9

I don't know maybe this question seems off topic but anybody get the chance to look at vixra.org archive?

It seems it is blown up by some manuscripts from a guy, which is called "George Rajna", and more interestingly all of them are about some ridiculously (excuse me I didn't find another appropriate word!) hot topics in quantum physics or general relativity. Sometimes in my spare time I just look for crazy things for fun in internet that seems really funny to me. I can't believe "George Rajna" is a real guy (I mean someone really exists with his name or identity!) but it seems it's a just article posting robot, which blow up vixra.org?!

Again, I know maybe it sounds completely off topic but I appreciate if someone has any idea about people post their article (If you could call it a real article, which I'm not sure really?!!!) in vixra.org? People do it just for fun or really they have some serious intention?!

  • 3
    I do not have any real info about this, but it seems to me very much on-topic, since we certainly have concerns about publication... whether "peer-reviewed" [sic] or less... and denial-of-service attacks, or denial-of-credibility attacks, are genuine problems. – paul garrett Aug 29 '18 at 22:29
  • 2
    I have no idea who it is supposed to be, but I went into two of his vixra submissions, and googled random paragraphs. 100% of the ones I've tried are copied verbatim from different science news outlets. Go figure. More likely to be a news aggregating bot than a real person IMO. – Anyon Aug 29 '18 at 23:22
  • 7
    Currently there are 2940 submissions by George Rajna, and on average during the last week or so there have been 2 to 3 papers are submitted per day. The few I clicked on and glanced at do not even try to pretend to be research papers, so I agree with @Anyon's guess. – Dave L Renfro Aug 29 '18 at 23:34
  • 1
    @DaveLRenfro It sounds like the question should be "What is George Ranja?" rather than "Who". – Thomas Aug 30 '18 at 0:18
  • 4
    Also how is George Rajna, and when, and why? – user9646 Aug 30 '18 at 16:21
6

I don't think this is a bot. It looks more like a (somewhat misguided) real human, who may or may not be operating under a pseudonym. Based on what I think is their LinkedIn profile they seem to be a reasonably well-educated person with extensive experience working for IBM (or so they claim), so not your average crank. That said, their contributions to vixra seem fairly cranky to me, especially since said contributions mostly consist of extensive compilations of existing material, without a lot in terms of attribution.

Note that there is also a website apparently written by a "Rich Norman" praising George as "a mouthpiece of the possible". Rich Norman claims to be an "artist" of some sort, who has also written some books published by "Standing Dead Publications" (owned by Rich Norman). The over-the-top praise, strangely flowery language, and the unstructured list of what appears to be pretty much the entirety of Georges work makes me think that there is a connection of some sort between George and Rich. Maybe they are the same person, but it may also be a case of a fringe artist being intellectually attracted to a fringe scientist.

  • It's quite interesting itself that someone without any scientific background praises "George Rajna" because of his brilliant contributions to the physics community but he (Rich Norman) is not quite sure that George Rajna's works are correct or not?! It sounds contradictory to me! Rich Norman: "Are these ideas true? I do not know. However, I have studied them, and I am entirely sure they are sensible, possible, and brilliant." – user97402 Aug 30 '18 at 14:40
  • @MehrdadYousefi I don't see this as "contradictory". Ideas can definitely be beautiful and inspiring, even if I can't check the depths of their truth. A person who is not physicist maybe can't check any specific result in experimental physics, but they may still find the ideas fascinating. – xLeitix Aug 30 '18 at 14:45
  • @MehrdadYousefi That said, the "Rich Norman" persona also appears to have gone off the deep end a little, so I am not claiming that this is a line of reasoning that an average person would take. – xLeitix Aug 30 '18 at 14:47
  • I agree to some extent. It's like someone see the "Interstellar" movie, which shows some "fascinating" ideas about black holes, but he/she may not be quite sure about validity of concept. – user97402 Aug 30 '18 at 14:50
2

I wonder if there is some connection with this guy ...

George Rajna, a Hungarian-Israeli physicist, computer scientist, and Chess International Master, in 1987 among the Top 100 Players of the World .

Or this guy

George Rajna, Co-founder of WeSaidGoTravel.com, M.B.A., Masters of Science in Communications Disorders, is a bilingual speech therapist who has traveled to over one hundred countries across six continents.

1

Considering other answers, there could very well be a possibility that these profiles are created to mock Vixra.org. viXra was created as an alternative to arXiv.

I feel that these profiles may be created to ridicule viXra, because it tries to provide a platform for anyone (even someone completely misguided) to publish in their journal. Their policy is of least censorship, and someone may want to ridicule them by filling their repositories by such articles.

I would like to elaborate over here:

I had a bad experience once when submitting an article to arXiv.org. I had submitted an article without any affiliation and before getting into a Ph.D program, with me being the only author.

I can understand that they receive a lot of "not even wrong" articles but sometimes they are too stringent with their rules, that they prefer to ignore some potential articles. The rules are so stringent on arXiv that a person without affiliation and a popular name cannot publish. I had to gain support from someone in the field to get my paper on arXiv. Also, even after applying for quant-ph it was put into gen-ph category.

I thought that I may be the only person who faced such a problem, but recently I found that a well known name like Nicolas Gisin also experienced a similar thing happen to his PhD students. You may want to read the story here link

  • 1
    The story that you linked about Nicolas Gisin's students is not convincing in my opinion due to Nicolas Gisin's himself: "I am not an expert in this field and, frankly, have the feeling I never truly understood general relativity. I believe the paper is wrong, but I appreciated my students’ eagerness to transgress barriers established between different subfields of physics." A wrong well written paper does not have to be on preprint servers and it's even more dangerous cause may some people think it is really scientifically correct and may build their research plan on a wrong basis. – Alone Programmer Dec 10 '18 at 15:22
  • BTW the linked story is written in a language which I don't think a well established professor use this language to describe a problem such as: "During my carrier I posted more than 300 preprints on the arXiv, all in quant-ph. Actually, I might possibly be the most prolific contributor to the quant-ph section. You may consider this as positive or negative, but for sure I feel that the arXiv belongs also a little bit to me. Note that almost all my papers ended up in respectable scientific journals. I am a kind of respectable physicist." So what?! – Alone Programmer Dec 10 '18 at 15:26
  • @Alone Programmer But isn't peer review built for that, to judge if they are deemed fit to be taken seriously. Why are we so afraid of ideas? According to the scientific process they will eventually be ruled out. I have always been a supporter of a comment and discussion section in these journals, I know there could be some technical difficulties but there needs to be some way to make scientific progress efficient. – Chetan Waghela Dec 17 '18 at 9:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy