Wednesday, July 20, 2011

As ZNA worsens, its Impact Factor climbs

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A (ZNA) is number 18 on our master list of Ji-Huan He's editorial positions.

Recently they published a crackpot paper of the following description:

Absolute Motion Determined from Michelson-Type Experiments in Optical Media
Valery P. Dmitriyev
Chemistry Dept. Lomonosov University, P.O.Box 160, Moscow, 117574, Russia
Reprint requests to V. P. D.;
Z. Naturforsch. 66a, 228 – 230 (2011); received March 10, 2010 / revised June 19, 2010

The symmetry of vacuum is characterized by the Lorentz group with the parameter c. Physical space inside the homogeneous optical medium should be described by the Lorentz group with the parameter c/n, where n is the refractive index of the medium. Violation of a one-parameter phenomenological symmetry in the discrete medium, such as gas, creates the opportunity for the experimental detecting of the motion of the optical medium relative to luminiferous aether.

Key words: Michelson Experiment; Dielectric Media; Drag of Light; Aether Wind.
PACS numbers: 42.25.Bs, 42.25.Hz, 42.79.Fm, 42.87.Bg, 78.20.-e

The full PDF can be obtained from the arXiv or, if you have access, from ZNA's site.

The reference to "luminiferous aether" is an amusing anachronism, isn't it?

An El Naschie Watch reader (called "prof. X" in the referee reports below) submitted a rebuttal to ZNA for publication, titled Correction for “Absolute motion determined from Michelson-type experiments in optical media” by V.P. Dmitriyev. It was unanimously rejected by the three referees.


Article Ref.-No.: A11166
Title: Correction for “Absolute motion determined from Michelson-type experiments in optical media” by V.P. Dmitriyev
Author(s): prof. X

Begin report (use as much space as is needed):

The account is correct in general. (If only some secondary shortages of the kind that formula (1.3) goes earlier than formula (2.12), whereas logically there should be an opposite sequence.)
However, the result obtained (2.13) is trivial.
Indeed, relativistic velocity transformation (1.1), (1.2) being assumed as a law of drag of light, the difference of times in orthogonal arms of the interferometer filled with a refractive medium will be null.
This fact is obvious. And it was pointed out in the paper criticized. See formulas (1) and (2) of this paper and the reasoning after them.

“Passing by (1) to reference frame of the moving medium, we
will obviously obtain , i. e. the speed of the wave
becomes isotropic again. In other words, the drag (2)
does not lead to the anisotropy in the reference frame
of the moving medium.”

My conclusion: the manuscript by prof X does not deserve to be published because of its triviality.

End report

REFEREE REPORT II [by V.V. Demjanov]

Article Ref.-No.: A11166
Title: Correction for “Absolute motion determined from Michelson-type experiments in optical media” by V.P. Dmitriyev
Author(s): prof. X

Begin report (use as much space as is needed):

Dear Professor Großmann [Editor-in-Chief of ZNA]:
thank you for the attention to me, an experimenter with a 10-year record in the field indicated [this is the crackpot V.V. Demjanov, whose paper in Phys. Lett. A had been withdrawn after my intervention -- Prof. X]
The construction of the mathematical model of “zeroth shift” of interference fringe for Micherlson–Morley experiment (MME) in an optical medium with n>1 is not new (after the "zeroth shift" by Fitzjerald for n=1 in the end of 19tn century see recent attempts by Drezet, Cahill and others to prove the “zeroth shift” of interference fringe for MME as well in optical media with n>1). So, the idea of the communication by prof.X is not novel and it is founded on obvious errors in formulas (1.3), (1.5) and the last of (1.10). At this time the "originality" of the proof of "independence" of the difference in MME is based on easily recognizable artificial amendments +tAB and tBA in formulas (2.1) and (2.2), made in order that in the outcome to receive in (2.4) the independence of t|| on n. The hook in formula (1.3) enables him in further formulas (2.5)÷(2.12) to obtain the independence of t on n. In the result the theorist prof.X comes to a doubly erroneous conclusion: by (2.13) he has always the null shift of the fringe in MME (this is prof. X’s debt before STR) and it does not depend on n.
However, all (all known!) experiments already over 40 years, firstly, invariably reveals a non-zeroth shift of interference fringe in MME with n>1. Secondly, my experimental observations of non-zeroth shifts of interference fringe in MME in the range of values 1.0000003<n<1.8, obtained in 196875 years, which by certain reasons became possible to publish only in the last decade, demonstrate a strong dependence of t in MME on n, at that, with a zeroth point near n=1.41 (prof. X disregards this by means of a formal remark).
The incompetently criticized work by prof. X possesses an originality in that Dmitriyev does not ignore the experimental data mentioned and gives another (distinct from mine) means of derivation of my formula of 1970 (it is designated (Dmitriyev.6)) appropriate for the interpretation of these experiments.

End report


Article Ref.-No.: A11166
Title: Correction for “Absolute motion determined from Michelson-type experiments in optical media” by V.P. Dimitriyev
Author(s): prof. X

Begin report (use as much space as is needed):

The author of this submitted paper has no understanding of the physics involved in Michelson-type experiments. I list below some of the numerous errors

(1) The author begins by assuming the correctness of „special relativity formula for speed composition“. However it is the correctness of such formaula which was the point of the Dimitriyev paper. If special relativity was correct, then the author need have nothing more to say, since an esssential ingredient of SR is that the speed of light is always, for all observers, isotropic.

(2) Many experiments have established that the speed of light is not isotropic. These range from gas-mode Michelson interferometers to Doppler shift measurements during spacecraft earth-flybys (see Cahill, Progress in Physics, 4, 50-64, 2009).

(3) All of these experiments reveal a direction and speed that is different from the CMBR direction and speed. These phenomena are unrelated, yet another major misunderstanding.

(3) The Fresenl drag formula has been well established experimentally.

(4) The analysis of the Michelson interferometer is incorrect. This is demonstrated by noting that the correct calibration factor for the Michelson interferometer, which contains the factor (n^2-1), valid for n near 1 as per gases, results in the same speed and direction as determined from the above mentioned Doppler shift data, which does not involve Fresnel drag or the other essential ingredients in calibrating the Michelson interferometer.

(5) This paper is a mishmash of false arguments, and is completely inappropriate for publication.

End report

Prof. X is understandably nonplussed by this unanimous rejection.

We have written to ZNA twice before suggesting Ji-Huan He be removed from the editorial board, but to no avail. Crackpots Ji-Huan He and Jürgen Parisi are ensconced there. Crackpot Otto E. Rössler publishes there. ZNA seems to be a lost cause.

What is really disconcerting is that ZNA's Impact Factor is climbing year by year. The volumes for 2009, 2010 and 2011 contain lots of papers about Ji-Huan He's "Homotopy Perturbation Method". Of course they cite the infamous citation scammer, and of course that raises the Impact Factor of ZNA. It is sad that the crook is still profiting from his scam, even after all our efforts.

For completeness let me remind readers that the Ji-Huan He-Mohamed El Naschie citation scam was discussed in detail by Douglas N. Arnold in Integrity Under Attack: The State of Scholarly Publishing and by Arnold and Fowler in Nefarious Numbers. And that Ji-Huan He's Homotopy Perturbation Method "yields either useless or wrong results" and is one of a handful of methods derided by Francisco M. Fernández as having "produced the worst research papers ever written".

UPDATE. Courtesy of a reader we have Gergely Röst, On an approximate method for the delay logistic equation, Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat 16 (2011) pp. 3470–3474.
CNSNS Short Communication
Figure 1 is amusing.

Translate English to Arabic
محمد النشائى El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائى محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائى



    Oh my god. Ji-Huan He is on the Editorial Board.
    And on this one too. Will our work never end?

    Thank you, submitter.

  3. here is one example when a completely wrong paper of Liao (big enemy of He) was corrected and the correction was published in the same journal:

    Figure 1 is particularly amusing.


    As the commenter says, Shijun Liao is a coauthor of the paper being discussed. He's a foe of Ji-Huan He. His name came up in No.6=何吉欢=自己的杂志=极不光彩 and several other places on this blog.

    I can't see the paper, only the abstract. If you send it I'll host it on Scribd for all our amusement.


  6. Oooh, that's good, thank you.

    REPORT OF THE JOURNAL WORKING GROUP TO THE ICIAM BOARD AND IMU EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 30 JUNE 2011 (pdf) will appeal to anyone who liked the Douglas N. Arnold papers. From appendix C it looks like Arnold was involved.

  7. ZNA is pure garbage, this is hardly the worst I've seen. In fact, this paper may be one of the best. The increase of impact factor is a very natural consequence of publishing garbage, that liberally cites previous garbage and nothing else.

    The situation at CNSNS (where the Liao paper was debunked) is similar. Recall the earlier post on the blog about a paper in CNSNS by Kudryashov explaining about a dozen different errors committed by scores of papers in CNSNS. Is it correlation or causation that "NSNS" in the journal title = garbage?

  8. Also, I can't seem to verify the claim above that He is an editor at JZUS, he is listed in the page thanking the reviewers for papers in 2010. This is, of course, different from the listing of the editorial boards of parts A, B and C of JZUS.

  9. You are quite right, he's on the JZUS-A list of reviewers, not editors. It's still probably worth writing to them to get him kicked off that list.

  10. The master list has been updated with items 61 and 62.

  11. Being on that list means he was asked to review a paper in 2010. How could you ''kick him off'' that list at this point in time?

  12. We might be able to embarrass them into not using him as a reviewer in the future. If they were sufficiently embarrassed, they might even remove him from that 2010 web page, but I acknowledge it's not likely.

  13. Updated with a CNSNS short communication concerning a paper by Shijun Liao et al. Thanks to the reader who provided it.