Main Page
E. Corrigan refers to paper with mathematically and physically wrong results
E. Corrigan (Former Honorary Editor to Journal of Physics A) clearly demonstrates ignorance of definition of geometry. Refers to paper with physically and mathematically wrong results.
Refers to expression that is not in the submitted paper.
For details see full correspondence below
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:35:09 +0100
Subject: IOP - Submission has been received
From: [email protected]
Your Article 'ON SPECIAL CASES OF GENERAL GEOMETRY' has been received.
The Submission will be reviewed by our team, and we will get back to
you shortly.
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Atom/A/167625/RPL/47626
To: "J Phys A: Math Gen"
Dear Rose Gray,
The paper has been submitted more than 60 days ago.
Please let me know when the decision will be made.
Yours sincerely,
Shervgi
To: [email protected]
Subject: Atom/A/167625/PAP/47626
From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:15:37 +0000
Ref: A/167625/PAP/47626
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev
TITLE: ON SPECIAL CASES OF GENERAL GEOMETRY
AUTHORS: Dr Sh S Shahverdiyev
Your Paper submitted to Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General
has now been refereed and the referee reports are attached.
I am sorry to tell you that the referees have recommended that your
Paper should not be published in Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and
General, for the reasons given in their reports. Your Paper has therefore been
withdrawn from consideration.
I would like to thank you for your interest in Journal of Physics A:
Mathematical and General.
Yours sincerely
Rose Gray and Sarah Nadin
Publishing Administrators
Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General
E-mail: [email protected]
Referee Report
==============
Second Referee's Report
I regret to say that I cannot recommend publication of this article in
this
journal. There is already a large literature along the lines of this
research
--- the author may wish to consult the mmany papers written on the
application
of FINSLERIAN geometry to physics. This idea has not received much
support,
partly because [as in the present work] the introduction of a
"fundamental vector" spoils the isotropy of spacetime in a basic way, and there is
no experimental or observational evidence of such violations, even in
cosmology.
Referee Report
==============
First Referee's Report
The author claims to have discover a new geometry (called General
Geometry) to treat the theory of electromagnetism as well as
the unified model of electromagnetism and gravitation.
This geometry is based in a ``metric" of the type
$$
ds = k_\mu dx^\mu + (g_{\mu \nu} \, dx^\mu dx^\nu)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
$$
This kind of metric is called Randers metric in the literature,
and it is a particular case of Finsler metric.
There is an extensive literature on the subject (including
the study of its curvature); a few papers are the following:
D. Bao, Z. Shen: Finsler metrics of constant positive curvature on
the Lie group $S^3$. J. London Math. Soc. (2) 66 (2002), no.2, 453-467.
A. Sep\'ulveda: Rotating frames, electrodynamics and Finsler' s
geometry.
Rev. Mat. Mexicvana F{\'\i}s. 46 (2000), no. 5, 496-499.
M. Matsumoto: Homothetic transformations of Randers spaces.
Tensor (N.S.) 44 (1987), no. 3, 240-250
M. Matsumoto: Randers spaces of constant curvature.
Rep. Math. Phys. 28 (1989), no. 2, 249-261.
H. Yasuda, H. Shimada: On Randers spaces of scalar curvature.
Rep. Math. Phys. 11 (1977) no. 3, 347-360.
Therefore, I can not recommend this paper
for publication in Journal of Physics in the present form.
The author should write a new version
taking into account these precedents.
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:25:18 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Atom/A/167625/PAP/47626
To: [email protected]
Dear Rose Gray and Sarah Nadin,
The decision is made according to the reports which is
irrelevant to the paper. Attached, please find my
comments to the reports. According to my comments, the
decision not to publish the paper is not supported.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
> Referee Report
> ==============
> Second Referee's Report
>
> I regret to say that I cannot recommend publication
> of this article in this
>
> journal. There is already a large literature along
> the lines of this
> research
> --- the author may wish to consult the many papers
> written on the
> application
> of FINSLERIAN geometry to physics. This idea has not
> received much support,
> partly because [as in the present work] the
> introduction of a "fundamental
> vector" spoils the isotropy of spacetime in a basic
> way, and there is no
> experimental or observational evidence of such
> violations, even in
> cosmology.
Authors comments to the report#2
I regret to say that this report is not acceptable,
because it is irrelevant to the paper. In the paper a
new geometry is proposed. This geometry is completely
different from the so called FINSLERIAN geometry.
I would like to stress that geometry is defined by the
expression (1), not by a metric. After a geometry is
chosen we can choose any metric. For some reason the
referee discusses something that is irrelevant to the
paper. Therefore, this report is not acceptable.
> Referee Report
> ==============
> First Referee's Report
>
> The author claims to have discover a new geometry
> (called General
> Geometry) to treat
> the theory of electromagnetism as well as
> the unified model of electromagnetism and
> gravitation.
> This geometry is based in a ``metric" of the type
> $$
> ds = k_\mu dx^\mu + (g_{\mu \nu} \, dx^\mu
> dx^\nu)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
> $$
> This kind of metric is called Randers metric in the
> literature,
> and it is a particular case of Finsler metric.
> There is an extensive literature on the subject
> (including
> the study of its curvature); a few papers are the
> following:
>
> D. Bao, Z. Shen: Finsler metrics of constant
> positive curvature on
> the Lie group $S^3$. J. London Math. Soc. (2) 66
> (2002), no.2, 453-467.
>
> A. Sep\'ulveda: Rotating frames, electrodynamics and
> Finsler' s geometry.
> Rev. Mat. Mexicvana F{\'\i}s. 46 (2000), no. 5,
> 496-499.
>
> M. Matsumoto: Homothetic transformations of Randers
> spaces.
> Tensor (N.S.) 44 (1987), no. 3, 240-250
>
> M. Matsumoto: Randers spaces of constant curvature.
> Rep. Math. Phys. 28 (1989), no. 2, 249-261.
>
> H. Yasuda, H. Shimada: On Randers spaces of scalar
> curvature.
> Rep. Math. Phys. 11 (1977) no. 3, 347-360.
>
> Therefore, I can not recommend this paper
> for publication in Journal of Physics in the present
> form.
> The author should write a new version
> taking into account these precedents.
Authors comments to the report#1
This referee also states that "...
This geometry is based in a ``metric" of the type.."
This statement is incorrect, because the geometry can
not be based on a metric, but is defined by (1).
Therefore, this referee also considered, Finslerian
geometry, which is not related to any results of the
paper.
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:42:40 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Atom/A/167625/PAP/47626 (complaint)
To: [email protected]
Prof. E. Corrigan
Department of Mathematics
University of York
Heslington
York YO10 5DD
Dear Prof. E. Corrigan ,
I am writing to inform you that the referees for
Atom/A/167625/PAP/47626) violates my rights for free
speech.
The paper Atom/A/167625/PAP/47626 has been submitted
to JPA for publication. I have received reports in
which the referees simply pretend that they do not
know how a geometry is defined.
In the paper a new geometry is defined, which is
completely different from the so called Finslerian
geometry (metric). Instead, they state that in the
paper Finslerian geometry is considered, (which is the
Riemannian geometry with a different metric.)
However, it is very surprising that a referee for such
a journal as JPA does not know how a geometry is
defined. This shows us that the referees are not
interested in publishing the paper personally.
I would like to stress that such actions of the
referees are the violations of the fair referring
system and their attempt not to publish the paper on
empty grounds is the violation of my rights for free
speech.
I am sure you know that: a geometry is defined
through the change of coordinates of tangent vectors.
as in (1)(in the paper); a geometry can not be defined
by a metric; after, a geometry is chosen we are free
to choose any metric.
Also, I would like to note that some scientist are
interested in suppressing publication of this series
of papers, because they damage reputation of string
theory being a theory of everything.
This group, of scientist, writes absolutely irrelevant
reports to those papers and artificially delay their
consideration.
I hope you will make appropriate steps to stop such
actions of the referees.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. S. S. Shahverdiyev.
------------------------------------------------------
Below, please find reports and my comments.
> Referee Report
> ==============
> Second Referee's Report
>
> I regret to say that I cannot recommend publication
> of this article in this
>
> journal. There is already a large literature along
> the lines of this
> research
> --- the author may wish to consult the many papers
> written on the
> application
> of FINSLERIAN geometry to physics. This idea has not
> received much support,
> partly because [as in the present work] the
> introduction of a "fundamental
> vector" spoils the isotropy of spacetime in a basic
> way, and there is no
> experimental or observational evidence of such
> violations, even in
> cosmology.
Author's comments to the report#2
I regret to say that this report is not acceptable,
because it is irrelevant to the paper. In the paper a
new geometry is proposed. This geometry is completely
different from the so called FINSLERIAN geometry.
I would like to stress that geometry is defined by the
expression (1), not by a metric. After a geometry is
chosen we can choose any metric. For some reason the
referee discusses something that is irrelevant to the
paper. Therefore, this report is not acceptable.
> Referee Report
> ==============
> First Referee's Report
>
> The author claims to have discover a new geometry
> (called General
> Geometry) to treat
> the theory of electromagnetism as well as
> the unified model of electromagnetism and
> gravitation.
> This geometry is based in a ``metric" of the type
> $$
> ds = k_\mu dx^\mu + (g_{\mu \nu} \, dx^\mu
> dx^\nu)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
> $$
> This kind of metric is called Randers metric in the
> literature,
> and it is a particular case of Finsler metric.
> There is an extensive literature on the subject
> (including
> the study of its curvature); a few papers are the
> following:
>
> D. Bao, Z. Shen: Finsler metrics of constant
> positive curvature on
> the Lie group $S^3$. J. London Math. Soc. (2) 66
> (2002), no.2, 453-467.
>
> A. Sep\'ulveda: Rotating frames, electrodynamics and
> Finsler' s geometry.
> Rev. Mat. Mexicvana F{\'\i}s. 46 (2000), no. 5,
> 496-499.
>
> M. Matsumoto: Homothetic transformations of Randers
> spaces.
> Tensor (N.S.) 44 (1987), no. 3, 240-250
>
> M. Matsumoto: Randers spaces of constant curvature.
> Rep. Math. Phys. 28 (1989), no. 2, 249-261.
>
> H. Yasuda, H. Shimada: On Randers spaces of scalar
> curvature.
> Rep. Math. Phys. 11 (1977) no. 3, 347-360.
>
> Therefore, I can not recommend this paper
> for publication in Journal of Physics in the present
> form.
> The author should write a new version
> taking into account these precedents.
Author's comments to the report#1
This referee also states that "...
This geometry is based in a ``metric" of the type.."
This statement is incorrect, because the geometry can
not be based on a metric, but is defined by (1).
Therefore, this referee also considered, Finslerian
geometry, which is not related to any results of the
paper.
To: [email protected]
Subject: Atom/A/167625/PAP/47626
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:17:52 +0000
Ref: A/167625/PAP/47626
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev
TITLE: ON SPECIAL CASES OF GENERAL GEOMETRY
AUTHORS: Dr Sh S Shahverdiyev
Thank you for your response to the referees' comments. We will now send
your Paper, and all the related correspondence, to the Editorial Board
for
consideration. We will let you know our final decision as soon as
possible.
Yours sincerely
Rose Gray and Sarah Nadin
Publishing Administrators
Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General
E-mail: [email protected]
http://atom.iop.org
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:54:05 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Atom/A/167625/PAP/47626
To: [email protected]
Dear Rose Gray and Sarah Nadin,
Thank you for your letter.
After comparing the referee reports I can surely state
that the second report is the continuation of the
first one. There is no doubt that the second referee
did know about the content of the first report.
As far as I know the reports must be written
independently.
My complaint can be signed and sent by ordinary mail.
Please provide the name of the person to whom it must
be addressed and his/her mailing address. My complaint
must be considered as an official document.
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
To: [email protected]
Subject: J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. - A/167625/PAP/47626
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:54:09 +0000
Ref: A/167625/PAP/47626
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev
TITLE: ON SPECIAL CASES OF GENERAL GEOMETRY
AUTHORS: Dr Sh S Shahverdiyev
Thank you for your further comments regarding your appeal against our
decision to reject your paper from publication in Journal of Physics A:
Mathematical and General. Your paper and your comments are now being
considered by one of our senior referees and we will let you know our
final
decision as soon as possible. Any further correspondence should be sent
directly to our office at the usual address.
Thank you for your continued concern and interest.
Yours sincerely
Rose Gray and Sarah Nadin
Publishing Administrators
Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General
E-mail: [email protected]
http://atom.iop.org
To: [email protected]
Subject: Final decision on your article from J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. - A/167625/PAP/47626
From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:16:06 +0000
Ref: A/167625/PAP/47626
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev
TITLE: ON SPECIAL CASES OF GENERAL GEOMETRY
AUTHORS: Dr Sh S Shahverdiyev
Your Paper has now been considered by the Editorial Board of Journal of
Physics A: Mathematical and General, along with your response to the
referees' comments. I am sorry to tell you that the Board has decided
that your Paper should not be published in Journal of Physics A:
Mathematical and General, for the reasons given in the attached report.
This means that we are not able to consider this Paper any further, and
the correspondence is now closed. However, I would like to thank you for
your interest in Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General.
Yours sincerely
Rose Gray and Sarah Nadin
Publishing Administrators
Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General
E-mail: [email protected]
Board Member's First Report
I have sourght the opinion of an expert in this field, whose opinion is
given
below. The paper should be rejected.
A. This article artificially brings in Randers metrics. A special
case, known as Numata metrics, appears in eqn (4); the general
case appears as the un-numbered formula below eqn (8). Randers
metrics are commonplace in the present literature of Finsler
geometry. There is no longer anything novel about them, nor
should they be used artificially.
B. Eqn pairs (3)(6) and (8)(10) represent the core of the author's
thesis. They are structural assumptions about parallel
transport
and the rate of change of the Minkowski norm of vector fields
along
curves. The resulting eqns (7) and the one following (10) are
consistency conditions. The author then imposes additional
structure on the above rate of change in order to effect certain
familiar statements. This again, is artificial.
C. Finally, the author could benefit from a thorough search of the
literature, paying special attention to the work of R.G. Beil.
A prime example could be the article entitled "Finsler geometry
and relativistic field theory", Foundations of Physics, vol. 33
(2003), 1107-1127. The essence of eqn (8) is already featured
prominently in the cited article. (That essence lies in placing
the electromagnetic field strength at the level of connections,
rather than the level of curvatures.)
The three points I made were done in good faith; and I might add that
I'm not Beil himself. I think the author genuinely feels that he has
something new to say, and that he fears being categorically dismissed
by the current status quo. However, the idea he is proposing is poorly
articulated, besides being quite well known. Furthermore, the language
with which he presents his formalism is appallingly out-dated. Given
these factors, I have to ask the J. Phys. A to reject the manuscript.
Institute of Physics
Registered charity No. 293851
76 Portland Place, London, W1B 1NT, England
IOP Publishing Limited
Registered in England under Registration No 467514.
Registered Office: Dirac House, Temple Back, Bristol BS1 6BE England
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:22:47 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Final decision on your article from J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. - A/167625/PAP/47626
To: [email protected]
Dear Rose Gray and Sarah Nadin,
Thank you for your letter.
Unfortunately, I can not understand the referee's
report, because the referee refers to eg(10), that
does not exist in the paper. All the references for
equations are misplaced. I have tried to guess correct
numbers. Nevertheless, A. and B. part of the report
does not make any sense.
In part C., the referee refers to paper in Foundation
of Physics. I have carefully read the paper and found
that its results are not correct. I have written my
comments to that paper in the form of a new paper
which is available at
http://www.mathpreprints.com/math/Preprint/shervgi/20031126/1
I will send it to you in a separate message.
Accordingly, the referee's report does not make any
sense completely. Therefore, the decision made
according to it, is not supported.
Attached, please find my letter to the editorial
board's member.
Sincerely yours,
S. S. Shahverdiyev.
------------------------------------------------------
> Board Member's First Report
>
> I have sourght the opinion of an expert in this
> field, whose opinion is
> given
> below. The paper should be rejected.
Dear Board member,
In the referee's report I did not find any response
to(or consideration of) my comments to the first and
second reports, where I stated that in the paper a new
geometry different from Riemannian and the so called
Finsler geometry is considered.
What actually happened, is that the author's comments
are disregarded and the first referee's opinion is
repeated again in a different way. And then editor say
that your case is closed. This kind of referring
resembles totalitarian system of referring rather than
democratic. It is very well known that if there is no
responsibility then people may do any controversial
things. For example to write irrelevant reports.
Please ask the referee not to be anonymous. I have
heard that such things happen. In that case I am sure
that he/she will not write irrelevant reports.
Otherwise, we both will waste our time by examining
irrelevant reports.
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev
------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:27:35 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Final decision on your article from J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. - A/167625/PAP/47626
To: [email protected]
Dear Rose Gray and Sarah Nadin,
Attached, please find my comment to part C. of the
report.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev
Main Page