Timeline for Is it fair to desk-reject a manuscript because it breaks relativity?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 11 at 23:38 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Jan 9 at 21:20 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 150 characters in body
|
| Apr 10, 2023 at 12:40 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1662 characters in body
|
| Mar 22, 2023 at 17:44 | comment | added | Joshua | @Peter-ReinstateMonica: I find it to be less disturbing. My first hypothesis was in fact they really have the dark temperature energy per unit mass and just used the value that got spat out of orbital dynamics or something, not realizing they needed a relativistic version of the theory. But even if not, dark matter exceeding c is less problematic than visible matter. There is no proof in GR that such speeds are unattainable but rather such speeds are rejected because the consequences are considered bad. | |
| Mar 22, 2023 at 16:55 | comment | added | Questor | @Peter-ReinstateMonica I get what you are saying... But please remember that before the 1800s it was the scientific consensus that disease was caused by bad smells. Theories should be rejected/accepted based on their validity. It is unscientific to reject something just because it disagrees with the scientific community. | |
| Mar 21, 2023 at 17:14 | comment | added | Markoul11 | @supercat I agree. Failing to explain over the last 70 years unknown physics exclusively with known established physics and the limits they impose maybe is not the best way to go. We should create new physics matching our observations even if these are effective theories but accurately describe the results. If superluminocity accurately explains such results I see no reason to discard such theories and make it an open possibility. That is actually what Maxwell did. "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." | |
| Mar 21, 2023 at 16:19 | comment | added | supercat | ...all gravitational forces acting on an object, in a way which would be below measurement noise anywhere other than in the heart of a Supernova, but caused statistically significant deviations from what normal theories would predict in such contexts. Supernovae involve densities, temperatures, and energy levels so far beyond anything that occurs anywhere else that it shouldn't be at all astonishing if rules of physics that are accurate everywhere else fail to accurately to describe them. | |
| Mar 21, 2023 at 16:15 | comment | added | supercat | @Markoul11: If DM isn't really matter, the fact that its behavior is inconsistent with the laws related to matter wouldn't in any way contradict such laws. But there may very well be situations where the laws as presently understood don't hold. If someone e.g. analyzing spectra from supernovae were to derive a theory which fit the data better than any existing theories, but would be inconsistent with relativity, I wouldn't find it astonishing if particles are affected by some effect whose magnitude is e.g. a really tiny number times the sum of the squares of the magnitudes of... | |
| Mar 21, 2023 at 16:10 | comment | added | Markoul11 | @supercat Could be even worst by DM being just a gravitational side-effect of Dark Energy DE. | |
| Mar 21, 2023 at 15:35 | comment | added | supercat | @Markoul11: Indeed, I would find the notion that laws of physics as presently understood would perfectly match the behavior of everything, including things that are not understood, less plausible than the idea that there would be some deviations. The likelihood of stumbling upon a deviation would be rather remote, but it would hardly be implausible that some parameter might be a physical constant for all forms of matter for which it has been measured, but different for some other form of matter which has not been measured, especially if such difference would make measurement difficult. | |
| Mar 21, 2023 at 13:47 | vote | accept | Allure | ||
| Mar 21, 2023 at 7:31 | comment | added | Markoul11 | @user253751 About v>c for DM should be made the central theme of this paper example mentioned and not rather a "footnote" I would agree if it was not established today that what is already unambiguous clear that DM is new physics. As such I find no reason why DM must obey SR since all our attempts to detect it using SR have failed and see no any reason to make a connection of SR with DM. Also, v>c does not necessarily refer always to translational speed but could be in-place vibration speed. | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 23:29 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Mar 20, 2023 at 23:16 | comment | added | Ben | Just to be clear, the question here isn't whether or not to desk reject, but whether it is okay to desk reject after reading just one sentence. My answer to this is no, but of course, desk rejection after a proper desk review is perfectly reasonable. | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 23:14 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 13 characters in body
|
| Mar 20, 2023 at 21:29 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 847 characters in body
|
| Mar 20, 2023 at 20:30 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @user253751 I'm not saying that the last word has been spoken on this or any other matter. That would be foolish, and feels systemically wrong. But because c is so foundational, any violation of it would be ground-breaking and revolutionary and would undergo a great deal of scrutiny, formal and informal peer review, corroboration attempts and discussion. It would not be presented as a detail in a different treatise. | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 17:49 | comment | added | N A McMahon | It would be even worst if one of your reviewers is sloppy/also a bit of a crackpot/inexperience and uncertain about rejecting/believe all research should be published and the community will work it out. The crackpot will focus on the bad review that says yes or is inconclusive and say that they this reviewer is the only one who understood their work. But an editor can just have a file for how to deal with these cases, while the entire community will not do that. (3/3) | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 17:49 | comment | added | N A McMahon | If you desk reject saying this appears to violate solid research and you didn’t consider that either they will be serious and add an analysis, or they are a crackpot and will say you’re a closed shop. The issue here is only when dealing with crackpots, and 3 people not bothering to pay it attention due to lack of skill/experience will probably make peer review appear to be a closed shop quicker than a desk reject would. (2/3) | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 17:49 | comment | added | N A McMahon | I would disagree with the premise that we should send implausible results out for review just because we are worried that it will make it appear like peer review is a closed shop. If you can find one of these major problems (e.g. special relativity is wrong, we can violate the second law of thermodynamics, there is no such thing as evolution, the earth is flat) and the author doesn't seriously consider this as an issue, peer review will probably be just 3 reviews saying the same thing you would. (1/3) | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 17:31 | comment | added | aaaaa says reinstate Monica | i took liberty to move part of the final conclusion (** part) on top in order to give OP some actionable advice | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 17:30 | history | edited | aaaaa says reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
moved final conclusion on top
|
| Mar 20, 2023 at 12:21 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | I agree in general but wonder whether the specific example -- a paper on dark matter which results in v > c -- may warrant the desk rejection. The speed of light and the restricted flow of information following from it is not arbitrary or a coincidence but a fundamental constituent and condition of our reality. A paper claiming v > c would have the revolutionary breaking of relativity front and center, with a careful discussion. Dark matter would be a footnote. If, by contrast, the paper arrives at v > c as a side effect and does not make that the center, the main argument is wrong. | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 10:34 | comment | added | Jon Custer | The last paragraph is very important. If there is no acknowledgment and discussion of the non-mainstream aspects I would be very worried. | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 10:02 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 807 characters in body
|
| Mar 20, 2023 at 9:50 | history | answered | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |