Sign in to follow this  
wlad

Plagiarism by The European Physical Journal D

Recommended Posts

In Quantum Ring Theory it is proposed that the space is filled by the aether, which structure is composed by a particle and an antiparticle.

The photon proposed in QRT is formed by the agglutination of both them, and they move with a helical trajectory (zitterbewegung).

So, the particle and antiparticle are a fermion and an antifermion.

 

In the paper A Model of the Photon , which starts in the page 20 of the book, it is shown that from the structure of the photon composed by a particle and its antiparticle we get the Maxwell equations.

 

According to this theory, the size of a photon depends on the quantity of fermions and anti fermions agglutinated in its body.

A new experiment published by the journal Nature is corroborating such hypothesis:

Light created from vacuum shows empty space a myth

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-19/science/30418928_1_vacuum-dce-photons

 

 

As consequence of the experiment published in the journal Nature in 2011, The European Physical Journal D had published in 2013 a theory so that to justify the creation of light from the space:


The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7#page-1

 

In the item 3 of the article (The vacuum permeability), the authors say:

“We propose a physical mechanism to produce the vacuum permeability from the elementary magnetism of the charged fermion pairs under a magnetic stress. Each charged efemeral fermion carries a magnetic moment proportional to the Bohr magneton.

We assume the orbital moment and the spin of the pair to be zero. Since the fermion and the anti fermion have opposite electric charges, the pair carries twice the magnetic moment of one fermion”

The structure proposed in The European Physical Journal D in 2013 is the same structure proposed in the book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006.

The photon formed by a lot of particles and antiparticles (fermions and anti fermions) moves in the “soup” formed by the elementary fermions and anti fermions, a soup named aether.

 

The entire sctructure of the ether proposed in Quantum Ring theory is proposed in the paper Ether, which starts in the page 164 of the book.

It is proposed a structure of the ether formed by electric particles e(+) and antiparticles e(-), magnetic particles m(+) and antiparticles m(-), gravity particles g(+) and antiparticles g(-), anti-gravity particles G(+) and antiparticles G(-), and permeability particles p(+) and antiparticles p(-).

The book shows that from such structure of the ether it is explained the formation of the electric fields of the proton and electron, the magnetic fields produced by loadstones, etc.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note


wlad,

This is the third thread that you open which is a large piece of text, which contains links to articles or even books that seem essential to the understanding of your point. On other online forums, we can find texts that are rather similar (entire paragraphs are identical). This makes us worried you may be breaking our rules, specifically section 2.2 regarding plagiarism (which, given the title of this thread would be ironic).

However, because on that other forum the author has a name similar to 'wlad', it is more likely that you just don't write your posts uniquely for our forum. And if you did write those other posts on other forums as well, we get the impression that have an agenda, and that you use our forum to let the world know about that agenda. That could also violate our rules, specifically section 2.8 regarding soapboxing and preaching.

The final possibility would be the worst, which is that you work for the online publishers, and you want to get those articles sold (the sites are requesting payment). That means you break our rules, specifically section 2.7, regarding spamming.

I could have sent you a personal message, but for reasons of transparency, I thought it best to post this here.

Please check our rules. Don't plagiarize. Don't preach/soapbox. Don't spam.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should also be pointed out that similar ideas being expressed is not plagiarism. That would only be the case if the text itself had been copied without attribution.

 

The fact that you mention this "quantum ring theory" including "gravity particles" and "permeability particles", which I assume are not present in the journal article (because I doubt they would publish such crackpottery) means that this is not an instance of plagiarism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, since accusing a journal's contributors of plagiarism is a slur, he has also broken rule 1c

Is a breach of 4 rules in one post some sort of record?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

wlad,

 

This is the third thread that you open which is a large piece of text, which contains links to articles or even books that seem essential to the understanding of your point. On other online forums, we can find texts that are rather similar (entire paragraphs are identical). This makes us worried you may be breaking our rules, specifically section 2.2 regarding plagiarism (which, given the title of this thread would be ironic).

 

 

However, because on that other forum the author has a name similar to 'wlad', it is more likely that you just don't write your posts uniquely for our forum. And if you did write those other posts on other forums as well, we get the impression that have an agenda, and that you use our forum to let the world know about that agenda. That could also violate our rules, specifically section 2.8 regarding soapboxing and preaching.

 

The final possibility would be the worst, which is that you work for the online publishers, and you want to get those articles sold (the sites are requesting payment). That means you break our rules, specifically section 2.7, regarding spamming.

 

I could have sent you a personal message, but for reasons of transparency, I thought it best to post this here.

 

Please check our rules. Don't plagiarize. Don't preach/soapbox. Don't spam.

 

Thanks.

 

Dear moderator

science must advance with transparency.

 

Several experiments along the last 3 years are corroborating my theories (and there are many other experiments corroborating my theory, in spite of I dont want to speak about them here).

 

The journal Nature published two plagiarisms of my ideas.

The European Physical Journal published one plagiarism

 

Between 2006 and 2009, along many discussions in the internet, several physicists used to claim that my models are wrong, and my theory in general makes no sense.

 

So, now I am showing to those physicists that two of the most important journals of Physics had published plagiarisms of my ideas.

Therefore, if my ideas should not have sense, those two journals of Physics would not publish plagiarisms on them.

 

It is my opinion that people have the right to know what happened along the last 3 years: the corroboration of my models by new experiments.

 

And the way I have to do it is to show it in the foruns of Physics, because the physicists in general keep silence about it (because they want to keep their old theories developed according to the Heisenberg scientific method, in spite of their theories are being denied by the new experiments published in the last 3 years).

 

 

I dont need to make spam, because actually the experiments are doing spam for my Quantum Ring Theory.

 

So, if you want to protest against spam, you have to do it against the new experiments, which insists to confirm my models.

 

Tell to the new experiments to keep silence, and ask them to stop to confirm my theory.

This is the best way to stop the spam.

Because I am sure that new up coming experiments will bring more additional confirmations for my models. And then it is obvious that new plagiarisms will be commited by the journals as Science, Nature, Physics Review, etc.

 

It seems you are looking for rules so that to avoid me to show the true for the people.

If it is the case, I am very sorry, because I think the people have the right to know what is going on in the way of the Theoretical Physics development.

 

regards

wlad

It should also be pointed out that similar ideas being expressed is not plagiarism. That would only be the case if the text itself had been copied without attribution.

 

The fact that you mention this "quantum ring theory" including "gravity particles" and "permeability particles", which I assume are not present in the journal article (because I doubt they would publish such crackpottery) means that this is not an instance of plagiarism.

 

No,

the fact that they did not include gravity and permeability particles means that their theory is incomplete (because those authors had tried to explain only the question regarding to the production of the light by the ether. However the ether is responsible for other phenomena beyond the light, as the gravity, magnetic and electric fields, etc.).

 

But the fundamental idea on the ether proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory is its structure formed by particles and antiparticles, and such fundamental idea was plagiarised.

 

Therefore, as you claim that my idea is a crackpottery, then The European Physical Journal published a plagiarism of a crackpottery.

 

I am very sorry that a prestigious journal of Physics as the EPJ is publishing plagiarisms of crackpotteries.

 

regards

wlad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which journal was your theory published in?

 

Why not write to the journals which have published the papers that you say are plagiarised and provide a reference to your published theory. They normally take plagiarism very seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which journal was your theory published in?

 

Why not write to the journals which have published the papers that you say are plagiarised and provide a reference to your published theory. They normally take plagiarism very seriously.

 

 

From: Wladimir Guglinski [mailto:wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com]

Sent: 22 July 2012 15:58

To: Nature@nature.com

Cc: Peter Jones

Subject: Plagiarism in the Journal Nature

To: Philip Campbell

Editor-in-Chief, journal Nature

cc: Peter Jones, Editor, Bäuu Instute Press, publishing house of Quantum Ring Theory

Subject: Plagiarism in the journal Nature

Dear Editor-in-Chief

The journal Nature published in 19 July 2012 the paper “How atomic nuclei cluster” , where there is a plagiarism of an idea of mine, proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006.

According to current Nuclear Physics, the nuclei have a spherical distribution of the protons and neutrons within the nuclei.

In 1993 I started a deep analysis of the current Nuclear Theory, and then I arrived to the conclusion that, by considering the fundamental principles adopted in the theory, it was impossible to conceive a satisfactory model of nucleus, in order to explain the nuclear properties of the nuclei.

The theoretical reasons which invalidate the current nuclear models of Nuclear Physics are exhibited in the following chapters of my book:

Chapter 10 – Critique to the Models of Nuclear Physics , page 123

Chapter 11- Electric Quadrupole Moment , page 136

Chapter 12- Incompatibility Between Nuclear Theory and Electric Quadrupole Moment, page 149

Chapter 13- Beta Decay , page 156

Taking in consideration that from the current principles of Nuclear Theory it was impossible to find a satisfactory model of nucleus, that’s why I have started a theoretical research, so that to find a new nuclear model, capable to be fit to all the known nuclear properties of the nuclei.

According to my new nuclear model, the distribution of protons and neutrons within the light nuclei do not perform a spherical structure, as considered in current Nuclear Physics. Instead of, according to my Quantum Ring Theory, the light nuclei have a flat distribution of nucleons.

Such sort of flat distribution was published in the Nature’s paper “How atomic nuclei cluster” , by J. P. Ebran, E. Khan, T. Niksic, and D. Vretenar, in 19 July 2012.

In 18 July 2012 Martin Freer had published in News & Views the article “Nuclear physics: Nucleons come together”, and I sent him the following comment:

Dear Martin Freer

With that distribution of charge of the 10Ne20 structure shown in Figure 1, how to explain that 10Ne20 has null electric quadrupole momentum ? That structure shown in Figure 1 is not spherical, and therefore 10Ne20 could not have null electric quadrupole momentum (detected in experiments concerning nuclear data)

Regards

WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

And he sent me the following reply:

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:53:09 +0100

From: M.Freer@bham.ac.uk

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Subject: Re: ?spam? Re: Nuclear physics: Nucleons come together

The nucleus is intrinsically deformed as shown, but has spin 0. Consequently, there is no preferred orientation in the laboratory frame and thus the experimental quadrupole is an average over all orientations and hence is zero. Experimentally is is possible to show that the deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and rotating the nucleus.

Martin

His explanation is just the same explanation proposed in the page 137 of my book published in 2006, concerning to the oxygen nucleus 8O116, where it is written the following:

Note that as the 8O16 has a null nuclear magnetic moment m=0, then its nuclear spin cannot be aligned toward a direction by applying an external magnetic field, and so its nuclear spin can indeed be chaotic. So the x-y plane has a chaotic rotation, and the six nucleons 1H2 performs the surface of a sphere, and the z-axis has a chaotic rotation around the center of the nucleus 8O16. By consequence the 8O16 behaves like if it should be a spherical distribution of positives loads, and not a flat distribution. That’s why the 8O16 has Q(b) = 0.

In spite of the nucleus 8O16 (and also the 10Ne20) have a total nuclear spin zero, however the nucleus has a rotation (and such rotation I had called “spin” in my argument). So, the idea proposed by me was the same idea mentioned by Martin Freer, used by the authors of the paper “How atomic nuclei cluster”

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

I would like my comment be published in the next issue of the journal Nature, so that to eliminate the plagiarism.

Also, I recommend that, before to publish new papers regarding any new model of the nucleus, the editors of Nature should suggest to the authors to read my book, in order to avoid future plagiarisms.

Regards

WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

The reply by the the editor of Nature:

Nature@nat​ure.com (Nature@nature.com)
7/24/2012
clear.gif
To: Wladimir Guglinski
Cc: Peter Jones
  • invis.gif
Dear Dr Guglinski,

Thank you for your comment regarding the manuscript entitled “How atomic nuclei cluster” by Ebran et al, and the accompanying News and Views article. Regretfully, we are unable to offer to publish it; however, you are welcome to make use of our online commenting facility. Please go to the original article on our website and enter your message in the box provided beneath it.

Thank you again for writing to us.

Yours sincerely

Dr Karen Howell

Senior Editor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No,

the fact that they did not include gravity and permeability particles means that their theory is incomplete (because those authors had tried to explain only the question regarding to the production of the light by the ether. However the ether is responsible for other phenomena beyond the light, as the gravity, magnetic and electric fields, etc.).

 

But the fundamental idea on the ether proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory is its structure formed by particles and antiparticles, and such fundamental idea was plagiarised.

 

Therefore, as you claim that my idea is a crackpottery, then The European Physical Journal published a plagiarism of a crackpottery.

 

I am very sorry that a prestigious journal of Physics as the EPJ is publishing plagiarisms of crackpotteries.

 

regards

wlad

 

The fact that the two ideas differ means that it's not plagiarism (plagiarism being wholesale copying of text). It's not even copying an idea if their work was similar and they weren't aware of your work. You can't copyright ideas. However, given the differences, and the physics the other work is based on, it's doubtful they copied anything from you. Even if their work is similar, it is much more likely they came up with it independently. As your material is non-mainstream physics it means it is exceedingly unlikely that anyone copied you. Coming to the same conclusion does not mean the mechanisms are identical. Which, of course, you admit to — you say the others' theory is incomplete. They are not identical.

 

In any event, I repeat the question asked by Strange: in what Journal did you publish your ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

wlad,

This forum is not the place to continue a discussion you had with some people (who are not here to participate and defend themselves).

 

If you have an issue with the editors of Nature, then I suggest you contact them. (Yes, I know someone asked you if you contacted them. A simple "yes" would have been sufficient.)

 

Thread closed.

 

Members are not allowed to open a new thread with the same topic as this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this