chemical Engineering, July 22, 1963


"I had been favorably impressed with Beyond Newton. Its explanation of gravitation made more sense than anything I had ever seen on that subject. But I was horrified by the title and even more so by the contents of The Case Against The Nuclear Atom. How, I wondered, could anyone have the nerve to argue that there is no such thing as an atomic nucleus, and that the nuclear model of atoms is based on incorrect inferences from experimental data?"

--Paul deLespinasse, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Adrian College, Michigan, in “Linus Pauling's OSU Classmate: Outstanding, Unknown,” February 2001


"To all of us, steeped in the unquestioning adoration of the contemporary scientific method, this is rude and outspoken book, which sometimes hurts. The frightening thing about it is that it rings true."

--Discovery Magazine, review of The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, July 1963

"Larson does us a service in reminding us that from an operational point of view, we don't know what is in an atom, and that arguments like Asimov’s are specious and, in fact, are never applied consistently but only to serve the desired conclusion."

--Arthur W. Adamson, (distinguished research chemist, subsequently Chair of the Department of Chemistry, University of Southern California, 1972-1975), Chemical and Engineering News, September 9, 1963


"Only a careful investigation of all of the author's deliberations can show whether or not he is right. The official schools of natural philosophy should not shun this (considerable, to be sure) effort. After all, we are concerned here with questions of fundamental significance. Still less will it be permissible to condemn the author as a heretic just because he opposes the 'accepted' doctrines of modern physics. Opposition is illegitimate only if essential error is proved … Whether an unbiased investigation of the author's theses would lead to confirmation or rejection is not for the reviewer to say in advance; the question is too complicated to be decided briefly."

--Professor Felix Schmeidler, Munich University Observatory, Naturwissenschaftliche Rundshau, Sept. 1966, review of New Light on Space and Time

“"At the present time, my position, that of my colleague [described as a theoretical physicist], and that of Dr. [Arthur G.B.] Metcalf [then-Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Boston University] is that while we have not had the opportunity to study RS enough so that any of us can staunchly claim to be advocates, we are advocates of learning about new (to us) ideas. I myself have studied some of Dewey Larson's writings to the point that I find them most fascinating and most difficult to dismiss."


"From what I have read thus far, thorough study of his work requires at least three attributes in one very intelligent person: a willingness to expend a great deal of intellectual energy with no guarantee of success, the humility to set aside what one 'knows' long enough to follow through on new ideas, and the emotional strength and self confidence needed to resist possible admonishments of colleagues who would dismiss the new ideas based on cursory analysis."

--J. Edward Anderson, Professor of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Boston University, letters dated October 1, 1988 and October 29, 1988, in support of a proposed physics seminar by Larson or an associate, reprinted in ISUS News, Autumn 1988, pp. 8-9

"I have never before seen anybody with such an independent and absolute logic."

--Hans F. Wuenscher, former Assistant Director for Advanced Projects, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA, letter to the then-current Director, November 1, 1979, reprinted in Reciprocity, Spring 1981


"His works bear out the fact that Dewey Larson is an unusually gifted individual. Never have I run across anyone whose thinking is as devastatingly logical as his is. Yet he is modest and free of the arrogance which characterizes so many of the great. He appears to understand his position as a maverick and to accept without bitterness the failure of the establishment to give his life's work a respectable hearing. If the RS is shown to be a correct representation of the physical structure of the universe, Larson will go down in history as one of the most brilliant thinkers ever to have appeared on the face of the earth. At the same time the establishment will be ridiculed for not offering Larson his day in court. All Larson has ever asked of the establishment is to be shown where his development is wrong and he has gone astray. If Larson is wrong, and nobody has yet found a fatal flaw in his work, it will not be because he is a fraud or charlatan."

--Frank A. Anderson, Associate Dean Emeritus, School of Engineering, Founding Chair, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Mississippi, letter October 12, 1988, reprinted in ISUS News, Autumn 1988, pp. 11-12




Reciprocity and ISUS News were publications of the International Society of Unified Science (formerly New Science Advocates), the organization founded to promote consideration of Larson's proposals.




2011-05-04
Quality of reviews in Physics

As an inhabitant of this planet I am even more puzzled. 

Why is a reviewer allowed to confuse his internal dislike of a philosophy and his internal disbelieve in a proof, with facts? Even an amoebe is compelled in its day-to-day survival to differentiate between internal representation and external fact.

What unpersonal value or methodical principle is served when this scientific reviewing is allowed? 






   


2011-05-04
Quality of reviews in Physics

Thanks for the very good reference to Larson's book. I can recommend The Case Against the Nuclear Atom (1963) to any scientist.


2011-05-09
Quality of reviews in Physics

Steven, again I thank you for your reference but I also have a question. Why is this state of affairs accepted by the majority of scientists.

What values are supported and what principles are saved when this route is taken in science ? Should one use the word science at all. Should it not be something like science-as-a-doctrine or as science-without-100%-support-of-fact-but-we-will-need-to-sort-out-many-hidden-issues.

It must be the case because apparently scientists are affraid to discuss foundational issues and hence in a conditioned reflex black-list, exclude and reject with doctrinary reasons.

I mean, if asked politely what the difference is between a convincing and a non-convincing proof one does not get the answer.... your proof is wrong with this-and-that reason. The stated reason is that they do not have the time to answer properly. But it is forgotten that a very interesting scientific phenomenon has been invented by the FOOP reviewer. Namely the non convincing proof. What kind of mathematics would a non convincing proof differentiate from a convincing? What kind of mechanism will create conviction in a mathematical proof ? I am sure I did not make a mistake and btw the whole basis of the mathematics can be found in Phys Rev E 51, 5151-5154 (1995). So, what kind of convictions are necessary for a reviewer that dislikes a certain philosophy? Is it because a reviewer can feel safe and unseen come with some sort of an answer that he or she does not have to justify before an editor or an author. Is it because essentially and apparently review procedures are hevaily biased? 

 




2011-05-09
Quality of reviews in Physics
Reply to Han Geurdes
The next question is: When scientists behave as indicated, why adhere to scientific principles they themselves shy away from when it suits them.

Should the principles not be re-inspected or am I running a chance the get kicked out of this forum too with this quation?

2011-05-11
Quality of reviews in Physics
Reply to Han Geurdes

Han,

Well, whatever follows should (I hope) be non-convincing.  First of all, I don't want to be cavalier in my claims about "this state of affairs,"  as I am not an academic and have no first-hand experience with peer review processes.  Probably a main reason why the majority of scientists accept "it" is that they are not aware that there is a problem.  Most scientist are occupied with their own work, and unless they themselves are advocating a disfavored hypothesis and encounter obstacles to getting their ideas aired why should they perceive the problem?

Another insight comes from accounts of what it takes to become a scientist.  There's the "rewards" system in science.  What strikes me on reading accounts such as David Goodstein's in Fact and Fraud (2010) of the road to a science career is that the system is pretty well designed to produce scientists that fit into a mold. 

Again, this is not to deny that "publish or perish" basically involves a _requirement_ to produce ideas and results that are at some level new.  But anything that departs _too far_ from old ideas will be discouraged by the same system.  As Warren Hamilton put it in one place (and this time I quote from memory from his "Closed Upper-Mantle Circulation of Plate Tectonics" (2002), from which the previous quote from him also came) that the peer review process "filters out the best and the worst."  His suggestion is that not only does peer review filter out those new ideas genuinely lacking in scientific merit, it also tends to filter out the (potentially) most important new ideas or challenges to established ideas. 

And questioning "fundamentals" (of physics, say) seems to be just a special case of departing _too far_ from mainstream thought.

Finally, science is a human institution and scientists are human.

These are some of my thoughts for now.  I append a couple of quotations to ponder.

Steven

"The most vicious aspect of the present incredibly liberal policy with respect to the employment of _ad hoc_ assumptions [a kind of "inovation" which is _not_ discouraged, according to Larson] is that it perpetuates basic errors when they are once made. The facts that have been brought out in the preceding pages with respect to the nuclear hypothesis provide a graphic illustration of this point. Here is a hypothesis whose antecedents could never have survived any kind of critical examination, and whose consequences have been one long story of continued and repeated conflict with observed facts and established principles. The mere layman, in his innocence, might think that somewhere along the line someone would suggest that it would be simpler to drop the nuclear idea than to force the rest of physical theory through such a painful series of contortions. But no, the theorist tells us, this is unthinkable. Back on page one of The Book it says that Rutherford discovered the nucleus in 1911 and this, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, cannot be changed. And as long as there are no restrictions on the use of _ad hoc_ assumptions, it will not be changed (unless through the agency of some irreverent work such as this), since the question always comes up in this form: Shall we make another assumption or shall we abandon our entire theoretical structure?"
--Dewey Larson, The Case Against the Nuclear Atom (1963), p. 99.

"Rationalizations of the observed characteristics of hypothetical plumes have generated continuously changing predictions regarding fixity, hot-spot motion, age progressions of island chains, heatflow, style of mantle convection, uplift prior to magmatism, temperatures of magmas, and geochemistry. These predictions are rarely successful, so the concepts have been modified to allow as many exceptions, and as many kinds of plumes, as there are "hot spots". The guiding principles are non-physical. The products of plumes are whatever is observed where plumes are postulated. Amendments to the fixed "hot spot" hypothesis now include mantle winds, polar wander, mantle roll, lithosphere drift, lateral flow, magma tunnels, group motions of "hot spots", plume head decapitation and superplumes. Mantle winds are used to explain non-fixity of "hot spots". “Fixed hot spots" may be large regions or long "hot lines" within which volcanoes can pop up anywhere and in any sequence. Plumes are postulated to feed volcanoes thousands of kilometers distant, and they no longer need fit Euler geometry or global reference frames. If
age progressions are non-uniform, new co-linear plumes are added. Most “plume tracks” are missing a “plume head”, and most “plume heads” are missing a track. The lack of evidence for “plume heads”, “plume tracks”, high heatflow and precursory uplift is ignored or rationalized. Evidence for the uplift predicted to precede the Siberian flood basalt is assumed to be hidden beneath the west Siberian lowlands, whereas that for Hawaii is assumed to have been subducted. Findings that defy such ad hoc adjustments became official paradoxes: the Lead Paradox, the Helium Paradox, and the Heat Flow Paradox. New observations are labeled surprising, unexpected, counter-intuitive or anomalous. All of this signals a failed hypothesis–zombie science–but the conjecture is sustained outside the domain of science. A simple, elegant, satisfyingly neat, concise, falsifiable hypothesis has become a complicated, awkward, messy, unfalsifiable monster that refuses to lie down and die. According to the more cynical
philosophers of science, failed hypotheses, heaped high with anomalies, paradoxes and auxiliary
conjectures, are perpetuated by repetition and self-referencing because too many adherents have invested their careers in them. Although many scientists have moved on, plumeology remains entrenched conventional wisdom, supported by the publishing industry, with alternative opinions discouraged and made to jump a higher bar. Young scientists who should be encouraged to question dogma are kept in line via hiring, promotion, grant proposal and publication decisions. Zombie research programs defy burial."
--Don Anderson and Warren B. Hamilton, "Zombie Science and Geoscience" (2008).



2011-05-12
Quality of reviews in Physics
Reply to Han Geurdes
Steve,

Thanks. Let me take a look at the question: why should they (other scientists) perceive the problem? I know two other scientists, one a professor from McGill's and one from Oxford that are black-listed too. It is all revolves around the same argumentation that Larson describes too. 

The problem exists without broad perception. But one can see that it is quite obvious that perception plays a major role here. 

The violation of scientific principles when certain science top-dogs do not agree with criticism on foundation has already been signalled by Feyerabend. That is perfectly ok as long as science then resigns from its original claim of finding facts and truth in the processes of nature and turns into a business model of output and managerial quality measures. Philosophers are there to signal this change in business model and make the general public aware of the fact that no longer a quest for new theories and truth is undertaken with the taxpayers money.

If the taxpayers all agree that it is indeed no longer necessary to follow a business model of science's core-business is finding facts and explain facts with theory, then everybody is happy and no elite-fraude is going on. However, if the general public is kept unaware of this shift in attenttion, despite of the fact that the large community of scientists also do not know of the foundational issues -or do not care- then something is lost from Western civil culture. CERN hunts for the Higgs particle in the business model of output value-for-money. They cannot accept that the premisses of their hunt can be wrong.

But can the taxpayer accept the business model where a possible throw away of funding is covered up by black listing opponents to the premisses?


That is the real question. To me managerial 'metric' influences are like a rot in the fabric of society if it necessitates black-lists and rejection without argument. And, by the way, who will fill the vacuum where science once was before the shift in business model?

Han

2011-05-13
Quality of reviews in Physics
Dear Steve,

There is another matter that haunts this 'foundations discussion'. As I recall correctly from the History of Physics, Ernst Mach and Ludwig Boltzmann were also arguing about the existence or non-existence of atoms. Hence, the Rutherford discovery does not stand on its own but has a history..

Now, with the rise of quantum mechanics a differentiation was invented between classical (means 'it falls short' ) physics and quantum (meaning 'this explains the untill now inexplicable') physics. Was this justified, is not only a physics question but also a question that can show the 'social interaction' between scientists in an era where 'paradigms' shift. It is the 'social interaction' that heavily determines what one afterwards will call 'reality'.

There is absolutely no excuse at all for black-listing and exclusion from important scientific outlets. Not because it is deeply unfair and fraudulent but because it allows too much of the 'social cognition' formed by 'social interaction' into a field that is supposed to claim to describe reality not included and influentiable by social coercion.

Again I point at my ASTP 4(20) 945-949 (2010) paper which can also be found on arXiv. It claims to have demonstrated that Bell's Theorem falls short. The mathematics is correct, hence, Aspect's experiment can be interpreted differently. That is not 'just' philosophy or criticism on the social interaction (incrowd) in science. It is mathematical physics that reinterprets an experiment, is highly relevant not only for physics but for other sciences too I think.


The path that lead to the publication of the paper on e.g. arXiv is a demonstration of the way institutes in a science try to avoid critical remarks on their method, the path of e.g. Prof Sanctuary's submissions to arXiv is another demonstration of the same fact. 

What value is served by the black-listing and rejection? It cannot be lack of relevance, it cannot be lack of interest. The answer that it drifts too far from mainstream is no answer at all because methods from mainstream are employed. What values are served by suppression of this application of methods to this particlar problem ?  Why is one not allowed to mathematically inspect a central theorem from physics. Why is one not allowed to follow the leads started by Einstein? 

2011-05-19
Quality of reviews in Physics
Reply to Han Geurdes
Sorry for falling behind in my participation, Han.  I really hoped to get to it this weekend.  But thanks for giving more to think about.

2011-05-19
Quality of reviews in Physics
Reply to Han Geurdes
Sorry for making you wait for an answer.  Regarding your case and those of the others you know with similar experiences with black-listing, I guess the natural thing to do is to try to get the details of the cases out into the open.  Maybe that's trivial, or more easily said than done.  But as, Larson points out, it's wrong to place the full burden on the individual innovator, as it is science itself (and the public that pays for it) that benefits from the maximal cultivation of new ideas.  If the institutions of science had some agency for dealing with issues of this nature, say the one Larson proposes, tasked with giving new ideas a proper preliminary hearing, that might help secure an environment in which others (not the original proponents of these new ideas) could express interest in unconventional ideas without raising the eyebrows of _their_ colleagues under circumstances where competition for advancement is stiff.  And that in turn might reduce the problem of blacklisting and discrimination, and ergo the need to find ways to publicize them.

Perceptions. I often hear it said that science welcomes new ideas, that scientists like nothing better to be proved wrong, that if a scientist could produce evidence supporting a radical departure from established ideas, that scientist would be on the quick path to fame and fortune.  This sort of thing comes most often from people on the sidelines, amateurs (I presume) to the fields under discussion, perhaps "skeptical" activist types.  These people see science and rationality as under siege in many quarters of society (perceptions with some basis in reality, no doubt), and their efforts to defend science also include a large dose of indoctrination with currently accepted doctrines.  They are very keen to distinguish science from pseudoscience, but not so keen on the distinction between pseudoscience and mere heresy.  But the conflicts which they spearhead are part of the general cultural climate, and this circle-the-wagons mentality probably has some impact on the thinking of scientists themselves.

The professional scientists, in my experience, tend to be a bit more realistic when it comes to perceptions like the ones listed at the beginning of the preceding paragraph.  They know the history of science at least somewhat, and are thereby prevented from issuing such glib proclamations.  But part of what animates them as scientists are the disagreements they have with their own colleagues, and this also colors their perceptions.  It makes science appear a more free-wheeling enterprise than it probably often is.  And the disagreements-without-ill-effect of their experience may also color their judgments of alleged cases of discrimination and black-listing, making them seem just sour grapes.

I think what you say regarding the business model and managerial tendencies is on the right track. Given the scale of Big Science today, it should not be so surprising that these tendencies operate, but of course the resources which are used for science come as a cost to society, so it does raise issues of social responsibility as well as of facilitation or retardation of scientific progress.  The fact that the scale of science, as of industrial civilization, is probably set for permanent downscaling due to the exhaustion of fossil fuels, has not clearly entered the consciousness of scientists more than other members of the public.  It's hard to see LHCs or new space telescopes operating indefinitely in a severely energy-constrained world.  If scientific progress is to continue, it may have to rely more on the store of experimental knowledge of the past, and a regression to more primitive experimental techniques. 

If this is realistic, and I fear that it is, then that only underscores the harm done by the failure to periodically subject fundamentals to searching critical examination.  Think of the resources squandered due to the failure to subject the fundamentals of the nuclear theory to critical examination, or to face the implications of the examination which Larson had already provided the scientific community almost 50 years ago.  Instead we are treated to accounts of the basis of this theory (Rutherford's "discovery" of the "nucleus", etc.)  which seem exceedingly naive in comparison, even from the likes of undoubtedly good scientists like Steven Weinberg.  The loss is all the more tragic when it is realized that the experimental resources at our disposal in recent decades are not sustainable.

And where do the philosophers of science fit in in this story?  We have that "cynical" group referred to in that earlier quote from Anderson and Hamilton. Perhaps they have Bloor's strong programme in sociology of knowlege in mind. If so, the latter seems less an attempt to uncover the influences which impede or distort the discovery of truth, than to question the possibility, in principle, of discovering truth.  Most other philosophers of science are not so cynical.  In practice, that often seems to mean that the foundations of modern physical theories are not seriously questioned.

Apologies for all the over-generalizations about different classes of people to whom I have referred above.

2011-05-19
Quality of reviews in Physics
Reply to Han Geurdes
Since you allude to the earlier conflicts regarding the existence of atoms, one thing that struck me when I reread John Norton's "How we know about electrons" recently, was the degree to which the great variety of experiments which finally definitively established the existence of atoms, were also _conceived of_ as also establishing the _size_ of atoms, such that, in a discussion of that sort the excellent evidence favoring the former proposition leads to uncritical acceptance of the latter assumption (the assumption that atoms are in contact in the solid state).  Similarly, the multiple lines of experimental evidence establishing the existence and properties of electrons is, despite the absence of any similar confirmation (and despite subsequent explicit repudiation of the assumption that electrons released in beta radioactivity existed prior to the processes which caused their release), taken to prove that electrons are constituents of atoms.

I suppose these just illustrate the ways that careful focus on a subset of details, an essential part of scientific theorizing, can also, in the same operation, introduce serious blind spots. 

Thanks for the references to your own work.  I look forward to perusing it.  Can you tell me more about Prof Sanctuary's case?



2011-05-23
Quality of reviews in Physics
thanks for your thoughtful response. I think that concerning the sociological processes working behind what scientists claim to be reality one cannot be critical enough. There has to be aclear differentition between what people say and tell each other and what actually is there as proof. In that respect there is no room for blacklisting without doing damage tothe truth-value of a hypothesis. Feyerabend was right about top-dogs and their disaster zone.

2011-05-23
Quality of reviews in Physics
Reply to Han Geurdes
Yes, and specifically with the Foundation of Physics. Exactly the same kind of outcome. It gets rather tedious. I do not understand this 'I'm not convinced' rebuttal. Like that is some sort of formal argument measure. I would prefer "Not obviously wrong" as an acceptance criteria. I couldn't care less whether any particular reviewer is 'convinced' or otherwise. If they can't formally identifiy flawed or uninformed arguments then they should leave their personal preferences out of it.

The net result of this kind of behaviour is cherry picking/band-wagoning/fashion and fragmented special-interest journals instead of science.  Maybe we need a special therapy group for those of us who remain 'unable to convince' while never being told we are wrong and why.....

regards,

Colin Hales

2011-05-23
Quality of reviews in Physics
Reply to Colin Hales
Indeed especially at FOOP.  I agree, "not obviously wrong" is better because we need to do experiments to find physics. I would like to use the argument in a defense of Robert Foot's mirror matter idea or hypothesis. 

If in a mutual annihilation experiment like Hardy's, remnants of electron and positron escape annihilation by transforming to gravity disturbance, the pairwise triggering of detectors is caused by a backtransformation to quantum format. O and M matter interact only by way of gravity. Gravity can take a quantum form (see my paper on arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3348). O and M matter regions interact in Hardy's mutual annihilation experiment and an Einstein Podolski and Rosen experiment such as performed by Aspect is in fact a confirmation of the existence of M matter (from parity non-conservation in weak interactions). The whole idea was presented by me at a conference in Prague 18-22 april.

Please note that the explanation has the highest content of  physics (astrophysics to be precise). Now there is no room left for likes-and-dislikes, or convinced-or not-convinced. There is room for experiment. The experiment is to match a Hardy weak measurment experiment with CoGENT or DaMaLiBr observations of gravity fluctuations.

Now why is a reviewer of FOOP not aware of the dangers of a conviction or a dislike. Is this a typical 'Larson' or we-think-in-a-oneway-street case?  






2011-05-29
Quality of reviews in Physics
Reply to Colin Hales
Dear Colin.
Perhaps the therapy group can be extended with authorities that are demonstrated incorrect?

If we look at what Hawkking states it makes me wonder.

Han