<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Einstein vs. Physical Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/</link>
	<description>Random samplings from a universe of ideas.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:26:47 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Lemire&#8217;s blog &#187; Einstein vs. Physical Review</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/comment-page-1/#comment-3552</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Lemire&#8217;s blog &#187; Einstein vs. Physical Review</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:57:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/#comment-3552</guid>
		<description>[...] (I got to this through Geomblog who cites a Cosmic Variance&#8217;s post.) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] (I got to this through Geomblog who cites a Cosmic Variance&#8217;s post.) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/comment-page-1/#comment-3551</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:54:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/#comment-3551</guid>
		<description>Well, I mentioned that I thought peer review was getting tougher but maybe I should have said that it is getting more pedantic and petty. Some referees also seem very narrow minded in some regards and some might even feel threatened by good work being presented within their own field of knowledge. New ideas or methods can get a hard time too even if presented with technical competance. I would say this &quot;new Einstein&quot; working in the Indonesian post office or wherever, will have  a pretty hard time of it unless they get the attention of some top person. I still feel a fair peer review system is necessary though otherwise the potential for self delusion in theoretical physics is vast, as is the potential to slide into crackpottery.

Incidently, the idea that &quot;a theory of everything&quot; will come along and &quot;end physics&quot; is a complete myth: the human imagination will always find something new to explore within physics and mathematics, some new aspect, consequence, interpretation or application.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I mentioned that I thought peer review was getting tougher but maybe I should have said that it is getting more pedantic and petty. Some referees also seem very narrow minded in some regards and some might even feel threatened by good work being presented within their own field of knowledge. New ideas or methods can get a hard time too even if presented with technical competance. I would say this &#8220;new Einstein&#8221; working in the Indonesian post office or wherever, will have  a pretty hard time of it unless they get the attention of some top person. I still feel a fair peer review system is necessary though otherwise the potential for self delusion in theoretical physics is vast, as is the potential to slide into crackpottery.</p>
<p>Incidently, the idea that &#8220;a theory of everything&#8221; will come along and &#8220;end physics&#8221; is a complete myth: the human imagination will always find something new to explore within physics and mathematics, some new aspect, consequence, interpretation or application.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dissident</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/comment-page-1/#comment-3550</link>
		<dc:creator>Dissident</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/#comment-3550</guid>
		<description>Greg, we may agree about the &quot;having fun&quot; part; the part about &quot;earning a living&quot; strikes me as rather more questionable, especially under the premise you put forth. Considering that most fundamental research is tax financed, you are essentially describing a tax fraud conspiracy with an active interest in suppressing real progress, as that would imply the risk of getting a real job. The horror!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Greg, we may agree about the &#8220;having fun&#8221; part; the part about &#8220;earning a living&#8221; strikes me as rather more questionable, especially under the premise you put forth. Considering that most fundamental research is tax financed, you are essentially describing a tax fraud conspiracy with an active interest in suppressing real progress, as that would imply the risk of getting a real job. The horror!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/comment-page-1/#comment-3549</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:50:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/#comment-3549</guid>
		<description>Dissident, do we really have a problem?

So many scientists are earning a living and having fun trying to advance our theories of the universe.  If someone comes along and publishes a (manifestly) correct theory of everything, then bang, game over.  Time for a career change.

Of course, if the correct theory of everything has useful practical applications, then we might be poorer for not knowing it right now... but I very much doubt that.

;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dissident, do we really have a problem?</p>
<p>So many scientists are earning a living and having fun trying to advance our theories of the universe.  If someone comes along and publishes a (manifestly) correct theory of everything, then bang, game over.  Time for a career change.</p>
<p>Of course, if the correct theory of everything has useful practical applications, then we might be poorer for not knowing it right now&#8230; but I very much doubt that.<br />
 <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dissident</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/comment-page-1/#comment-3548</link>
		<dc:creator>Dissident</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:14:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/#comment-3548</guid>
		<description>&quot;Risa and JoAnne are also nice people, even if they are of a different gender.&quot;

Ah yes, but this hypothetical Indonesian also happens to be a traditionalist Muslim with very strong views on the place of women, see. ;^) Let&#039;s throw in badly broken English and plentiful spellling errors for good measure. Imagine somebody like the early Srinivasa Ramanujan, just... more so; I have this notion that the next great towering figure in physics is likely to be from the &quot;third&quot; world, to use an obsolete and un-PC term (on purely statistical grounds if nothing else, but I also have cultural factors in mind) and that he (or she, though statistics favour it being a &quot;he&quot;) is most definitely likely to be an outsider, like his predecessors. Would somebody fitting this description really stand a reasonable chance of getting his work published in the current system? If not, and I&#039;m afraid the answer indeed is not, we have a problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Risa and JoAnne are also nice people, even if they are of a different gender.&#8221;</p>
<p>Ah yes, but this hypothetical Indonesian also happens to be a traditionalist Muslim with very strong views on the place of women, see. ;^) Let&#8217;s throw in badly broken English and plentiful spellling errors for good measure. Imagine somebody like the early Srinivasa Ramanujan, just&#8230; more so; I have this notion that the next great towering figure in physics is likely to be from the &#8220;third&#8221; world, to use an obsolete and un-PC term (on purely statistical grounds if nothing else, but I also have cultural factors in mind) and that he (or she, though statistics favour it being a &#8220;he&#8221;) is most definitely likely to be an outsider, like his predecessors. Would somebody fitting this description really stand a reasonable chance of getting his work published in the current system? If not, and I&#8217;m afraid the answer indeed is not, we have a problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jack</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/comment-page-1/#comment-3547</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:46:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/#comment-3547</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m surprised that nobody has commented on what seems to many people to be the catastrophic effect of the arxiv on refereeing standards. Many referees seem to think that since the arxiv has, at the very least, made paper journals less important --- and of course lots of people would say &quot;completely superfluous&quot; --- therefore they don&#039;t have to take their job seriously any more. Certainly I have recently come across many examples of refereeing that was not just slipshod but actually irresponsible. For example, a colleague had a paper on brane worlds rejected because the referee thought that that brane worlds was a nonsensical subject. That was the whole report: brane worlds are nonsense. This was a famous journal. The editors backed him up. I myself had a paper rejected because the referee thought that equation A followed from equation B --- it didn&#039;t, but nor had I claimed that it did. Again the editor backed up the referee even though the latter had demonstrably made a simple error. I know people who have given up submitting papers to journals --- the arxiv is good enough for them, and they are sick and tired of dealing with the ignorant twits who make up such a large proportion of the refereeing community.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m surprised that nobody has commented on what seems to many people to be the catastrophic effect of the arxiv on refereeing standards. Many referees seem to think that since the arxiv has, at the very least, made paper journals less important &#8212; and of course lots of people would say &#8220;completely superfluous&#8221; &#8212; therefore they don&#8217;t have to take their job seriously any more. Certainly I have recently come across many examples of refereeing that was not just slipshod but actually irresponsible. For example, a colleague had a paper on brane worlds rejected because the referee thought that that brane worlds was a nonsensical subject. That was the whole report: brane worlds are nonsense. This was a famous journal. The editors backed him up. I myself had a paper rejected because the referee thought that equation A followed from equation B &#8212; it didn&#8217;t, but nor had I claimed that it did. Again the editor backed up the referee even though the latter had demonstrably made a simple error. I know people who have given up submitting papers to journals &#8212; the arxiv is good enough for them, and they are sick and tired of dealing with the ignorant twits who make up such a large proportion of the refereeing community.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/comment-page-1/#comment-3546</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:47:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/#comment-3546</guid>
		<description>If there are any new Einsteins out there with a correct theory of everything all LaTeXed up, they should feel quite willing to ask me for an endorsement for the arxiv; I&#039;d be happy to bask in the reflected glory and earn a footnote in their triumphant autobiography.  More likely, however, they will just send their paper to Physical Review, where it will be accepted and published, and they will become famous without my help.

If, on the other hand, there is anyone out there who &lt;em&gt;thinks&lt;/em&gt; they are the next Einstein, but really they are just a crackpot, don&#039;t bother; I get things like that all the time.  Sadly, the real next-Einsteins only come along once per century, whereas the crackpots are far too common.

p.s.  Risa and JoAnne are also nice people, even if they are of a different gender.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If there are any new Einsteins out there with a correct theory of everything all LaTeXed up, they should feel quite willing to ask me for an endorsement for the arxiv; I&#8217;d be happy to bask in the reflected glory and earn a footnote in their triumphant autobiography.  More likely, however, they will just send their paper to Physical Review, where it will be accepted and published, and they will become famous without my help.</p>
<p>If, on the other hand, there is anyone out there who <em>thinks</em> they are the next Einstein, but really they are just a crackpot, don&#8217;t bother; I get things like that all the time.  Sadly, the real next-Einsteins only come along once per century, whereas the crackpots are far too common.</p>
<p>p.s.  Risa and JoAnne are also nice people, even if they are of a different gender.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dissident</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/comment-page-1/#comment-3545</link>
		<dc:creator>Dissident</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:21:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/#comment-3545</guid>
		<description>&quot;...he would have loved the innovation of arxiv.org&quot;

I wonder. Maybe the way it used to work in the past, but after the introduction of the current endorsement system,

http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement

would he even have been able to get his papers uploaded? Who would he have asked, and who would have agreed to endorse him? Approaching people he didn&#039;t know personally, he would have had to show them his work first - and run the obvious risk of it being stolen. It would have been the word of a professor against that of a total unknown.

Turn it around: suppose there is some new Einstein out there, right now, with the Ultime Unified Theory all LaTeX-ed up and ready to publish. Alas, he is not in academia; he works at the Indoesian Patent Office. What should he do?

Sean, suppose he came across this site and got the idea that you, or Mark, or Clifford seem like nice people whom he could ask for endorsement on the arxiv. So he takes a chance and sends you a mail asking for endorsement. What would you do?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;he would have loved the innovation of arxiv.org&#8221;</p>
<p>I wonder. Maybe the way it used to work in the past, but after the introduction of the current endorsement system,</p>
<p><a href="http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement</a></p>
<p>would he even have been able to get his papers uploaded? Who would he have asked, and who would have agreed to endorse him? Approaching people he didn&#8217;t know personally, he would have had to show them his work first &#8211; and run the obvious risk of it being stolen. It would have been the word of a professor against that of a total unknown.</p>
<p>Turn it around: suppose there is some new Einstein out there, right now, with the Ultime Unified Theory all LaTeX-ed up and ready to publish. Alas, he is not in academia; he works at the Indoesian Patent Office. What should he do?</p>
<p>Sean, suppose he came across this site and got the idea that you, or Mark, or Clifford seem like nice people whom he could ask for endorsement on the arxiv. So he takes a chance and sends you a mail asking for endorsement. What would you do?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/comment-page-1/#comment-3544</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:24:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/#comment-3544</guid>
		<description>Marty, true enough.  Especially now that you can&#039;t remove previous versions, only add updated ones.  Also, Einstein was notoriously uninterested in citing other people&#039;s work -- the Einstein-Rosen paper cited precisely zero other papers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marty, true enough.  Especially now that you can&#8217;t remove previous versions, only add updated ones.  Also, Einstein was notoriously uninterested in citing other people&#8217;s work &#8212; the Einstein-Rosen paper cited precisely zero other papers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marty</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/comment-page-1/#comment-3543</link>
		<dc:creator>Marty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:34:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/16/einstein-vs-physical-review/#comment-3543</guid>
		<description>&quot;...it&#039;s pretty clear that he would have loved the innovation of arxiv.org&quot;

He would have loved it while he was deep in umbrage at having his paper rejected. But then he wouldn&#039;t have had the chance to correct his reasoning before publication, and his error would have been common knowledge. It might have been a short-lived affair.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;it&#8217;s pretty clear that he would have loved the innovation of arxiv.org&#8221;</p>
<p>He would have loved it while he was deep in umbrage at having his paper rejected. But then he wouldn&#8217;t have had the chance to correct his reasoning before publication, and his error would have been common knowledge. It might have been a short-lived affair.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
