Two of the novel hep-th papers today were written yesteryear John Dixon who offers Gmail equally his affiliation (well, then would I right now, but many to a greater extent than people would know who I am):
Canonical Transformations tin Dramatically Simplify SupersymmetryWhile the titles are longer than they should be, they're pretty bold together with unproblematic claims. You tin – together with y'all should – completely erase all scalar partners of known fermions inward supersymmetric theories. And that's desirable because no squarks together with sleptons accept been discovered yet. Well, in that location is a slight problem: These claims are self-evident rubbish.
Squarks together with Sleptons are non needed for the SSM. They tin be, together with they should be, transformed away
If SUSY tin hold upwardly talked close at all, the operators \(Q_\alpha\) alongside a spinor index accept to be together with no 1 tin foreclose y'all from bespeak what is \(Q\ket{\mu}\) where \(\ket\mu\) is a province alongside 1 muon, for example. You but accept to acquire a bosonic result. The outcome of the activeness of about SUSY generators has to hold upwardly nonzero because the anticommutator of \(Q\)'s contains the momentum which is nonzero. So the activeness has to hold upwardly a province alongside 1 bosonic particle alongside the same momentum, maybe dressed into about materials related to the SUSY-breaking sector, or this province may hold upwardly inward a different superselection sector (but these issues accept to acquire away if SUSY is restored, e.g. at high energies).
So if the activeness of all these supercharges were zero, the activeness of the momentum on \(\ket\mu\) would accept to vanish equally good – but it clearly doesn't.
Fine. So 1 reads the titles together with sees that it looks totally stupid. But no 1 would genuinely accept written 2 complicated 20-page papers total of formalism if they were genuinely dedicated to an thought that an average physics educatee may come across to hold upwardly childishly incorrect inward several seconds, right? There must hold upwardly something I am non getting, right?
So I die on on reading the 2 papers. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 loophole showing that the obvious decision that the claim is self-evidently incorrect must hold upwardly written somewhere on the showtime pages, right? What is the ingenious novel possibility that makes it possible to invalidate the unproblematic declaration above? I kept on reading together with nothing.
The papers facial expression exactly similar physicists' papers. Many crackpots may hold upwardly rather safely identified because they write their papers inward Microsoft Word or something of this sort. But inward this case, they are written inward \(\rm\TeX\). There are lots of indices then that the "genre" looks indistinguishable from a textbook of supersymmetry, e.g. Wess together with Bagger's book. But something is missing because it exactly doesn't brand whatever sense.
After about time, y'all larn that the ingenious alternative that Dixon must accept institute has something to exercise alongside the "replacement of fields yesteryear zinns", whatever the latter (zinns) is supposed to be; alongside the "replacement of chiral multiplets alongside un-chiral multiplets", whatever un-chiral is supposed to hold upwardly (some partly ghostly fields?); together with alongside about ingenious activeness yesteryear about "canonical transformations" (those should hold upwardly exactly transformations... something that doesn't qualitatively alter physics but Dixon seems to conclude otherwise). One may likewise come across that the writer seems attached to the classical concept of a Poisson bracket. In a quantum theory, nosotros ultimately demand commutators, right? So why are the Poisson brackets everywhere?
All these pet concepts of Mr Dixon are related to about confusingly mixed condition of the supercharges that are partly viewed equally the BRST charge, it seems. So maybe the guy has basically discovered the topological champaign theories where the SUSY charges are reinterpreted equally BRST charges or vice versa – or something similar but inequivalent together with new. You await about comprehensible explanation of these things but I think that y'all tin never acquire it.
In the instance of this lawyer, a layman who tin only come across the "formatting" would accept no run a peril to come across that these papers are completely nonsensical. Aside from the \(\rm\TeX\), in that location is likewise an impressive listing of people who are thanked to inward the acknowledgements, including Duff, Hull, Ramond, together with West. Some of these people had to give Dixon about "endorsement" to post papers to hep-th, I believe.
I vaguely remembered that I accept seen this hollo inward the past. And indeed, in that location are several TRF weblog posts close him. In this 2008 text close CyberSUSY, it was indeed observed that the guy confuses BRST charges together with supercharges (and their different roles), spinors alongside scalars, the local symmetries together with the global symmetries. But this John Dixon runs a weblog CyberSUSY.blogspot.com, cool. Sadly, it has no traffic.
In 2012, Alejandro Rivero pointed out that John Dixon gave a wise advise to Paul Frampton concerning suitcases at the airport. More importantly, inward 2013, John Dixon came hither over again to enjoin us that SUSY hasn't been relevant for physics. That's a bizarre starting betoken if y'all desire to write long articles close SUSY, fifty-fifty novel versions of it, which are clearly much less relevant for physics because it must hold upwardly impossible to define e.g. the province \(Q\ket\mu\) inward Dixon's scheme. Does he genuinely believe that 1 may brand meaningful permit lone of import contributions to the SUSY enquiry if the showtime supposition he builds upon is that SUSY has been worthless? Understanding why SUSY is a fantastic construction is sure as shooting amid the showtime prerequisites y'all demand earlier y'all may exercise enquiry of it.
By the way, y'all may banking concern fit that Dixon's really similar 2008 newspaper on CyberSUSY has four citations according to Google Scholar. All of them are self-citations yesteryear newer papers yesteryear John Dixon. Quite an enthusiast if I avoid the term "vigorous masturbator". It seems that the same is almost exclusively truthful for 20 or then papers that Dixon wrote inward the novel millennium.
OK, then I think that this guy has gotten about endorsement to post his papers on hep-th. I exercise believe that his endorsers know that the newspaper is almost certainly bullšit – or to say at least, they can't coherently explicate the novel right thought or outcome that the papers contain. But they gave him the endorsement, anyway, maybe to acquire rid of Dixon's annoying mails. Or because of pity because they think that it's fell to enjoin him that he's wasting his fourth dimension because he's non on the right runway to exercise anything useful inward physics.
I tin empathize these motivations together with in that location may be others. But whatever the argue is, this bogus endorsement is circumventing the work of the endorsement system. If y'all know that it's extremely unlikely that y'all could e'er work a similar newspaper inward your ain enquiry – together with no 1 except for Dixon has used his results yet – y'all but shouldn't endorse it.
There's no serious job when 1 newspaper yesteryear a lawyer is occasionally posted to hep-th together with fifty-fifty 2 papers similar this are fun together with they only damage a 2nd for an average reader of arXiv.org abstracts to hold upwardly dealt with. They may hold upwardly a pleasant distraction. But if everyone behaved similar the endorsers of John Dixon's papers, hep-th would hold upwardly flooded yesteryear similar stuff. The density of meaningful papers could driblet to a depression plenty value then that people would start to hold upwardly discouraged. They would experience that they're next viXra.org instead. They may demand to facial expression for novel venues to part the information alongside other experts.
So I exactly don't think it's right to circumvent the endorsement organisation inward the sake of pity etc. I've had variety of similar comments close Free Harvard, Fair Harvard, about plans yesteryear Steve Hsu, Ralph Nader, together with a few other comrades to abolish tuition at Harvard. You know, much of the especial condition of Harvard equally the world's most famous academy – or at to the lowest degree 1 that could accept built the largest endowment – is the fact that it's difficult to acquire in that location together with inward many cases, it requires both talent together with about wealth or sponsors. It's non a bug, it's a virtue. Without these barriers, Harvard's condition could driblet to the degree of goodness schools that lack the X-factor, however, such equally Charles University inward Prague. It's likewise to a greater extent than ofttimes than non picking the smartest students inward the country. But it's silent not Harvard, together with it's partly due to its missing links to the "very successful, wealthy, together with almost aristocratic, circles".
Feudalism belongs to the history mass but about "natural surroundings for wealth, success, together with research" is desirable, anyway. This surroundings is compatible alongside about "social mobility". But the goals to brand the "social mobility" perfect or 100% are absolutely counterproductive plans of a radical anarchist or an ideologue of a similar sort. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 salubrious gild but doesn't operate together with cannot operate similar that.
No comments:
Post a Comment