Main Page
R. Price's statement implies that Riemannian geometry is not a geometry in any usual sense
R. Price (Editor to Physical Review Letters) states that General Geometry formulated in [1] is not a geometry at all because it
depends on particle velocity (absolutely wrong statement).
A consequence of this statement is that Riemannian geometry is not a geometry at all, because it also depends on
particle velocity. In contrary to the editors statement the most simplest special case of "general
geometry" does not depend on velocity at all.
For details see full correspondence below
From: "Physical Review Letters" [email protected]
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:23:55 UT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Your_manuscript LD9359 Shahverdiyev
Re: LD9359
General geometry and geometry of electromagnetism
by Shervgi S. Shahverdiyev
Dr. Shervgi S. Shahverdiyev
27 W. Glenarm St.
Pasadena, CA 91105
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
We have examined your manuscript and conclude that it is not suited for
Physical Review Letters.
We make no judgment on the correctness or technical aspects of your
work. However, from our understanding of the paper's physics results,
context, and motivation, we conclude that your paper does not have the
importance and broad interest needed for publication in our journal.
This judgment results in part from our reading of the abstract,
introduction, and conclusions, which are crucial for our broad
readership. In view of our assessment, we are not sending your
manuscript out for review.
Yours sincerely,
Rashmi Ray
Assistant Editor
Physical Review Letters
Email: [email protected]
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://prl.aps.org/
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Your_manuscript LD9359 Shahverdiyev
To: "Physical Review Letters"
Dear Editor,
Unfortunately, I do not agree with the statement that
geometrization of electromagnetism does not have
importance and broad interest needed for publication.
From correspondences of physicist and mathematicians
with me I can conclude that geometrization of
electromagnetism is very interesting. Moreover, the
problem of Geometry and Physics has been one of the
problem for scientists all over the human history
since the invention of General Relativity. Since that
time there almost every year were conferences on
Geometry and Physics and continues to be held
nowadays.Conferences on geometry of Gauge Theories
are held almost every year including this year too.
Please reconsider your decision.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi Shahverdiyev.
From: "Physical Review Letters"
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 23:39:33 UT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Your_manuscript LD9359 Shahverdiyev
Re: LD9359
General geometry and geometry of electromagnetism
by Shervgi S. Shahverdiyev
Dr. Shervgi S. Shahverdiyev
27 W. Glenarm St.
Pasadena, CA 91105
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
The complete file concerning the above manuscript has been reviewed by
a Divisional Associate Editor. The enclosed comments advise against
publication in Physical Review Letters. The Editors accept this
advice.
Your appeal has been considered, and our decision to reject is
maintained.
Yours sincerely,
Jerome Malenfant
Senior Assistant Editor
Physical Review Letters
Email: [email protected]
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://prl.aps.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of the Divisional Associate Editor -- LD9359/Shahverdiyev
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
The editorial staff made an initial decision not to have your paper
sent for review. Your April 23 email message about this decision has been
interpreted as an appeal, and for that reason has been sent to me, the
Divisional Associate Editor for relativity theory.
I have read your manuscript, and I completely agree with the editorial
decision not to consider it for publication. I judge that you are
setting up mathematical structures that are not "geometry" in any usual sense.
Unusual geometries, of course, have always been of interest to
mathematicians, but I question whether that is true of your general
geometry. In particular, your geometry depends on particle velocity,
but it is not a geometry of phase space.
In any case, the decision is firm that the manuscript is not
appropriate for Physical Review Letters.
Sincerely,
Richard Price
Divisional Associate Editor
Please see the following forms:
http://forms.aps.org/author/resubpolicy-prl.pdf
Resubmittal Policy (PRL)
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 19:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Your_manuscript LD9359 Shahverdiyev
To: "Physical Review Letters"
Dear Jerome Malenfant,
Thank you for your letter.
I am sending you my comments to the report of the
Divisional Associate Editor in a separate message.
If it is necessary please send it to the editor in
Chief. But, I hope that my comments can be useful for
further evaluation of the paper by Dr. Price.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi Shahverdiyev.
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 19:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" | This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: Your_manuscript LD9359 Shahverdiyev (Comments)
To: "Physical Review Letters"
Dear Dr. Price,
I have read you report carefully. I feel that there
must be a few comments and think that they can be
useful for understanding of the results of the paper.
>I judge that you are setting
> up mathematical structures that are not "geometry"
> in any usual sense.
I am sure that you consider Riemannian geometry as a
usual geometry. The "general geometry" proposed in the
paper includes Riemannian geometry as a special case.
This is proven in sec 3. General geometry is defined
along the same lines as Riemannian geometry (see for
example W. Pauli, "Theory of Relativity", Pergamon
Press 1958). Therefore, I do not see any reason for
suspecting that "General Geometry" is not a geometry.
If we restrict ourselves to Riemannian geometry only
then there must not be any progress in that area of
Mathematics.
> Unusual geometries, of course, have always been of
> interest to
> mathematicians, but I question whether that is true
> of your general
> geometry.
Of course, "general geometry" must be of interest for
mathematicians as a new geometry. Moreover, it is
shown that the most simplest special case of it has
physical application as a geometry underlying
electromagnetism.
>In particular, your geometry depends on
> particle velocity, but
> it is not a geometry of phase space.
First of all, Riemannian geometry also depends on
particle velocity (see (9)).
Second, the most simplest special case of "general
geometry" defined by (11) does not depend on velocity
at all.
Third, I do not see any contradiction if a geometry
depends on particle velocity.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi Shahverdiyev.
From: "Physical Review Letters"
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:11:08 UT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Your_manuscript LD9359 Shahverdiyev
Re: LD9359
General geometry and geometry of electromagnetism
by Shervgi S. Shahverdiyev
Dr. Shervgi S. Shahverdiyev
27 W. Glenarm St.
Pasadena, CA 91105
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
We have received your resubmittal. However, our consideration of your
manuscript resulted in a decision against publication, and this
decision was reaffirmed after appeal to a member of the Editorial
Board. According to the appeal procedure, further scientific review is
not appropriate.
Yours sincerely,
Jerome Malenfant
Senior Assistant Editor
Physical Review Letters
Email: [email protected]
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://prl.aps.org/
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 16:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Your_manuscript LD9359 Shahverdiyev
To: "Physical Review Letters"
Dear Jerome Malenfant,
>According to the appeal procedure, further
> scientific review is
> not appropriate.
I am sorry, in contrary to your statement, according
to the appeal procedure, which is stated at
http://forms.aps.org/author/resubpolicy-prl.pdf
the paper must be sent to the Editor in- Chief.
Could you please let me know why you did not handle my
paper according to the appeal procedure.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:01:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Physical Review Letters"
To: [email protected]
Subject: authlet LD9359 Shahverdiyev
_____________________________________________________________________________
Physical Review Letters Telephone: (631)
591-4060
1 Research Road, P. O. Box 9000 Fax: (631)
591-4141
Ridge, New York 11961-9000 Internet:
[email protected]
_____________________________________________________________________________
05Jun03
Dr. Shervgi S. Shahverdiyev
27 W. Glenarm St.
Pasadena, CA 91105
[email protected]
Re: General geometry and geometry of electromagnetism
By: Shahverdiyev,Shervgi S. LD9359
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev:
The actual quote from the resubmittal memo is:
"The author of a paper which has been rejected subsequent to an
appeal to a DAE may appeal to the Editor-in-Chief of the American
Physical Society. This request should be addressed to the Chair of
Divisional Associate Editors, who will forward the entire file to the
Editor-in-Chief. Such an appeal must be based on the fairness of the
procedures followed, and must not be a request for another scientific
review. The question to be answered in this review is: Did the paper
receive a fair hearing? The decision of the Editor-in-Chief concludes
the consideration of the manuscript by the Americal Physical Society."
Appeals to the Editor-in-Chief are not automatic; the author must ask
for such an appeal, and must state why he believes such an appeal is
justified; i.e., what was unfair about the procedures followed? Since
your letter did not request an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, and did
not
provide any grounds for this appeal, I took no action on it.
Yours sincerely,
Jerome Malenfant
Senior Assistant Editor
Physical Review Letters
Email: [email protected]
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://prl.aps.org/
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: authlet LD9359 Shahverdiyev
To: "Physical Review Letters"
Dear Jerome Malenfant,
Please find my appeal below.
Dear Editor in Chief,
I consider evaluation of my paper as unfair
because according to the editors's statement
"geometrization of electromagnetism does not have
broad interest" is incorrect. For details please see
my comments.
Also, the report of Dr. Price does not reflect the
main results of the paper. Among other things Dr.
Price stated that "I judge that you are setting
up mathematical structures that are not "geometry" in
any usual sense."
Because the proposed geometry includes Riemannian
geometry as a special case, then according to Dr.
Price, Riemannian geometry is not geometry in any
usual sense. I am sure that PRL does not consider
Riemannian geometry as "unusual geometry". For details
please see my comments.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Shervgi Shahverdiyev.
Main Page