Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gatech!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: net.physics,net.research,net.misc Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Einstein and peers Message-ID: <3385@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Tue, 19-Nov-85 09:24:08 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3385 Posted: Tue Nov 19 09:24:08 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Nov-85 04:06:20 EST References: <3101@brl-tgr.ARPA> <197@prometheus.UUCP> <3326@brl-tgr.ARPA> <202@prometheus.UUCP> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 50 Xref: watmath net.physics:3605 net.research:344 net.misc:8914 > > Ah, but Einstein didn't miss much. You might count his > > position on indeterminism in quantum theory against him, > > although his best objections have never been answered to my > > satisfaction, and perhaps even his work toward the unified > > field theory (although that is my specialty and I think he > > knew what he was doing there). > > In other words he understood what he didn't do, which admittedly > goes quit beyond the fruits (no pun intended) of current endeavors. No, in fact Einstein gradually developed several good ideas toward such a theory, including a method for measuring how strongly such theories constrain physical behavior and the ideas that Schr"odinger turned into his "pure affine" theory. Whether or not these have any relation to what is considered quantum theory (and they might; that hasn't been disproved), there is much that can be understood from the generalized geometric point of view. Unfortunately this subject is not being taught, at least not consistently with Einstein's later ideas. (One looks in Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler, for example, and finds that very early they limit discussion to torsion-free manifolds, whereas torsion is essential according to the more general theory.) I was writing a textbook on (classical) relativistic field theory once, but couldn't figure out who'd read it. > ... > > Perhaps you have answered your own query. Set aside a > modest but siqnificant number of articles in each of > all journals for such speculative work, and in addition > establish a journal for exclusive publications of such > speculative or controversial works, and finally, establish > rules of publication which require the disclosure of > "conflicts of interest" to the editor (requester of review). I don't think the first idea is workable, though. There would be far too much crank literature to publish, so selection would still be required, which reduces the process to that that the journals claim to use. The special journal would be worthwhile, if you can figure out how to get it going and how to ensure some degree of quality so that people would subscribe. There will always be conflicts of interest whenever peer review is done; there is a lot of competition and a degree of jealousy in science research. Suppose you have spent months or years working in a field, then have to review a paper that disputes your whole basic approach; would you really be able to read it just for its intrinsic merit? (Some people could, but I bet not most.) I really don't see how to avoid this problem without creating worse ones.