I've suggested (& published in 18 journal papers) a new theory called quantised inertia (or MiHsC) that assumes that inertia is caused by relativistic horizons damping quantum fields. It predicts galaxy rotation, cosmic acceleration & the emdrive without any dark stuff or adjustment.
My Plymouth University webpage is here, I've written a book called Physics from the Edge and I'm on twitter as @memcculloch

Wednesday, 14 June 2017

Funny Business at the ArXiv

Once, in childhood, I was playing one of my best friends at chess, and on this occasion I won. After a minute my friend reached over and cheekily pushed over my king. Of course, this was only a couple of kids playing a friendly game, and this fellow is still a great friend of mine, but I feel that some parts of physics are acting the same way.

This was brought home to me last month. For the third time, the arXiv, a freely-available central library for physicists, deleted my submission of my peer-reviewed and accepted paper (on quantised inertia and the emdrive). They say it is similar to a previous one I submitted, but it is a significant advance on that paper, otherwise the journal, which is a good one and which published the other one as well, would not have accepted it as a new paper. I've had a long running battle with the physics arXiv (this section of the arxiv has anonymous and therefore unaccountable referees, not good scientific practice). They refused to take any of my published papers between 2013 and 2015, and since 2015 they have shifted them from the section on astrophysics, where I need to post to get the attention of astrophysicists, to the section on general physics (a section for work they perceive as 'fringe') that virtually no-one looks at. This is censorship without a solid stated reason.

Crying 'Fringe' or 'Fake News' is not enough, evidence must always be provided, otherwise it is easy for aggressive people to control events to protect their power or funding streams. The only way to destroy this control is to say: "What is your evidence for that?". I have asked the arXiv for their reason many times, they told me to stop asking. Evidence is the light and I always test against evidence in my papers, whereas physicists working on dark matter, string theory or black holes do not. This is no small matter. It is the difference between science and the fluff they had in the middle ages. I can cite some evidence for this contempt of evidence in the mainstream. David Meritt (see ref below) recently showed that most cosmology books published since 2004 do not mention that dark matter has not been found. They do not now even mention the evidence that they have no evidence.

The frustration is that I have lots of evidence that quantised inertia is the best theory available (I have published 18 papers now). QI simply predicts all galaxy rotations, even at high redshift, the low-l CMB anomaly, cosmic acceleration, the flyby anomalies, the Tajmar effect, the emdrive, and many other things. It combines relativity and quantum mechanics and thereby explains inertial mass for the first time. The only difficulty is getting a fair hearing. Thank goodness for journal peer-review and also Research Gate which has no anonymous censorship. The arXiv can be a great asset for physics and I once loved it, I have accessed many papers there, it is free, but the physics section is now clearly biased in this way. I think it is essential that to ensure decisions are made on a scientific basis, it should at least accept everything that is published in a proper journal. Let proper journal peer reviewers decide, not the anonymous.


Merritt, David, 2017. Cosmology and convention. Studies in History and Philosophy of science, 57, 41-52. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02389


tammor said...

Hi Mike,

I think what you are complaining is similar to what Lee Smolin wrote in his book 'The Trouble with Physics'. Physicists use too much mathematics (abstractions) without any connection to the real world.

For example, here's a paper which explains relativity without the speed of light axiom.

My problem with this paper is that it is pure abstraction. There is nothing in it which connects the mathematics to the real world. I think the Universe works by interactions between particles. I think the speed of light cannot be reached because some kind of interaction prevents it.

So, my question to you is this: Is it possible that the Unruh radiation prevents matter to reach the speed of light?


Mike McCulloch said...

Tamas: Modern physics is too complex and, as you say, abstract. Complexity is the wrong goal since nature tends to take the simpler route (all large revolutions in our understanding have shown things to be simpler than expected, not more complex, eg: Copernicus, Newton, Sp. Relativity). So we should be looking for simpler - quantised inertia is simpler.

Abstract physics is not physics at all. I know that the mainstream are trying to see the overall pattern of all the little models, but the problem is that the models they have are not right yet, they don't predict galaxies, cosmic acceleration or EPR, and half of them don't fit with the other half, so it is a futile exercise. Like trying to do a jigsaw with pieces from two puzzles (Relativity and QM). Quantised inertia is a linking piece that shows where the two fit together and so both can be rebuild from that point.

In the quantised inertia paradigm it is possible to see why there is a speed of light limit, that also may be violated, for example a particle moving just below the speed of light sees a horizon keeping pace with it, just behind, and pulling it back very strongly. If v=c the pull-back is infinite.

DataPacRat said...

> In the quantised inertia paradigm it is possible to see why there is a speed of light limit, that also may be violated, for example a particle moving just below the speed of light sees a horizon keeping pace with it, just behind, and pulling it back very strongly. If v=c the pull-back is infinite.

If I'm looking at this right, as the Rindler horizon gets closer to the accelerating object, then there's less and less vacuum energy between the object and the horizon, while still the usual amount ahead of it, until, near c, there's next to no space and next to no vacuum energy.

But don't Rindler horizons emit Unruh radiation? Would there be some point at which the energy emitted from that would exceed the vacuum energy of an object at near-c, thus meaning that the push-back from the vacuum energy in the front of the object still has /some/ small force that prevents the push-back from becoming infinite?

... I need to find those Unruh temperature equations to see if I can work out the math. (Dibs on getting the FTL effect named after me, if relativity is really violated. ;) )

KAP said...

Just FYI, my MiHsC-MOND partial unification paper, peer-reviewed & published in AdAp, was rejected by ArXiv (General physics section), for allegedly not being novel enough. Leaves me wondering who thought of it first.

Mike McCulloch said...

DataPacRat: The Unruh radiation is of a wavelength that is comparable to the distance between the object and the horizon behind it, so it would be damped on that side very strongly. Nevertheless, have a go - plenty of glory for all :)

Mike McCulloch said...

KAP: They should not have rejected your paper either since it had been peer reviewed and published. The physics arXiv is run by anonymous unaccountable people and therefore should not be steering physics in any way. We need to publicise what is going on: there is something rotten in the state of arXiv.

qraal said...

Hi Mike,

Plenty of people have experienced the same shenanigans, even with their published material. I have no idea why, but it's been a live issue for years. Just don't play their game.


Espen Haug said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Espen Haug said...

If we read ArXiv backwards we get ViXra. Vixra is a good alternative where about anyone can post papers/thoughts. There is no referees there, but a considerable amount of papers posted there get published in good academic journals. There is everything from I would say rather non scientific to a series of very scientific papers there.

I personally think in a pre-print archive one should have open doors. The best referee is after all often Time.

Espen G. Haug

Julien Geffray said...

KAP, your paper may had been rejected by the arXiv because although being peer reviewed, it has been published in a scientific journal belonging to Isaac Scientific Publishing, a possible predatory scholarly open‑access publisher that was present in "Beall's List" (now erased but still found online on various websites).

I don't say your paper is valid or not, but the fact is this open-access problem is not the case for Mike, who published mainly in EPL, which is edited by IOP Publishing Ltd.

For example, you need to know that any paper published through a suspected predatory open-access journal or publisher is immediately deleted from any article in wikipedia, for that reason. I think wikipedia and the arXiv share similarities in how they are anonymously managed.

But I also know of papers from other physicists that are also blacklisted by the arXiv while being already published in various respectable peer-review non-open-access journals.

What you share in common in this blacklist: you are all trying to publish inovative works that are alternate candidates to the standard established ΛCDM concordance cosmological model.