CURRENT STATUS OF MANUSCRIPT: With editors Copyright/Right to Publish receivedCORRESPONDENCE: SENT RECEIVED DESCRIPTION 16Apr12 23May12 Review request to referee; report received 16May12 Correspondence (misc.) sent to author 16May12 Communication (misc.) received from author 16Apr12 02May12 Review request to referee; report received 31Apr12 01May12 Reminder to referee; response received 31Apr12 Reminder to referee [others at 1-2 week intervals] 16Apr12 Correspondence (miscellaneous) sent to author 16Apr12 Right to publish signature received 16Apr12 Correspondence (miscellaneous) sent to author 04Apr12 Acknowledgment sent to author 04Apr12 Correspondence (miscellaneous) sent to author
Monday, 28 May 2012
Pull. Your. FInger. Out.
Tuesday, 15 May 2012
PRL shoots itself in the foot. Or the head?
So, feast your eyes on this beauty:
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i19/e193901
(or you can get it here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0096 )
So, the Lorentz force and special relativity are incompatible. Warning signs follow:
1) The paper is written in non-relativistic notation
2) The chap only cites 1) textbooks, 2) himself and 3) Einstein.
Apparently this did not give the editor of PRL pause for thought. Here's a comment:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.1502'
and here is a reponse from McDonald, who I would trust as a bit of an expert on this stuff.
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mansuripur.pdf
His conclusion (tastefully reserved for a footnote, I might add) is that Mansuripur dropped the ball.
I am going to watch how this one develops with glee. Either way, the outcome will be fantastic. Either
1) some random self-citing chap from an optics department fells Einstein
or
2) some random self-citing chap from an optics department provides delicious proof that PRL editors are right tits while simultaneously proving himself to be a right tit.
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i19/e193901
(or you can get it here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0096 )
So, the Lorentz force and special relativity are incompatible. Warning signs follow:
1) The paper is written in non-relativistic notation
2) The chap only cites 1) textbooks, 2) himself and 3) Einstein.
Apparently this did not give the editor of PRL pause for thought. Here's a comment:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.1502'
and here is a reponse from McDonald, who I would trust as a bit of an expert on this stuff.
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mansuripur.pdf
His conclusion (tastefully reserved for a footnote, I might add) is that Mansuripur dropped the ball.
I am going to watch how this one develops with glee. Either way, the outcome will be fantastic. Either
1) some random self-citing chap from an optics department fells Einstein
or
2) some random self-citing chap from an optics department provides delicious proof that PRL editors are right tits while simultaneously proving himself to be a right tit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)