The Suppression of Dr. Rowlands'
Quantum Physics Paper
Summary:
On December 8th, 2004, I sent
a paper to the quant-phys section of the archive, having posted
9 previous papers to arXiv.org, in the phys, quant-phys, and
computer science sections. I wasn't told that the paper
had been blocked. I only found out by accident when I tried
to access it a week later.
The managers of the site told
me that the paper was deemed 'inappropriate' and 'of no interest'
to users. I demanded an explanation from arXiv 'Moderation'.
I have had no response and am still waiting. I tried
again a week ago. They say only that the issue will be
dealt with - no proper reply.
I find the whole thing baffling,
as the paper was a purely mathematical approach to issues in
quantum physics. There was nothing 'New Age' or weird about
it. Some of the material has already appeared in refereed
publications. It didn't violate any known physical laws
or principles.
However, it was novel and original
in its approach, which, of course, is the whole reason for doing
research in the first place.
The arXiv is not a journal with specific stated policies for
inclusion. It claims to represent the whole of physics,
and it does not say anywhere that it will refuse to publish papers
that fall outside the narrow interests of its moderators. This
covert censorship is even more insidious in the light of arXiv's
pretended policy of being open.
Peter Rowlands
University of Liverpool
Liverpool, UK
January 20, 2005
1.
Peter Rowlands uploads his paper
"A defragmented Dirac equation" to ArXiv.org. He
receives the following normal automated responses from arXiv.
8 December 2004 from arXiv
Your user/password combination for this
paper is
User-ID: quant-ph/0412066
Password: a4526
You will need this ID/password pair to
do any of the following:
- to check the paper before it is announced
- to cross-list the paper
- to add publication information
- to replace the paper with a revised version
Keep this password safe -- all future
replacements will require it.
Paper: quant-ph/0412066
From: Peter Rowlands <p.rowlands@liv.ac.uk>
Title: A defragmented Dirac equation
Authors: Peter Rowlands
Comments: 40 pages
*** SAVE THIS MESSAGE FOR FUTURE REFERENCE ***
(and forward to any collaborators for safekeeping)
8 December 2004 from arXiv
To verify abstract and pdf, use http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412066
PaperId: quant-ph/0412066, PaperPassword: a4526 (access still
password restricted)
Abstract will appear in mailing scheduled to begin at 20:00 Wednesday
US Eastern time (i.e., Thu 9 Dec 04 01:00:00 GMT).
Your title and abstract will appear in
the next mailing exactly as below.
(Except possibly for the NUMBER which IS NOT OFFICIAL until the
next mailing
of abstracts [20:00 US Eastern time (EDT/EST) Sun - Thu] -- it
cannot be used
to cross-list to other archives [e.g., from cs to math or physics]
until after
that time.) To correct any problems, you MUST replace NOW.
Replacements on the same day (until the 16:00 US Eastern time
deadline Mon-Fri)
do not generate a revised date line, so do not hesitate to replace
submission
until everything is perfect (including removal of any extraneous
files).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract intended for posting:
Paper: quant-ph/0412066
From: Peter Rowlands <p.rowlands@liv.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:33:34 GMT (384kb)
Title: A defragmented Dirac equation
Authors: Peter Rowlands
Comments: 40 pages
\\
It is possible to reconstruct a 'defragmented' Dirac equation
in such a way
as to generate automatic second quantization, supersymmetry without
extra
particles, finite energy of the free state without renormalization,
propagators
without an infrared divergence, string theory without strings,
explicit state
vectors for fermions, bosons and baryons, symmetry breaking between
the weak,
strong and electric interactions, quark confinement and automatic
baryonic
mass. Even the Dirac equation itself becomes unnecessary
as the entire
information required to determine phase and amplitude becomes
compactified
within a single expression for the Dirac state.
\\
Contains:
proton.pdf: 392824 bytes (looks big)
Stored as: 0412066.pdf (384kb)
Warnings:
Author 1: Peter Rowlands
2.
Dr. Rowlands discovers that his paper did not post as expected
and that his assigned paper number was given to another author.
Concerned that something went wrong with the procedure,
he writes to arXiv.org.
|
15 December 2004
Dear arXiv admin:
I submitted a paper to quant-ph on 8
December, which was accepted. The title was 'A defragmented
Dirac equation'. The file was named proton.pdf. I
received the following reply:
<< To verify abstract and pdf,
use http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412066
<< PaperId: quant-ph/0412066, PaperPassword: a4526
<< (access still password restricted)
<< Abstract will appear in mailing scheduled to begin at
20:00 Wednesday
<< US Eastern time (i.e., Thu 9 Dec 04 01:00:00 GMT).
<< Your title and abstract will
appear in the next mailing exactly as below.
<< (Except possibly for the NUMBER which IS NOT OFFICIAL
until the next
<< mailing of abstracts [20:00 US Eastern time (EDT/EST)
Sun - Thu] -- it
<< cannot be used to cross-list to other archives [e.g.,
from cs to math or
<< physics] until after that time.)
The paper in arXiv under this number
is a different one. I am unable to find the paper I submitted.
Peter Rowlands
|
3.
He is notified that his paper was determined to be "inappropriate."
15 December 2004
Dear Peter,
Your submission has been removed upon
a notice from our moderators,
who determined it inappropriate for the quant-ph archive. We
apologize that you were not notified sooner.
Do NOT under any circumstances resubmit
to the original arXiv before
first explaining the reason to moderation@arxiv.org AND receiving
a positive response.
Please direct all questions and concerns
regarding moderation to the
moderation@arXiv.org address.
4.
He is shocked by their response.
|
15 December 2004
To: arXiv admin
Dear arXiv admin.
I do not understand your reply. I
am a registered user with several previous submissions. I
am not aware that I have to seek any endorsement. What
does it mean 'inappropriate' mean? Quality? Wrong
subject area?
Peter Rowlands
|
15 December 2004
"Inappropriate" in this sense
means that the moderators of the particular subject area thought
that the article would not be of interest to readers of that
subject.
5.
Rowlands writes back demanding an explanation:
|
16 December 2004
To: arXiv admin
Dear arXiv-moderation,
As a registered submitter to quant-ph,
I wonder whether you would do me the courtesy of explaining to
me why you removed my paper 'A defragmented Dirac equation' (8
December) from quant-ph without having the courtesy to inform
me at the time. While there may be a vetting procedure
for new submitters, there is nothing on the arXiv site to say
that the papers submitted by registered users will be subjected
to such arbitrary and seemingly surreptitious censorship. If
this is the policy of arXiv, then one would expect an open declaration
of it, not an attempt to present the site as a relatively open
coverage of the full range of interests of physicists as a whole.
If arXiv has become just another 'journal',
with a restricted range of interests, then one would expect policy
statements from the different areas regarding submissions, and
a proper refereeing process to take place over a period of time,
not a covert blocking of papers which a single individual or
a few individuals (however eminent) deem, on a relatively brief
examination, to be 'inappropriate' or 'not of interest'.
As a registered user of the site, I am
unable to see how a mathematical paper on quantum physics could
be 'inappropriate' to a quantum physics site and 'of no interest'
to its users. Also, while the paper in question may have
been innovative in some of its ideas (as any good paper should
be), it was certainly not in contradiction with any currently-accepted
physics, and some of the material has already appeared in refereed
journals. My own experience is that papers of this kind,
using relatively unfamiliar mathematical techniques, require
considerable study (and sometimes discussion with the author)
before their full meaning becomes apparent. However, interest
generated by presenting such material at conferences or seminars
is always very high.
Without a proper explanation of the procedures
for dealing with individual submissions, and a more open explanation
of the current policy of the site, it will be impossible for
users to know whether a future submission will meet with this
response. As a registered user of the site, I feel I am
owed a genuine explanation of your actions, which goes beyond
the 'we deemed it inappropriate' or 'not of interest' variety.
Yours sincerely
Peter Rowlands
|
Their automated response:
16 December 2004
Your moderation query has been received
and will be given due consideration.
Pending moderation queries are reviewed weekly.
Further action is neither necessary nor helpful to speed up the
process.
(In particular, e-mail to any other addresses about moderation
issues
will be left unattended.)
Responses are unavoidably slow during
this period (winter 2004) due to
an ongoing reevaluation of moderation policies.
Thank you for your patience.
6.
Three weeks pass and he receives no reply from arXiv admin:
|
6 January 2005
Dear arXiv-moderation,
I put in a query on 16 December, concerning
a submission of 8 December, to which I received the automatic
acknowledgement with promise of a reply, but no actual reply
as yet. Could you give me some indication of how long it
will be before I can expect such a reply?
Yours sincerely
Peter Rowlands
|
Their automatic response:
6 January
Your moderation query has been received
and will be given due consideration.
Pending moderation queries are reviewed weekly.
Further action is neither necessary nor helpful to speed up the
process.
(In particular, e-mail to any other addresses about moderation
issues
will be left unattended.)
Responses are unavoidably slow during
this period (winter 2004) due to
an ongoing reevaluation of moderation policies.
Thank you for your patience.
|
To this date, January
25, 2005, Dr. Rowlands has received no reply from arXiv.org explaining
their censorship of his paper. |
|