1) |
1985 - 2007 Background of this
Preprint Censorship by Arxiv.org:
Dr. LaViolette first published his subquantum kinetics
theory in 1985 as a set of three papers which appeared in a special
issue of the International Journal of General Systems
that was dedicated to the exposition of the theory and its application
of systems concepts to physics. This was a landmark publication,
being the first time that concept that previously had been developed
to describe an open, chemical reaction system were being applied
to describe microphysical phenomena, i.e., to model subatomic
particles and waves. In particular, it proposed the existence
of a reaction-diffusion ether consisting of multiple etheric
states, three of which were variable, and characterized by a
sequence of ether reaction steps that resembled those characterizing
the well known Brusselator reaction system. One key aspect
of the theory was that it modeled subatomic particles as Turing
patterns. Turing patterns, named after Alan
Turing -- the man who first proposed their existence, are
reactant concentration patterns that form in certain nonlinear,
open reaction-diffusion media that function far-from-thermodynamic
equilibrium. The Brusselator-like reaction system proposed
by subquantum kinetics was of this type. As a result, it
predicted that the electric field at the core of a subatomic
particle should form a periodic dissipative structure. This
Turing pattern was characterized as having a Gaussian core potential
surrounded by a stationary wave pattern, a radial periodicity
that had a wavelength equal to the particle's Compton wavelength.
This theory, then, predicted
an electric charge distribution in the core of a nucleon that
was very different from that which physics assumed at that time.
That is, physicists commonly thought that the electric
field at the center of the nucleon was cusp shaped, i.e., sharply
rising to a peak and having no surrounding periodicity. However,
in 2002 a paper was published which reported the results of nucleon
scattering experiments which demonstrated that the nucleon field
was just as subquantum kinetics had predicted, Gaussian at its
core and surrounded by a radial Compton wave periodicity. To
call attention to this confirmation of a key prediction of his
theory, Dr. LaViolette wrote a paper entitled "The electric
charge and magnetization distribution of the nucleon: Evidence
of a subatomic Turing wave pattern" and on April 13, 2007
submitted it to the International Journal of General Systems.
The journal accepted this paper on November 29, 2007. The
paper's abstract is reproduced below.
Abstract. Subquantum
kinetics, a physics methodology that applies general systems
theoretic concepts to the field of microphysics has gained the
status of being a viable unified field theory. Earlier publications
of this theory had proposed that a subatomic particle should
consist of an electrostatic field that has the form of a radial
Turing wave pattern whose form is maintained through the ongoing
activity of a nonlinear reaction-diffusion medium that fills
all space. This subatomic Turing wave prediction now finds confirmation
in recent nucleon scattering form factor data which show that
the nucleon core has a Gaussian charge density distribution with
a peripheral periodicity whose wavelength approximates the particle's
Compton wavelength and which declines in amplitude with increasing
radial distance. The subquantum kinetics explanation for the
origin of charge correctly anticipates the observation that the
proton's charge density wave pattern is positively biased while
the neutron's is not. The phenomenon of beta decay is interpreted
as the onset of a secondary bifurcation leading from the uncharged
neutron solution to the charged proton solution. The Turing wave
dissipative structure prediction is able to account in a unitary
fashion for nuclear binding, particle diffraction, and electron
orbital quantization. The wave packet model is shown to be fundamentally
flawed implying that quantum mechanics does not realistically
represent the microphysical world. This new conception points
to the possible existence of orbital energy states below the
Balmer ground state whose transitions may be tapped as a new
source of energy.
|
2) |
Dr. LaViolette seeks endorsement to
post his paper to the nonlinear sciences (pattern formation and
solitons) category.
Dr. LaViolette wished
to post his paper to the physics internet archive (arxiv.org),
his paper having recently been accepted for publication. So,
in February, 2007 he began seeking endorsement for his paper
from a person named by arxiv.org to be a certified sponsor for
the nonlinear science category. On May 8th, he asked one
such person, Dr. Yaroslav Kartashov of Estonia, to consider the
paper for posting. Dr. Kartashov read through the paper
and agreed to endorse it for posting.
From: plaviolette@starburstfound.org
To: Yaroslav.Kartashov@icfo.es
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:58 PM
Subject: endorsement sought for arxiv.org uploading
Dear Dr. Kartashov
I understand that you are able to endorse papers for submission
to arxiv.org in the nonlinear science section. I would like to
ask whether you could endorse my paper entitled "The Electric
Charge and Magnetization Distribution of the Nucleon: Evidence
of a Subatomic Turing Wave Pattern". The paper has already
been accepted for publication in a well known systems journal
and is due to be published shortly. Please let me know if you
have time to look at it and I will email you a copy. An abstract
of the paper is given below.
Sincerely,
Paul LaViolette
Subj: Re: endorsement sought for arxiv.org uploading
Date: Thursday, May 8, 2008 5:06:57 PM
From: Yaroslav.Kartashov@icfo.es
To: plaviolette@starburstfound.org
Dear Dr. LaViolette,
Sure, I can take a look on your paper.
Sincerely,
Yaroslav V. Kartashov
Subj: You now can submit to nlin.PS
Date: Thursday, May 8, 2008 7:13:38 PM
From: www-admin@arxiv.org
To: plaviolette@starburstfound.org
You've just been endorsed to submit papers to the arXiv subject
class
nlin.PS (Pattern Formation and Solitons). Visit http://arxiv.org/submit/
to submit papers.
Endorsement is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to
have papers accepted
in arXiv; arXiv reserves the right to reject or reclassify any
submission...
Subj: Re: endorsement sought for arxiv.org uploading
Date: Thursday, May 8, 2008 7:14:16 PM
From: Yaroslav.Kartashov@icfo.es
To: plaviolette@starburstfound.org
done
|
3) |
May, 8, 2008, an attempt is made to submit the paper to arxiv.org:
On Thursday evening,
May 8, 2008 Dr. LaViolette attempted to upload his paper to the
nonlinear sciences section of the Cornell archive preprint server.
He had carefully followed the instructions for uploading
and had received an automated response giving him a paper ID
of 0805.1216 and password se838. The auto responder said
that his submitted paper and abstract would appear in the next
mailing, i.e. would be posted later that evening:
Subj: RE: hput nucleonpaper.pdf -> 0805.1216.pdf (0805.1216,
253kb)
Date: Thursday, May 8, 2008 9:28:55 PM
From: no-reply@arXiv.org
To: plaviolette@starburstfound.org
To verify abstract and pdf, use http://arXiv.org/abs/0805.1216
Article-id: 0805.1216, Article password: se838 (access still
password restricted)
Abstract will appear in mailing scheduled to begin at 20:00 Thursday
US Eastern time (i.e., Fri 9 May 08 00:00:00 GMT).
Your title and abstract will appear in the next mailing exactly
as below
|
4) |
May 8, 2008, LaViolette's paper is judged inappropriate
and is removed from the archive posting:
Two hours after uploading
his paper LaViolette receives a second reply from the archive
stating that his paper was removed upon notice from the archive
moderators who determined it to be "inappropriate"
for the archive. This seemed strange to him considering that
his paper had been accepted for publication. The archive
had allowed other scientists to post papers on Turing patterns
and Brusselator-like models. So why should he be prevented
from posting? The reply he received is reproduced below;
Subj: 0805.1216 removed
Date: Thursday, May 8, 2008 11:45:49 PM
From: www-admin@arxiv.org
To: plaviolette@starburstfound.org
Your submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators,
who
determined it inappropriate for arXiv. Please send to a conventional
journal instead for the requisite feedback.
If you disagree with this determination, please do not resubmit
the
submission to any archive until you first explain the reason
to
moderation@arxiv.org and receive a positive response.
Please direct all questions and concerns regarding moderation
to the
moderation@arxiv.org address. More information about our moderation
policies can be found at:
http://arxiv.org/help/moderation
--
arXiv admin
|
5) |
May 9, 2008, LaViolette demands an explanation of why the
archive moderators did not allow his paper to be posted:
Confused about what happened,
LaViolette sends an email to the archive moderator asking for
an explanation as to why they removed his paper. He points out
that it had already been accepted for publication in a reputable
systems science journal:
Subj: question about paper 0805.1216
Date: Friday, May 9, 2008 9:56:10 AM
From: Starburstfound
To: moderation@arxiv.org
Dear arXiv-moderation,
Could you please explain your reasons for removing paper No.
0805.1216 from being posted on the archive. Its subject deals
both with physics (the electric charge distribution within the
nucleon) and with nonlinear reaction-diffusion systems (Turing
patterns). The areas it addresses seem quite appropriate for
the archive.
The paper has been accepted by the International Journal of General
Systems, a reputable professional journal and one of the oldest
journals in the systems theory field. The paper is due to be
published shortly. Yet your email said "Please send to a
conventional journal instead for the requisite feedback."
Systems scientists generally consider IJGS to be a conventional
journal in the systems field. If it is appropriate for publication
in IJGS, why is it not appropriate for posting on arxiv.org?
Perhaps the person who made the decision to remove the paper
should respond to this email.
Paul LaViolette
|
6) |
May 28, 2008, the moderator finally
responds:
Almost three weeks later
he receives a response from the archive. Ignoring his previous
statement that the paper has already been accepted for publication,
they unbelievably ask that he instead submit it to a conventional
journal. Here they imply that the International Journal
of General Systems (IJGS) is not a conventional journal. The
irrelevance of the response could suggest that it was computer
generated. That is, it may have been an automated response
sent out only to appellants whose names appear on arxiv's black
list.
Subj: Re: (moderation) question about paper 0805.1216
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 9:46:33 PM
From: moderation@arxiv.org
To: plaviolette@starburstfound.org
Dear Paul LaViolette,
The moderators determined that your submission was in need
of
significant review and revision before it would be considered
publishable by a conventional journal in the field to which you
have
submitted.
Please submit to a conventional journal in the appropriate
field to
receive the requisite feedback, or contact a local expert in
the field.
For more information about our moderation policies, please see:
http://arxiv.org/help/moderation
--
arXiv moderation
|
7) |
May 29, 2008, LaViolette requests
a better explanation:
LaViolette challenges
the moderator and requests a more meaningful explanation. He
again points out that his paper was accepted by one of the oldest
and most prestigious journals in the systems field. He
includes a copy of his letter of acceptance.
Subj: Re: (moderation) question about paper 0805.1216
Date: Thursday, May 29, 2008 8:46:27 AM
From: Starburstfound
To: moderation@arxiv.org
Dear arXiv-moderation,
I would like a descent reply to my question, not a computer
generated one. Obviously from my email you understand that my
paper has already been accepted by a reputable journal, one of
the oldest and most prestigious journals in its field. Below
I have copied the letter of acceptance.
So your reply that I submit to a conventional journal for paper
review does not make sense. It has already been reviewed by three
referees. I was told that most had expertise in physics.
Paul LaViolette
------------------------
Subj: Re: IJGS Paper #1518
Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:53:12 PM
From: gensyst@binghamton.edu
To: Gravitics1@aol.com
I am very happy to inform you that your paper, "The
Electric Charge and Magnetization Distribution of
the Nucleon: Evidence of a Subatomic Turing Wave
Pattern," has been fully accepted for publication in
the International Journal of General Systems.
Upon receipt of the disk containing the items listed
below, your paper will be sent to the publisher for
production.
- Final version in MS Word format
- Final version in PDF format
- Your brief biography
- Your photograph
- Copyright Release Form
You can send the disk directly to me at:
Ms. Ellen Tilden
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department
Binghamton University
PO Box 6000
Binghamton, New York 13902-6000
|
8) |
May 30, 2008: The arxiv moderator argues
the inappropriateness of both the journal and of LaViolette's
paper.
The arxiv moderator responds
the next day saying that the arxiv does not have a systems theory
category for paper posting and neither do they consider LaViolette's
paper suitable for the physics category. The moderator
then advises that even though the paper was already accepted
for publication in IJGS that LaViolette cancel its publication
and instead submit the paper to a conventional physics journal:
Subj: Re: (moderation) Re: (moderation) question about paper
0805.1216
Date: Friday, May 30, 2008 5:28:10 PM
From: moderation@arxiv.org
To: plaviolette@starburstfound.org
Dear Paul LaViolette,
arXiv does not contain a subject classification for Systems
Theory, and
the moderators maintain that your submission is not appropriate
for our
Physics subject classifications. If you believe that this work
would be
of interest to physicists, you must obtain feedback from reviewers
of a
conventional physics journal or from a local expert in the field.
(Please note that arXiv moderators are not referees and cannot
provide
substantive feedback on submissions.)
--
arXiv moderation
|
9) |
June 6, 2008: LaViolette continues
his rebuttal:
LaViolette rebuts the
moderator's claim that the subject of his paper is inappropriate
for the nonlinear systems category. He points out that
the International Journal of General Systems publishes
on topics identical to those normally discussed in the nonlinear
systems arxiv category. He also shows that words such as
"Brusselator," "Turing," or "reaction
system," which appear frequently in his paper, also occur
commonly in papers posted in the nonlinear sciences category.
He writes:
Subj: Re: (moderation) Re: (moderation) question about paper
0805.1216
Date: Friday, June 6, 2008 8:26:03 PM
From: Starburstfound
To: moderation@arxiv.org
Dear arXiv-moderation,
The journal publishes topics that relate to the topics posted
in your nonlinear sciences section. To give a clearer idea what
the journal is about, here is a quote from their website:
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/03081079.asp
"The term "general system" in the name of the
journal is intended to indicate this aim - the orientation to
systems ideas that have a general applicability. Some typical
subject areas covered by the journal include: systems modeling,
simulation and design; systems complexity and simplification
methods; crossdisciplinary problem solving; and theoretical as
well as experimental knowledge regarding various categories of
systems, such as hierarchical, cellular, adaptive, self-organizing,
learning, autopoietic, self-producing, intelligent, etc. The
journal also contains a special area section on Intelligent Systems
Design."
The above topics are normally discussed in the nonlinear sciences
category. In your search engine for that category I put the word
"Brusselator" and got 16 hits, "Turing" and
got 55 hits, "reaction system" and got 7 hits. These
are keywords that relate to topics in my paper. So I think the
paper's subject is quite appropriate to this category. Moreover
the paper was felt appropriate by its sponsor. So by all reasonable
consideration, it should be allowed to be posted.
Paul LaViolette
|
10) |
June 20, 2008: The moderators
change the reason for their objection:
The arxiv moderators
respond two weeks later, claiming that LaViolette's paper in
its current state is not appropriate for the arXiv because it
challenges fundamental theories of physics. Here they apparently
refer to the claim made at the end of the paper's abstract stating
that the paper shows the wave packet model to be fundamentally
flawed which implies that quantum mechanics does not realistically
represent the microphysical world. They then state that
the paper should pass review by physicists before it be allowed
to be posted in the archive.
Subj: Re: (moderation) Re: (moderation) Re: (moderation) question
about paper 0805.1216
Date: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:29:35 PM
From: moderation@arxiv.org
To: plaviolette@starburstfound.org
Dear Paul LaViolette,
The moderators maintain that it is not appropriate for arXiv
in its
current state. It challenges fundamental theories within the
field of
physics and should be reviewed and refereed by physics experts
for the
requisite feedback.
--
arXiv moderation
|
11) |
June 20, 2008 LaViolette
again rebuts the moderators:
LaViolette corrects the
moderators, stating that the paper had been reviewed by at least
two physicists. He invites them to contact the journal's
editor to eliminate any doubt about this.
Subj: Re: (moderation) Re: (moderation) Re: (moderation) question
about paper 0805.1216
Date: Friday, June 20, 2008 7:19:20 PM
From: Starburstfound
To: moderation@arxiv.org, Starburstfound
Dear arXiv-moderation,
The paper was sent to three referees. From what I understand,
at least two of these were physicists. It had quite good reviews.
The paper underwent revision to take into accounts the matters
that the referees brought up.
IJGS is a very reputable journal and would not want to publish
something that did not meet stringent standards concerning subjects
the paper discussed in the area of nuclear field theory. Perhaps
you would like to take the matter up with the editor of the journal.
Paul LaViolette
LaViolette receives no
response from the moderators, only an automated computer response
that they have received his question:
Subj: RE: Re: moderation Re: moderation Re: moderation question
about paper 0805.1216
Date: Friday, June 20, 2008 7:19:37 PM
From: no-reply@arXiv.org
To: plaviolette@starburstfound.org
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.)
Thank you for your patience.
|
12) |
Mid June, 2008:
Entering the Twilight Zone -- Paul Ginsparg, head administrator
of arxiv.org emails a member of the IJGS editorial board
expressing his intense disapproval of LaViolette's paper and
making defamatory accusations about LaViolette himself.
On July 3, 2008 Dr. LaViolette
writes to Professor Klir, editor of the International Journal
of General Systems (IJGS), telling him the story of how the
physics internet archive administered by Cornell University was
preventing him from posting a preprint of his forthcoming paper.
Six days later Dr. Klir notifies LaViolette that in connection
with the arxiv.org censorship that LaViolette had previously
described to him, he had received an email concerning the forthcoming
publication of LaViolette's paper in IJGS. More
specifically, he states that a member of the IJGS editorial
board (who wished to remain unnamed) had forwarded to him an
email he had received from "an extremely well respected
physicist, who was "a top professor in a major university"
and which concerned the upcoming publication in the IJGS
of LaViolette's paper. The board member mentioned that
the inquirer had stated that the "managers of the arxiv.org
preprint service" were concerned that "this paper is
not scientific."
Obviously, this "extremely
well respected physicist/top professor" associated with
the arxiv.org management was none other than Paul Ginsparg himself,
professor of physics at Cornell University. Other than
the editorial office of IJGS, the only others that knew
that LaViolette had submitted his paper to this journal were
the moderators of arxiv.org at Cornell. So the source of
this email is no mystery.
The email that Dr. Klir
received from his board member is reproduced below. The
excerpt from Ginsparg's email to the board member is in bold
and set off by brackets << ... >>:
From the IJGS board member to Professor
Klir and his assistant Ellen:
George and Ellen: I have had an inquiry from an extremely
well respected
physicist (a top professor in a major university) concerning
the
upcoming publication in the IJGS of "The Electric Charge
and
Magnetization Distribution of the Nucleon: Evidence of a Subatomic
Turing Wave Pattern", by Paul La Violette, also available
at
http://www.etheric.com/Downloads/nucleon.html. There is apparently
concern not just on the part of this scientist, but the managers
of the
arxiv.org preprint service (note: not even a peer-reviewed venue,
but
rather just a posting service with minimal screening) that this
paper is
not scientific. To quote my inquirer precisely:
<< The abstract of the current article clearly concludes
"... The wave packet model is shown to be fundamentally
flawed implying
that quantum mechanics does not realistically represent the microphysical
world. This new conception points to the possible existence of
orbital
energy states below the Balmer ground state whose transitions
may be
tapped as a new source of energy."
i.e., not only that quantum mechanics
is wrong, but he also has a
source of infinite energy from the Hydrogen ground state. These
are
thoroughly crackpot claims that the author has [been] making
for many years
(see multiple threads from Bob Park's "What's new"
about La Violette,
and for obvious reasons is unable to publish in any credible
physics
journal. >>
While I have looked through the paper, I have not read it
through
thoroughly. Nor would I be qualified to review it if I had. Still,
it is
evident that La Violette's physics is based on an extrapolation
of
macro-physical self-organizational dynamical systems processes
(e.g.
dissipative structures) down to the quantum level, a very difficult
perspective to justify within the most rigorous and extensive
developments.
After looking into La Violette's general career myself at
some depth, it
is evident that he is a deliberately provocative figure soundly
outside
the mainstream of the scientific community, indulging as much
in an
almost mystical, depth-psychological discourse about myth interpretation
as attempts at science. And while even his apparent identity
as an
antigravity and free energy enthusiast is not *necessarily* an
indictment in and of itself, it is worth noting that his references
in
the paper to "subquantum kinetics", including his claims
of validation
for prior predictions, are self-citations, including multiple
vanity-press book publications (Starlane Publications).
You know me as a dedicated systems scientist, the last to
suggest that
contrarian or synthetic thinking is not welcome in science; nor
would I
assert that the IJGS should not provide a venue for such approaches
in
any branch of science.
But as I know you appreciate, our community's laudable openness
to
divergent views carries a concomitant burden to uphold the highest
scientific standards. In that light, may I please inquire if
this paper
received a complete and thorough review from fully qualified
physicists?
If so, did they express any of these concerns?
Thanks for your consideration.
Correction: Starlane Publications is not a
"vanity press." Dr. LaViolette's paper references
only one book published by Starlane, namely the first and second
editions of Subquantum Kinetics.
We see from reading the
email he had sent to the board member that Ginsparg had no intention
of writing to the board member to inquire whether LaViolette's
paper had been reviewed by physicists. Rather his main
purpose appears to have been to make derogatory comments about
Dr. LaViolette and his paper with the aim of embarrassing the
journal into rejecting the paper.
This is not the first
time that influential physicists have gotten a journal to reject
a paper after it had already been approved for publication. For
this reason scientists proposing new findings that might be viewed
by some as being controversial normally keep the name of the
journal they are submitting to confidential. So, in revealing
to the archive moderator the name of the journal that had accepted
his paper and suggesting to them that they could contact the
journal editor to ensure that the paper had been previously reviewed
by physicist referees, LaViolette was trusting that the moderator
would not misuse this information. He was apparently wrong
to do so since Ginsparg's statements indicate an intended intervention
aimed at preventing the paper from coming out in print.
Ginsparg begins by indicating
intense displeasure with LaViolette for suggesting that "quantum
mechanics is wrong". Quantum mechanics forms one of
the fundamental underpinnings of contemporary physics. So,
if there was some problem with it, wouldn't physicists want to
know what this flaw was, or would they prefer that such an unthinkable
iconoclastic idea be censored? We see that Ginsparg and
Cornell's physics preprint archive side are of the latter opinion,
making them reminiscent of the Church in Galileo's times.
Actually, LaViolette
does not specifically say that quantum mechanics is wrong, Indeed,
LaViolette acknowledges the quantum mechanics leads to numerically
correct answers about particle scattering phenomena. His
paper instead states that the Schroedinger wave packet model
is flawed, and that, as a result, "quantum mechanics does
not realistically represent the microphysical world." That
is, recent particle scattering experiments instead support the
subquantum kinetics Turing wave model with its far smaller wavelength
which is fixed and equal to the particle's Compton wavelength.
This turing wave model also yields numerically correct
answers relating to particle scattering phenomena, but without
the paradoxes and conundrums that plague quantum mechanics. One
specific difference is that the Schroedinger wave packet of quantum
mechanics does not allow the existence of fractional quantum
number orbits in the hydrogen atom whereas the subquantum kinetics
Turing wave model does allow their existence. Consequently,
subquantum kinetics is able to explain why the new (non cold
fusion) technologies of Eccles and Mills are able to produce
heat from plain water by inducing orbital electron transitions
to fractional quantum number orbits, while quantum mechanics
fails miserably to explain the functioning of these new technologies.
With so much emphasis being placed on alternative energy
technology, one would expect that such new theories would be
welcome, not suppressed because they don't agree with the standard
view.
Ginsparg's second point
is plainly untrue. Nowhere in his paper does LaViolette
suggest that infinite amounts of energy may be extracted from
transitions into fraction quantum number orbits in hydrogen.
Nor does he suggest the existence of an infinite regress
of sub-Bohr-ground-state energy levels. At most eleven
fractional quantum number orbits would exist below the n = 1
Bohr orbit. The number is limited by the electron's Turing
wave whose Compton wavelength must fit within the orbit. So
Ginsparg's accusation is totally false.
Ginsparg then speaks
quite rudely, stating that LaViolette makes "crackpot claims".
As proof of this, he cites articles by Robert Park, a former
American Physical Society Washington lobbyist who retired in
2006 and who writes an internet news column called What's
New . Up until his retirement his column was published
on the APS website (aps.org) but it now appears on his personal
website (bobpark.org). Ginsparg refers the board member
to Park's paragraph long sarcastic postings to render a sober
judgment of the validity of a scientist's work or of his intellectual
acumen. At this point Ginsparg becomes almost laughable, for
much of the critical news pieces that Park has posted in his
news column have been replete with fabrication. One example,
is Park's claim in 1999 that patent examiner Tom Valone recruited
LaViolette to work in the U.S. Patent Office as part of a conspiracy
to induct "free energy enthusiasts"to become patent
examiners. This claim is totally ridiculous and borders
on 50's McCarthyist paranoia. Park also circulated emails
stating that LaViolette claimed that the B-2 bomber "uses
anti-gravity technology reverse engineered from a crashed flying
saucer." This also is false. This
statement was reportedly made by Marion Williams, a former CIA
intelligence officer, who confided to a relative just prior to
his own death. Although LaViolette cited Marion's statement
in an article he wrote on the B-2, he himself did not accept
Marion's claim of alien vehicle reverse engineering and anyone
who had read LaViolette's paper sufficiently carefully would
have realized as much. Also another of Park's postings
claimed that LaViolette's religion was cold fusion. This
is another fabrication that is frankly absurd. Does anyone seriously
believe that LaViolette prays to some kind of cold fusion god,
just because Park wrote this in one of his humorous postings?
Perhaps Ginsparg was gullible to believe this.
Park targeted LaViolette
in his 1999 news column postings apparently because LaViolette
was supporting an alternate energy conference to be held at the
State Department auditorium in D.C. One of the many papers
to be presented at this "Future Energy Conference"
was to be on the subject of cold fusion, which infuriated Park
since cold fusion was a topic he had long chastised as being
in his words "pseudoscience." LaViolette had placed
a link on his personal website directed to the conference website
and this had apparently incensed Park. For Park and some
of his close friends subsequently orchestrated a massive email
campaign to embarrass the Patent Office into firing LaViolette
and the conference organizer Tom Valone from their jobs as patent
examiners. From a historical perspective, however, it seems
that Park chose the losing side. Although cold fusion was
at that time in disrepute among the mainstream physics community,
a few years later the U.S.
Navy published a report detailing their 13 year study of
the phenomenon and concluding that there was something to it.
Then in 2008, a physicist at Osaka University in Japan
demonstrated that the phenomenon could be repeatedly reproduced,
and most recently one Navy
researcher made national news with his demonstration of neutron
production, proof that nuclear transmutation was taking place
at low temperatures. Park also had repeatedly run critical What's
New "threads" attacking Randall Mills for claiming
that he had produced energy from water by inducing sub-Bohr orbit
electron transitions. Park repeatedly mislabeled this phenomenon
as cold fusion, which it is not. This is the same phenomenon
that LaViolette's paper now sheds light on. As of April
2009, Mill's company Blacklight
Power has twenty 50 kilowatt generators in the field testing
stage and hopes soon to be making the technology available in
the marketplace. Pseudoscience?
One thing that Ginsparg
and Park appear to have in common is that both are opposed to
any kind of alternate energy technology that might ultimately
help humanity, particularly if such new technology is not anticipated
by the heavily funded contemporary physics paradigm. Should
Park's opinion of LaViolette be used as grounds to prevent LaViolette's
scientific papers from being published in journals or their preprints
posted on arxiv.org? In view of the above, most would say
no.
Ginsparg also demeans
LaViolette to the journal editorial board by saying that LaViolette
has been unable to publish in any credible physics journal. In
fact, in 1986 LaViolette published a landmark cosmology paper
in the well respected Astrophysical Journal. He
has also published in other well known journals such as Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Earth, Moon,
and Planets, and Planetary and Space Science. It
is true that there are some conventional physics journals that
would not wish to publish some of LaViolette's papers because
they and their referees choose not to publish anything that challenges
the current physics paradigm. However, to view such self-involved
physics journals as "credible" and all other journals
as rubbish is to hold a rather arrogant view of science to say
the least. Ginsparg's email to the IJGS editorial board,
though, is illuminating for it reveals the kind of thinking underlying
arxiv.org's decision to blacklist LaViolette and other scientists
from posting to the preprint archive.
The above incident calls
to mind Ginsparg's vehement reaction in 2000 against another
physicist he was blacklisting, namely Carlos Castro. In his article
entitled "My
Struggle with Ginsparg (arXiv.org) and the Road to Cyberia".
Castro recounts that Ginsparg wrote to his manager at Los Alamos
National Laboratories that "Carlos Castro is an obvious
nut and all his papers are abject nonsense" and threatened
to ban Clark Atlanta University from posting to arxiv.org if
they continued to voice their support for Castro.
|
13) |
June 21, 2008: Professor Klir responds.
Shortly afterward, professor
Klir, editor of IJGS, responds to the IGJS board
member's email, stating his support for the scientific integrity
of LaViolette's paper submission. He points out that the
paper was reviewed by three physicists and revised to accommodate
any concerns they had.
> > Hi xxx,
> >
> > Thank you very much for your message regarding the
paper by
> > Paul La Violette. I appreciate it and I would equally
> > appreciate similar information about other papers in
the
> > future. As far as the paper by La Violette is concerned,
I
> > was well aware that his work is not accepted by the
> > mainstream physics community. However, this is not
a
> > sufficient reason for me to reject a paper. I could
have
> > rejected the paper on the basis that the subject is
outside
> > the aims and scope of the journal. I have not done
that
> > because, after reading the paper, I found that La Violette
> > uses sound systems thinking throughout the whole paper.
I
> > also did not find in the paper any indicator that the
paper
> > is not scientific, as claimed by the scientist who
contacted
> > you, but it is rather based on assumptions that are
not
> > compatible with the current mainstream physics. Since
I am
> > not a physicist, I asked four physicists to review
the paper
> > and I received reviews by three of them. They all made
> > various comments and suggestions, and asked some questions,
> > but they all recommended that the paper be published
provided
> > that it is revised according to their critical comments.
They
> > all also clearly indicated that the paper will not
be
> > favorably accepted by most physicists because it clashes
with
> > the current paradigm in physics. I sent the three reviews
to
> > La Violette, together with my own review, and asked
him to
> > respond to all these reviews. He substantially revised
the
> > paper and explained in detail how he actually revised
it.
> > After that, I accepted the paper and sent it to production.
> >
> > Although your message arrived after the paper was already
in
> > production, I do not think that the information you
mention
> > in the message would change my publication decision
in this
> > case. However, similar information might be very important
in
> > other cases in the future.
> > Therefore, I will always greatly appreciate such information
> > in the future.
> >
> > With best regards and best wishes in your new job,
> >
> > George
About topics relevant to being published
in the IJGS: Systems
science, by definition, is highly interdisciplinary. Systems
scientists have discussed the application of systems concepts
to a wide variety of disciplines: chemical kinetics, nonequilibrium
thermodynamics, information theory, cybernetics, physics, biology,
sociology, business administration, psychology, psychotherapy,
education, and the list goes on. In the case of a discipline
such as microphysics that has historically evolved its paradigm
in relative isolation from the influence of systems thinking
those physicists advocating continuance of the traditional physics
paradigm will necessarily regard the new paradigm as an intruder
and vehemently oppose the intruding concepts (and Ginsparg has
very clearly demonstrated this allergic reaction). Such
conservative element reactions are understandable, but they do
not constitute grounds for deeming the application of systems
concepts to physics as being unscientific.
|
14) |
~June 22, 2008: The IJGS board member agrees
with Klir's decision and suggests opening a dialog.
The IJGS board
member agrees with Professor Klir's decision and says he would
like to pass Klir's response on to the "inquirer".
Further, he suggests that Dr. Klir or the journal open
a dialog with the inquirer (i.e. Paul Ginsparg) to discuss what
"scientific" really means. He notes that this
is a topic that is of great interest to the Systems community
and journal readership.
> George: Thanks for your consideration, that was exactly
the answer I
> would have hoped and expected to have received.
>
> I guess my question at this point is whether you, or the
journal, would
> be interested in opening up a dialog with my inquirer. As
you may
> appreciate, the style of modern scientific discourse, enhanced
by the
> available information technology, is more and more to encourage
such
> exchanges, and open electronic journals are increasingly
featuring such
> forums. I would be fascinated to see what specific critical
comments
> would be available, and how they would interact with the
peer reviewed
> received by you.
>
> Obviously, the discussion would hinge around what "scientific"
really
> means, something we are always interested in having more
clarity on, and
> it seems to me of great specific interest to the Systems
community and
> to the readers of the IJGS in particular.
>
> Specifically, with your permission, may I pass on your comments
to my
> inquirer? I will similarly ask him if he would like to be
identified to
> you before proceeding.
>
> Thanks for your consideration.
xxx
|
15) |
June 30, 2009: Professor Klir suggests
that Ginsparg instead write a Letter to the Editor stating his
opinion about LaViolette's paper.
After a one week delay,
Professor Klir responds to the board member indicating that he
lacks the time to engage in such a dialog and also that his own
background in physics, while broad and well read, is insufficient
in depth to engage in a debate over issues concerning contemporary
physics. He suggests that the board member instead invite
the inquirer (Ginsparg) to write a Letter to the Editor stating
his opinion about LaViolette's paper so that LaViolette could
respond in print with another Letter to the Editor. As
we shall see, Ginsparg did not take up the challenge.
Hi xxx:
I am sorry I am responding to your e-mail message with almost
one week
delay. For various reasons, I am currently very busy (in spite
of my
starting retirement), and it will be more or less the same until
the end of
September. That explains why I have not responded earlier.
As far as the prospective dialog that you suggest is concerned,
this is a
good idea, but I do not consider myself the right person to participate.
Although I can read and understand, by and large, literature
in physics, I
do not have enough expertise to debate current issues involving
physics.
Moreover, as I already mentioned, I am right now highly over
committed and
must be careful not to make the situation even worse. You may
of course
share my e-mail message with your inquirer, but for releasing
the reviews
of the paper by La Violette, I would have to get permissions
from the
reviewers. Perhaps you might suggest to your inquirer to write
a short
Letter to the Editor (to me) about his opinion of La Violette's
paper after
it is published and I will give a chance to La Violette to respond
to it by
another Letter to the Editor. I will then publish both letters
in the same
issue of the journal. That may lead to a more extensive debate
somewhere
outside the journal (IJGS is not the right place for such a debate).
Let me
know what do you think about this idea.
With my best regards,
George
On July 9th, Dr. Klir
shares the above email correspondence with Paul LaViolette. Names
and email addresses were omitted for privacy.
Subj: Re: Paper by Paul La Violette
Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2008 3:12:52 PM
From: xxxx@binghamton.edu
To: gravitics1@aol.com
Dear Paul,
This is my e-mail correspondence with the member of our Editorial
Board
who sent me the inquiry about your paper (see my e-mail message
sent to
you a few minutes ago). As usually, you should read this e-mail
exchange from the back, starting with my response to his "inquiry",
followed by his response, and finally my second response. As
you can see
from my final response, I would be willing to publish a short
Letter to
the Editor from the physicist who inquired about your paper (if
he would
like to write one), and would give you a chance to respond to
him in
another Letter to the Editor. However, I would not like to involve
the
journal in a more extensive debate; this should be done, if desirable,
in a more suitable journal. Personally, I do not want to participate
in
any prospective debate on this issue since I am not a physicist
and I am
currently busy with many other commitments. Nevertheless, I hope
that
the information forwarded to you will be of interest to you.
With best regards,
George Klir
|
16) |
July 13, 2008: Paul LaViolette writes
to Dr. Klir responding to Ginsparg's accusations and to the comments
of the IJGS board member.
Subj: Re: Paper by Paul La Violette
Date: Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:39:11 PM
From: gravitics1@aol.com
To: xxxx@binghamton.edu
Dr. George Klir
Editor, International Journal of General Systems
SUNY, Binghamton
Binghamton, New York
Dear Dr. Klir,
Thank you very much for looking into this matter regarding
the arxiv.org blocking of my preprint posting...
My initial request to you was mainly to ask you if it was
possible to inform the arxiv moderator about the IJGS review
process concerning my paper... However... your board member and
his colleague whom he quotes have seemed to turn this into a
question about the integrity of my character, the credibility
of my scientific work, and the quality of my paper, which has
been reviewed and approved by three physicists (as you say).
So, excuse the length of my response, but I feel it is necessary
to respond in detail to these challenges and accusations. The
diatribe below is not directed to you George, especially in view
of the very nice response you wrote back to your board member
defending the integrity of my work. Please feel free to pass
it on to your board member and his professor friend.
Regarding the comment of the physicist whom your board member
quoted, I would like to set the record straight.
1) Nowhere in my paper do I propose that my model claims that
infinite amounts of energy can be obtained from the hydrogen
ground state or from transitions from that state. Only one place
in my paper do I use the word "infinite" and that is
in regard to the view which comes out of classical field theory
from conventional physics which regards the electric potential
field in the nucleon as rising to a central singularity. This
singularity model leads to a problem that has been often discussed
by physicists which has been termed the "infinite energy
absurdity".
In an overly rapid reading of the discussion in section 7
of my paper, one could misconstrue that I was implying an infinite
regress of fractional quantum states. But I never intended to
convey such to the reader. In fact, any fractional quantum number
leading to an orbital circumference smaller than the electron's
Compton wavelength would not be allowed, i.e., anything smaller
than the n = 1/11 quantum number. The n = 1/11 circumference
would have a length equal to 2.75 X 10^-12 meters whereas the
Turing wave which I propose characterizes the electron's core
electric field would have a wavelength slightly smaller, equal
to 2.43 X 10^-12 meters -- the electron's Compton wavelength.
It seems reasonable that any orbital circumference smaller than
the electron's Compton wavelength would be ruled out.
Furthermore the paper's suggestion that there exist fractional
quantum number energy states below the Bohr orbit is based on
observation, citing the work of several researchers. In my paper
I point out that the findings of these researchers, which quantum
mechanics leaves unexplained, may be understood in the context
of the subquantum kinetics Turing wave model of subatomic particles.
Normally, electrons do not have the ability to jump down to these
subground energy states since they are unable to spontaneously
radiate away the energy difference involved in making this orbital
transition. As I explained in the paper, it is only possible
if certain catalysts are present in the immediate vicinity of
the hydrogen atoms. Such catalysts allow energy of a specific
quantized amount to be transferred collisionally from the hydrogen
atom to the catalyst, the catalysts being so to speak able to
accept energy specifically from a particular orbital transition,
say from the n = 1 to the n = 1/2 orbit. If another catalyst
were added that allowed the electron to give up energy equal
to a jump from the n = 1 to the n = 1/3 orbit, then such transitions
could also take place. The physicist's fear that I might be proposing
rampant orbital transitions radiating infinite amounts of energy
are entirely misplaced. It seems he is misreading my paper and
thereby creating a paper tiger.
2) Furthermore I find rather offensive this physicist's accusation
that I make crackpot claims and have been making them for years.
I consider this terminology an attack on my character. I have
no attachments to the ideas I propose and always consider them
with a critical eye. That is, I critique my work carefully. I
would not advance any notion that would conflict with observational
evidence. I challenge this person to state in public, with his
name and affiliation attached, anything I have written that is
on its face invalid when considered against observational data.
Unless he states more specifically which idea he says I have
been promoting that is "crackpot", I am not sure how
I can respond here. If he is referring to my contention that
the energy conservation law is routinely violated by Nature,
I agree that I stated such in my original set of papers on SQK
published in the 1985 special issue of IJGS. But there I was
proposing very small violations, observable only cosmologically.
That is, subquantum kinetics (SQK) proposes that the physical
universe functions as an open system that the fields forming
matter and energy quanta are concentration inhomogeneities of
subquantum reactants engaged in nonequilibrium reaction-diffusion
processes. Hence just as entropy can spontaneously decrease in
an open system, so too under some circumstances matter can spontaneously
emerge and quanta can spontaneously increase in energy over time.
I feel I have dealt with this subject in a rigorous fashion in
previous publications. In fact, the energy conservation violations
that follow from SQK led to predictions that I had published
and that were subsequently verified by others (see the list of
predictions I discuss in my book and that are posted on the starburstfound.org
website). So I really fail to understand what troubles this professor.
If he genuflects to the First Law of Thermodynamics and regards
any discussion of such violations as sacrosanct, I think there
is no way I or anyone else can reason with him.
3) I am surprised that this professor cites Robert Park as
a credible authority and that he is gullible enough to actually
believe what Park wrote about me. Park is a nut and it is a sad
commentary on the American Physical Society that they allow him
to post his What's New column on their website. Did this professor
actually provide the IJGS editorial board with links to Park's
libelous statements about me? Here I refer to derogatory comments
that Park wrote about me in 1998 through 2000. Much of what he
writes in his column is for entertaining the physicist masses
and to accomplish this he fills his comments with fabrication
and twisted lies. At least this is true concerning what he has
written about me. For example, Park said that I was supposed
to be part of some covert plan to infiltrate the U.S. Patent
Office and bring in treacherous ideas about "free energy";
i.e., overunity energy production. Not so, I applied for the
job because I heard the PTO was hiring. It had nothing to do
with any conspiracy plan. Park also maintains that Tom Valone
hired me. Wrong again. I was recruited by a female supervisor.
Only supervisors can hire. Valone was not a supervisor. He also
writes that I claim that the B-2 bomber uses anti-gravity technology,
reverse engineered from a crashed flying saucer. I did not state
that; that quote originated from Marion Williams a former CIA
officer who had worked at the Area 51 test site in Nevada. I
have denied in print that there is any connection to reverse
engineering alien technology. So, again Park is wrong. Also Park's
claim that cold fusion is my religion is another fabrication
and is frankly absurd. Anyone who believes that I pray to some
kind of cold fusion god is in serious need of therapy.
I suppose I could have sued Park and the American Physical Society
for personal defamation, but I figured it would likely be a waste
of my time. But if, as this physicist suggests, journal editors
actually use Park's statements as grounds for rejecting my papers,
this would indicate that the physics journal editorial review
system is in a sad state of decline. Perhaps then there might
be good reason to reconsider launching a court suit against both
Park and the APS.
For the past two years I have been living in Greece. The Greek
Physical Society, the Greek equivalent of the American Physical
Society, has treated me very differently. They have recently
made me an honorary member and I hope soon to give them a presentation
on SQK at one of their meetings. Perhaps this shows that there
is a difference in mentality or level of sanity between the American
and European cultures.
Perhaps you are curious to know why Park singled me out for
attack. Park was particularly concerned about my affiliation
with Tom Valone, a patent examiner, who in 1999 was planning
an alternative energy conference at the State Department auditorium
in DC. He was incensed that the conference was to include a presentation
on cold fusion, his favorite subject of derision. Valone had
posted an announcement about this conference on his Integrity
Research Institute website and had emailed a copy of the announcement
to me which I posted on my website as well. The fact that both
Valone and I worked at the patent office as patent examiners
and that we both supported a conference that was to host a paper
on cold fusion apparently made Park furious and made us both
targets for his attacks. While many physicists were at the time
skeptical of cold fusion, three years later in 2002 the Office
of Naval Research announced that they had conducted a 10 year
study of cold fusion and came to the conclusion that the phenomenon
was real. ONR had not announced this earlier because their study
was classified. Moreover the more recent research coming out
of Japan indicates that cold fusion is an easily reproducible
phenomenon readily observed in the laboratory. Of course many
physicists are likely still in denial since the phenomenon is
not predicted by standard physics theories. They would prefer
to uphold outmoded beliefs rather than open their eyes to the
reality of observation.
4) The member of the IJGS editorial board member who wrote
to you and whose comments you forwarded to me also surprises
me. He writes that he did a google search on my name and that
on this basis he seems to doubt my qualifications as a serious
scientist. (This sounds like a brilliant idea for reviewing papers.
Let's not read the paper a person submits but rather do a google
search on the author's name and see if we agree with the various
aspects of his research interests. If this is the case, it seems
that science has not made much progress since the middle ages
the internet being used as a tool for promoting prejudice. )
5) Your board member has the audacity to state that the references
I make in my paper to subquantum kinetics are self citations
and vanity press publications. There is nothing wrong with self
citations. Most authors cite publications they have previously
written if they are relevant to the paper they are writing. I
cite papers I have published in IJGS, the Astrophysical Journal,
and Physics Essays. All of these are refereed journals. Infinite
Energy is the only journal I cite that is not refereed. I do
cite my book Subquantum Kinetics, both the first and second edition
of the book. Perhaps this is what he means by "multiple
vanity-press book publications". To set the record straight,
my book was not published by a "vanity press." I self
published my book. Starlane Publications is a dba name (doing
business as), hence a substitute name for Paul LaViolette. I
do not consider myself to be vane. Most people who know me say
that I am a modest and soft spoken person. (Although here I am
taking the gloves off.) My intention to publish subquantum kinetics
was simply to communicate my ideas to others. The endeavor was
quite successful since the book went into a second edition and
has been purchased by many physicists including university professors
and university students. Does the board member realize that the
first edition of the Subquantum Kinetics book essentially consisted
of a collection of papers that were previously published in refereed
journals and were gathered together along with a bit of new material
to read as a book? Much of the material came from papers I had
published in IJGS, the Astrophysical Journal, and Physics Essays.
6) From the tone of his comments, I get the impression that
your board member must think I am some kind of coook. This board
member refers to himself as a "dedicated systems scientist."
I certainly did not expect such treatment from someone from within
the systems science community. I thought that being editor of
the book "A Systems View of Man" by von Bertalanffy
I had established a name and some degree of respect from members
of the systems science community. I have also published in the
General Systems Yearbook and in the ISSS conference proceedings.
I also am one of the few to get a Ph.D. in general system theory
in the U.S. Portland State had the only systems science doctoral
program and I had taken the systems theory track during the brief
period when the program was offering that track of study. I think
you know some of my background, but maybe your board member doesn't
know much about me. Instead he relies on Google.
7) The board member says that he concludes that I am soundly
outside the bounds of the scientific community. Indeed, my path
of investigation involved bringing systems concepts into the
domain of microphysics. The open system concept which I was introducing
into field theory inevitably led to different conclusions than
those of classical physics (by "classical" I mean here
the collection of theories and assumptions that make up standard
or conventional physics). Hence it is correct that I could be
considered outside the bounds of conventional physics. But in
doing so I used concepts and ideas that were quite well grounded
in the systems tradition, concepts commonly discussed by people
such as Bertalanffy and Prigogine. In saying that I am soundly
outside the bounds of the scientific community, does this "systems
scientist" mean to say that I am also outside the bounds
of systems science as well? If so, that really hurts. I kind
of figured I would get some support for what I was doing from
members of the systems community, particularly those knowledgeable
about general system theory. The open system concept is fundamental
in my approach and incidentally von Bertalanffy himself firmly
believed that the universe functioned as an open system. He did
not state so in his writings, but his wife Maria von Bertalanffy,
who I knew before her death, confided this to me when I told
her about the subquantum kinetics theory I was developing. Even
Prigogine had thoughts along these lines when he published a
paper with a few others proposing that time is irreversible,
an idea opposed to the current concept in physics that time can
flow either forward or backward. Prigogine presented his ideas
at a talk at the physics department in the university where he
taught, the University of Texas, Austin. Many big name physicists
attended. But after he finished his lecture there was complete
silence. His idea was too radical for them.
8) The board member brings up that my interest in ancient
myth raises suspicions. Prigogine had a strong interest in ancient
myths, an avocation he admitted to his friends. Like myself,
he saw that they metaphorically conveyed the concept of self-organization
in open systems. But to my knowledge he never wrote up anything
on this, unless it was some obscure French publication. Should
we suspect Nobel Laureate Prigogine because he had an interest
in mythology? Also what about Ervin Laszlo? Should we suspect
him because of books he has written about the Akashic field,
or about connections between the physical and the spiritual world?
I first made public my findings on ancient myth in 1995, a full
decade after the date SQK was first published. This subject was
discussed in my book Beyond the Big Bang which was written for
a general audience. My book showed that the concept of self-organization
in open systems, discovered only in the past half century or
so, is metaphorically encoded in certain ancient creation myths
and lores. In so doing, I was able to effectively teach even
to a nonscience background public concepts that are normally
encountered in the field of nonequilibrium thermodynamics, GST,
and reaction kinetics. Isn't that something that might be regarded
as commendable, as a landmark accomplishment in itself? Or do
academics feel that systems theory should only be taught in universities
to the select few? I acknowledge that Beyond the Big Bang does
go further and suggest that these stories and lores were deliberately
crafted by a culture that was quite scientifically advanced and
that was attempting to convey to future generations a time capsule
message that related a cosmological science of how the universe
came into being. This is admittedly speculative. One can draw
one's own conclusions on the basis of what I have presented in
that book. But this is a subject entirely separate from my scientific
presentation of SQK. Why should this be a bad reflection on my
work in systems physics? Is imagination to be entirely outlawed?
9) I would also like to address his comment that the list
of confirmations posted on my website and presented in my book
Subquantum Kinetics are self citations. So far I am the sole
developer of SQK. Who else would be pointing out its confirmations
if not myself. It is precisely because of these confirmations
that I am attracting many people's interest in the theory. Indeed
it is very rare that a physics theory would have so many of its
aspects later experimentally or observationally confirmed. To
not list these and cite these would be negligent of me. The internet
is a two way street. To my knowledge no one has posted any comment
pointing out any errors in my list of confirmations. They can
be easily checked by examining what was said in my original publications
about SQK and comparing them to the findings which later came
out which I cite. If there is any error in these postings, I
would be glad to know about it. I do not intend to spread any
misinformation.
I guess this about wraps up what I have to say.
All the best,
Paul LaViolette
Also Paul forwards to
Dr. Klir an essay written by his father, Fred
LaViolette, about what "scientific" really means.
This was the last essay that Paul's father ever wrote.
At the time he was seriously ill with a pulmonary condition
and was being cared for daily by his son and wife. Fred
passed away three months later on October
27th, 2008.
Subj: comments about science
Date: Sunday, July 13, 2008 8:20:01 PM
From: gravitics1@aol.com
To: xxxx@binghamton.edu
Dear Dr. KIir,
In regards to the comment in your second email regarding what
"scientific" really means, I am sending the following
comment (below) written by my father Fred LaViolette, who has
masters in physics and electrical engineering and whose laudable
career includes working as a nuclear engineer at the General
Electric Knolls Atomic Power Lab and participant in the Manhattan
Project.
Best regards,
Paul LaViolette
Essay by Fred LaViolette regarding what "scientific"
really means:
"The paper submitted by my son is published on
the basis of a certain set of beliefs. All papers are published
on that basis. In order to make a decision where there is a difference
of opinion, both sides should define what is true. One cannot
say that A is wrong because B doesn't recognize the basis for
A's conclusions and vice versa. In his foundation papers published
in 1985, Paul clearly stated the assumptions he uses as the basis
of subquantum kinetics.
One of his assumptions is the proposed existence of an ether.
Standard physics does not accept the ether. Yet Paul cites plenty
of experimental evidence in his publications supporting the existence
of the ether. Physicists need to get past having an emotional
response to this taboo, and accept that it is a permissible assumption.
Critics of subquantum kinetics perhaps do not regard the theory's
predictions as having validity because they don't understand
the theory itself. Anything they don't understand, they dispel
as improper science. They judge Paul's paper on the basis of
what they consider as previously established fact. They consider
it only from the standpoint of how it fits into their own paradigm.
His paper, however is written on the basis of a new premise.
He has advanced an explanation of nature that is completely different
from what physicists normally believe. Without knowing anything
about subquantum kinetics and the assumptions on which it is
based, they are not in a position to properly judge it.
Until a basis for truth is established, there is no way to make
a reasonable judgment among two radically different approaches.
One good way to judge validity would be the ability for each
theory to account for experimental evidence. In particular, if
one clearly states predictions that follow from one's theory
that are distinctly different from the standard view and these
predictions are later verified, they provide a good basis for
judging truth. Interpretations made after the fact should be
given little weight since a posteriori reasoning can lead to
a myriad of explanations. A verified priori prediction on the
other hand catches ones attention because it encourages the bystander
to conclude that perhaps the reasoning that led the theoretician
to his prediction must have some validity, barring the possibility
that he just made a lucky guess. In the case of subquantum kinetics
too many predictions have been verified to pass all of them off
as just lucky guesses.
Fred LaViolette
|
At that time that Fred wrote this subquantum
kinetics had 12 of its a priori predictions subsequently verified.
|
17) |
July 15, 2008: Professor Klir responds to LaViolette's
letter and comments about the incredible intolerance to new ideas
within mainstream physics community.
Professor Klir responds
to LaViolette's July 13th letter in which LaViolette responds
to comments made by Ginsparg and the member of the IJGS
editorial board. Reflecting on LaViolette's rebuttal of
the statements of Ginsparg and Park, he comments that this opened
his eyes to the incredible intolerance to new ideas that exists
within the mainstream physics community.
Subj: Response to your two last messages
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:49:48 PM
From: xxxx@binghamton.edu
To: Gravitics1@aol.com
Dear Paul,
Thank you very much for your extensive response to my recent
correspondence with an editorial board member of the IJGS. It
opened my eyes to see the incredible intolerance to new ideas
within the mainstream physics community. I also appreciate that
you sent me the comments regarding your paper that were written
by your father. These comments, which are very well stated, express
almost exactly my own position on this issue. Let me now answer
your questions (also from your previous e-mail messages) and
clarify some points regarding my correspondence with the editorial
board member:
* Feel free to quote anything from my statement describing
how I made my publication decision regarding your paper.
* As far as the reviews of your paper are concerned, I also have
no objection if you quote from them. I only felt (referring to
our previous correspondence) that I myself should not release
them to anyone except you, the author. It is of course up to
you what you want to do with them.
* Let me clarify how my correspondence with our editorial board
member started. It was initiated by his e-mail message to me
and Ellen Tilden that I sent you. I had not asked him to provide
me with his opinion about your paper. The question is whether
he was the only member of the Editorial Board contacted by the
physicist. I will try to find out if other members of the Board
were contacted as well.
* I am glad that you agree to respond to the prospective Letter
to the Editor about your paper from the physicist. He is now
challenged to express his concerns openly and under his name.
* When I received the e-mail message from the editorial board
member, I took it as a good intention on his part to protect
the integrity of the journal. In fact, he was quite satisfied
with my explanation of how I had made my publication decision.
However, after reading your response to his remarks, I read his
message more carefully again and I agree with you that his remarks
are not justified, even if he wanted to be overly protective
of the journal, and are in fact quite offensive. May I forward
to him your whole message of July 14? Although you write in the
message "Please feel free to pass it on to your board member
and his professor friend", I want to be sure that the "it"
in this sentence refers to the whole message. Please let me know.
* I plan to include your paper in issue 37(6) of the journal,
which is December 2008 issue. Make sure that you correct in page
proofs the numerical error on page 19 of the paper, which you
mention under P.S. in your message. When the paper is published,
I will send a couple of copies of the full issue of the journal,
but I need to know to which address should I send them.
Looking forward to hearing from you, I am my best regards,
George Klir
|
18) |
July 15, 2008:
Dr. LaViolette responds to Dr. Klir's email and discusses
Ginsparg's desperate attempts to get the journal to retract his
paper.
Subj: Re: Response to your two last messages
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11:38:25 PM
From: Gravitics1
To: xxxx@binghamton.edu, Gravitics1
Dear Dr. Klir,
Thank you for your letter and support. Yes, you may forward
the whole of my message of July 14th to your board member. Thank
you for letting me know of the publication date...
Also thank you for allowing me to quote you to arxiv moderation
regarding the fact that my paper had been satisfactorily reviewed
by physicists. And, thank you for clarifying the connection of
how the physicist came to contact your board member. It is clear
that the so called "top professor in a major university"
that contacted your board member is someone in the physics department
at Cornell University associated with arxiv.org. My best guess
is that it was Paul Ginsparg. I had kept confidential which journal
was to publish my paper and had told only the arxiv moderator
(an anonymous person who hides behind arxiv's moderator mask
somewhat like the Wizard of Oz). I copy below my correspondence
with arxiv.org moderation. On May 9th I had informed the moderator
that the paper had been accepted in IJGS. So they were the only
ones other than yourself and the paper referees who knew of this.
Also on June 20th I had invited the moderator to contact yourself
to inquire whether the paper had been reviewed by physicists
(see correspondence below). But instead he contacted your board
member. Why he contacted this person and not yourself, I don't
know. Possibly because it was someone he knew.
This throws a new light on the arxiv.org management. If they
were acting properly as gentile unbiased scientists they should
have contacted you in a polite manner to ask whether the paper
had been reviewed by a physicist and explained the circumstances.
Instead this individual attacks the paper like a mad dog and
casts aspersions about my credibility as a scientist. I cannot
say whether his behavior was done in a calculated manner to embarrass
IJGS into withdrawing publication of my paper or due to his emotions
just getting the better of him and causing him to resemble the
boss of Inspector Clouseau in the Pink Panther.
Anyway it is revealing that they should bring up Bob Park's
news column postings as being among the reasons for not posting
my paper on the archive. It appears this is the underlying reason
why they have singled me out and blacklisted me for exclusion
from the archive since year 2000. Even telephone calls by Nobel
Laureate Hans Bethe, which Park rudely let go unanswered, were
unable to free me from my blacklisted status. (Bethe had endorsed
the posting of one of my earlier papers which pointed out how
the maser signal test I had proposed in my 1985 IJGS publication
had been carried out by JPL and that their results on observations
of the Pioneer spacecraft maser signal verified the prediction
I had made. The blueshifting phenomenon they observed is today
known as the Pioneer Effect. Arxiv.org relented and finally posted
this paper only after I had contacted the National Science Foundation
physics division and complained that the arxiv.org program which
NSF was then funding was discriminating against myself and a
few other individuals by blacklisting us from the arxiv. NSF
was about to begin an investigation into the matter, but upon
being sued by another physicist who was being blocked from the
arxiv, they stopped the investigation. Direct NSF funding to
the arxiv was subsequently cut, but money still continued to
flow to Cornell's arxiv operation through related programs (hence
funding went underground). Ginsparg set up an elaborate review
process and after I jumped these hurdles by getting my paper
endorsed by a registered endorser, it was finally allowed to
be posted.
But it is interesting that this arxiv administrator would
reveal that he regards Park's comments as factual and a reasonable
basis to consider my work unscientific, when in fact most of
what Park has said about me was entirely fabricated. Admitting
this does not put the arxiv administration in a very good light
and in fact leaves them looking a bit like clowns. How the president
of Cornell can tolerate this behavior I don't know. Maybe he
has no idea what goes on.
Below is my correspondence with arxiv moderation.
Best regards,
Paul LaViolette
|
19) |
July 16, 2008:
Professor Klir responds to LaViolette's email. He
expresses his sympathy with LaViolette's experience of being
censored by the arxiv.org moderator.
Subj: Your last e-mail
Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:20:33 PM
From: xxxx@binghamton.edu
To: Gravitics1@aol.com
Dear Paul,
Thank you for sending me your correspondence with the arxiv
moderator. I
am not surprised that you are frustrated with this stubborn censorship,
totally unscientific, which pretends to serve science. Thank
you also
for the address of your parents, to which I will mail copies
of the
journal with your paper.
I expect that your paper is now in production, so you have
to wait for
proofs to make any corrections in it...
With best regards,
George Klir
|
20) |
July 17, 2008:
LaViolette writes to the arxiv.org moderators informing
them that his paper was reviewed by three physicists before being
accepted for publication.
Subj: Re: (moderation) question about paper 0805.1216
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:00:52 PM
From:
To: moderation@arxiv.org
cc: xxxx@binghamton.edu
Dear arXiv-moderation,
Concerning the paper: "The Electric Charge and Magnetization
Distribution of the Nucleon: Evidence of a Subatomic Turing Wave
Pattern":
I am writing to confirm that my paper was reviewed by three
physicists. Professor George Klir, editor of the International
Journal of General Systems, has stated as follows concerning
the peer review of my paper:
"I asked four physicists to review the paper and I received
reviews by three of them. They all made various comments and
suggestions, and asked some questions, but they all recommended
that the paper be published ... I sent the three reviews to LaViolette,
together with my own review, and asked him to respond to all
these reviews. He substantially revised the paper and explained
in detail how he actually revised it. After that, I accepted
the paper and sent it to production."
I hope this is sufficient to answer your concerns about the
review of my paper and that you will now allow it to be posted
in the Nonlinear Systems section of arxiv.org.
Sincerely,
Paul LaViolette
LaViolette received no reply from the moderator,
just this automated computer response:
Subj: RE: Re: moderation question about paper 0805.1216
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:59:43 PM
From: no-reply@arXiv.org
To: plaviolette@starburstfound.org
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.)
Thank you for your patience.
|
21) |
April 29, 2009: Update
In
the nine months since his last email to the arxiv.org moderators,
LaViolette has received no response back from them. In
June 20, 2008, arxiv.org stated that their concern was that LaViolette's
paper had not been reviewed by physicists. On July 17,
he affirmed to them that it had been reviewed by three physicists
and quotes from the editor's email. Paul Ginsparg, administrator
of arxiv.org, also had the opportunity to learn of this directly
from his email exchange with the IJGS editorial board.
So the unwillingness of Ginsparg, or the arxiv.org moderator
to respond to LaViolette's request for posting indicates that
they have completely exhausted their reasons for not allowing
his paper to be posted. LaViolette has successfully challenged
all of the moderator's objections. This leaves one to conclude
that their reasons are emotionally based. They are based
on the moderator's (Ginsparg's) personal distaste for a particular
scientist's work, even if that scientist's peers believe the
work to be sound. The moderator objects to allowing this
paper posted because it is authored by LaViolette. LaViolette's
name is on their mandatory black list. Most would admit
that the purpose of the arxiv is not for serving Ginsparg's personal
tastes, but to serve the scientific community at large. Hence
he should stop his censorship activities which interfere with
the archive's normal process of operation.
In summary:
Arxiv.org has continued to block
LaViolette from posting a preprint of his paper.
Paul Ginsparg's aggressive action
to contact the IJGS editorial board and castigate LaViolette's
paper indicates that his suppressive actions go beyond merely
censoring authors from posting on arxiv.org, but also include
aggressive attempts to have the papers of those authors blocked
from journal publication.
Ginsparg failed to convince
the journal to stop publication of LaViolette's paper. The
paper was published in November, 2008.
Ginsparg did not take up the
challenge to submit a Letter to the Editor of the International
Journal of General Systems to state his objections to LaViolette's
paper.
A preprint copy of LaViolette's
paper may be found at Starburstfound.org:
The Electric Charge and Magnetization Distribution
of the Nucleon: Evidence of a Subatomic Turing Wave Pattern
|
|