Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 20:12:55 UTC No. 16377483

>>16377290
>How can someone dedicate so much time to a subject of study and yet be so perplexingly incorrect?
A quick look on their inspires, will reveal that they have not dedicated that much time to it. Their research (only one of them has anything more than this piece of shit paper) is practically non-existent.

>How do they get published?
This. I am a bit surprised that this thing got published, not that I have any positive opinions about this journal. My personal experience with NPB is that their reviewers give extremely generic and surface level feedback, which rarely touches the true essence of the subject in detail.

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 20:29:24 UTC No. 16377503

I trust this guy to build a balls-draining robo waifu. But please stay away from physics.

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 20:32:43 UTC No. 16377510

>>16377503
kek

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 20:59:50 UTC No. 16377544

>>16377290
>Symmetric tensor is equal to an antisymmetric operator
I assume that's what [D_mu, D_nu] means anyway. How the fuck did this pass peer review.

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:18:18 UTC No. 16377575

>>16377544
>How the fuck did this pass peer review.
exactly. A first glance, not even look, would suggest crankery red flags all around, as the authors are really writing things that are supposed to be well known in an undergraduate level, as like they are something worth writing in the body of your paper. Actually, the first red flag should be the title and abstract, since the authors are trying to pose one of the most generic and big open problems in all of physics, that touches many fields which are vast in current research activity. These give at once the impression of a person that is outside of the field, nevertheless believe they are experienced enough and gifted to tackle these kind of questions.

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:25:41 UTC No. 16377584

>>16377544
another crankery indicator:

they define the Riemann tensor in such a retarded way, when obviously it is antisymmetric! This is false of course, in any manifold [math]R_{\mu\nu}=R_{\nu\mu}[/math]. As a consequence of their retardedness, eq (2) gives off [math]g_{\mu\nu}R=0[/math] identically! I believe that either not a single physicist has peer reviewed this, or that there is something else going on (why does it say 2025?)

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:30:05 UTC No. 16377591

>>16377584
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927650524001130

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:35:24 UTC No. 16377602

>>16377584
One equation sets the Ricci tensor (the whole thing) equal to a constant. For real, was written by AI? Was this a Sokal like hoax?

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:36:13 UTC No. 16377603

>>16377591
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927650524001130
oh man. A was already skeptical about this journal, elsevier in general, but damn how the fuck did this get through? I know this is not hep-th, but still.. Shit journal

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:40:02 UTC No. 16377607

>>16377591
ok, at least they have an investigation and given on how new the paper is, they might be looking at it rn. That does not make things any better for them however https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927650524001257

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:40:16 UTC No. 16377609

>>16377584
>>16377602
On a slightly related note, I'm now convinced they use the same symbol for 3 distinct quantities to make it look like their contracting tensors until they reach a scalar. That's the only justification I can see for them doing this. This is honestly terrible.

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:44:54 UTC No. 16377614

Also, the thing is not on ArXiv, for obvious reasons. Man I can't imagine opening up archive one morning and seeing this, would be hilarious

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:45:55 UTC No. 16377615

>>16377614
ArXiv*

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:48:48 UTC No. 16377617

>>16377607
A bunch of open access journals are basically outsourcing their peer review to the academic community by doing it retroactively once the academic community starts to complain.
I don't think this is the only case.
It's only a matter of time until this carelessness results in the removal of valid, but controversial research.
>>16377609
They really like epsilon.

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:50:06 UTC No. 16377620

>>16377609
I keep reading more and I cannot believe what these people do with the indices. Some equations have objects with 2, 1 and no indices (eq 13) fuck everything i guess

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:56:28 UTC No. 16377627

>>16377617
>A bunch of open access journals are basically outsourcing their peer review to the academic community by doing it retroactively once the academic community starts to complain.

But the community only cares about ArXiv desu, we don't give a shit about the actual publications (in hep-th at least) and people sometimes leave comments there. But everyone reads your paper on the ArXiv, and given enough time to get feedback from the community, you go and publish it.

>It's only a matter of time until this carelessness results in the removal of valid, but controversial research.

Again, the true rejection would come from the community when uploaded to ArXiv. If removed, while it is supposedly true research, the authors would just try the next journal etc

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 22:23:20 UTC No. 16377652

>>16377483
My professor just told me today that the peer revew only checks if it's following standard procedure, so anything can be published really, if you think about it

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 22:53:33 UTC No. 16377673

>>16377620
>Let [math] \epsilon _{\mu \nu} \Gamma_\mu = i \gamma ^{\nu} [/math]
Lol, lmao even. This paper is the best joke I've read this month. This is a joke, right. RIGHT?

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 22:59:10 UTC No. 16377679

schizophasia thread
everyone spout out all your memorized scyence catchphrases and buzzwords

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 23:05:07 UTC No. 16377682

Homie has computed the mass of an electron to be [math] 1/\text{radius of the universe}[/math] and the mass of the tauon to be [math] m_{\tau} \propto 1/\sqrt{\text{radius of the solar system}}[/math]. Holy fuck, this is something else.

🗑️ OP !dQdLbVGMJw at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 23:21:16 UTC No. 16377696

>>16377679
Go pack to /pol/, the hairy asshole of 4chan, where the likes of you belong.

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 23:35:53 UTC No. 16377706

What about this paper where the authors claim to have found data from the LHC suggesting a new scalar particle at around 700 GeV with close to 5 sigma that was predicted by their own theory in a previous paper?

https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03711

Seems very sus to me, big if true

Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 23:37:28 UTC No. 16377709

>>16377290
Just a passing read is making me near bewildered.

Are engineeroids even human fucking beings?