有奖活动-ABSTRACT, INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS OF A PAPER（1.1） 论文英语表达
ABSTRACTWe ever investigated thousands of papers on solving Dirac equation published in many famous scientific journals and found that multitudinous and momentous mistakes of mathematical logics have been covered up by the corresponding specious explanations. Some papers seem to be purposive to make the inauthentic mathematical calculations and given the pseudo deductions for mixing the false with the genuine. Some papers seem to be unintentional to make the incorrect calculations but the ABC of differential equations such as existence of solution and uniqueness of solution and so on were missed. As examples, five typical literatures are criticized in the present paper. We disclose how the criticized literatures use many devious distortions to speciously fabricate the energy eigenvalues. These mistakes are covered up by the distinguished Dirac formula of the energy levels for hydrogen and hydrogen-like atoms. Most of such mistakes concealed in the criticized literatures are unable to be corrected. Fewness could be formally corrected but the corrected results are not in agreement with the order of nature.
1. Introduction
Many incorrectly mathematical methods and logic relations have been used for solving the Dirac equation but have been covered up. Because of the specious explanations given in various literatures, the argumentations to the corresponding pseudo deductions were hardly understood. By some comments from many reviews of those famous journals, it was found that some basic problems of mathematics are missed. We sum up a kind of simple problems on solving Dirac equation with the pure Coulomb potential to formulate again those typical mistakes concealed in quantum mechanics. Because of the writing or involuntary techniques of composition, although such kind of the mathematics seem to be unconquerable, it is at least necessary to envisage those behaviors of coining physical law in quantum mechanics.
The soul of quantum mechanics is just deriving and solving the wave equation with the correct boundary condition or initial value condition. One cannot violate any basic mathematical rule to piece together any physical formula for being agreement with some experiment data. For nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics, once a wave equation is introduced and the initial value conditions or the natural boundary conditions are determined, all remnant physics should be essentially mathematics. When looking from a mathematical point of view, any of differential equations has the formal solution and the real solution respectively. From general solution, only the special solution that satisfies the uniqueness of solution and the boundary condition or the initial value condition does denote the real solution of the differential equations. However, in many literatureson Dirac’s relativistic quantum mechanics, these basic mathematical rules seem to be missed. It mainly behaves in two aspects. One is that the original Dirac equation of first order, by being introduced the real transformation of functions, were transformed into two second-order differential equations of second-order, which have two conflicting eigensolution sets, violating uniqueness of solution. Another is that some strange marks were introduced for constructing the so-called Schr鰀inger-like or Klein-Gordon-like equation, which conceals the breach of the uniqueness of solution and the boundary condition or coin solution. However, all of the corresponding mistakes were covered up by some specious explanations. Their main shelter is the distinguished Dirac solution for the hydrogen and hydrogen-like atom being recovered in form.
Here we criticize five examples of literatures chosen from thousands of the similar literatures. We focus on the obvious mathematical mistakes concealed in solving the Dirac equation with the Coulomb potential. Because Darwin and Gordon firstly gave the correct methods of finding the solution in 1928, one can easily judge the right and wrong of the criticized literatures. How the mathematical mistakes in those literatures take place, how the corresponding mathematical mistakes have been covered up, and those typical theories of coin on Dirac’s relativistic quantum mechanics were disclosed here.
…………
一点说明
虽然现在直接用英文写点歪文章，但每写完一个段落后，就发现英文还远远不如读书园地里的朋友们了。发这个"ABSTRACT，INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS OF A PAPER"，更希望得到批评指教。除此之外，另有两方面的考虑。一方面，真正开始用英文写文章，还是开始于在外语学习版翻译"The Dirac Equation"那个序言，因为得到过很多有益帮助(致谢也都写在那里了)，也便有了信心。另一方面，抛开英文水平之太不高等问题在一边，论及的物理问题应该是有意义的。或许您并不赞同，但我无需说明过多。因为我的大部分文章都被各科学期刊拒绝了，尤其一著名的科学论坛居然也封杀这些作品。可见它们触怒了被奉为神的某些物理学家们。但真理总归是真理! 我渐渐老了，一天天失去了往日好胜的激情。把一点可能会引起那些忠实于科学的人们的兴趣的内容发在读书园地外语学习版，以表对她的感激之心。我1998年写过一部书稿，当年寄给国内一些著名大学和某著名科学院理论物理研究所，没有收到任何回音，但有些内容后来分别被写在一些著作中，作者们均用巧妙的笔墨将那些内容描述为自己独到的见解……唉，如果真正弄懂了问题的本质，也算得我数十年孤独的耕耘有一点儿收获。可惜大多数是没有真正明白物理的真实道理的。著作权真的能把我们带向一个极东世界么？不会吧……如果有可能，我决定用文学作品的形式来来传播科学真理，当然这只是一个梦想。最后说明一下，如果您在某论坛搜索到相关的内容，那里有些BUGS是当时故意设置的。因为那时候还很好斗，现在没有那份力量了。 1. In Section Abstract, ... Most of such mistakes concealed in the criticized literatures... I think "criticized" should be replaced by "critiqued" according to my understanding.2. The same problem occurs in Section Introduction, ...Here we criticize five examples of literatures chosen from thousands of the similar literatures... “criticize” should be "critique"
3. Meanwhile, in the above sentence, the statement is weak and unacceptable for most experts !
I hope your work will be published in the future. Persist in your dream and never give up. You will succeed in the coming years!
Best regards,
macauor 引用第2楼macauor于2008-03-01 14:28发表的 :
1. In Section Abstract, ... Most of such mistakes concealed in the criticized literatures... I think "criticized" should be replaced by "critiqued" according to my understanding.
2. The same problem occurs in Section Introduction, ...Here we criticize five examples of literatures chosen from thousands of the similar literatures... “criticize” should be "critique"
3. Meanwhile, in the above sentence, the statement is weak and unacceptable for most experts !
.......
感谢批评指教，我将努力注意到这些细节。 I suggest that you have to change the expression style of your manscript in order to make it accepted.
You do not need to critique the previous work. You can only review these work and introduce some limitations on these work. Do not adopt some words, such as mistake, incorrect, etc. These words are strongly absolute in the meanings. Your manuscript in the present form is challenging the editor and reviewers. I believe no one willingly fulfill the review performance for your manscript. It is an "absolutely" high risk from their point of view. I also recommend that you find some papers recently published by the journals cited in your references. Imitate the writing style of these papers and do not pay attention to the technical content. Gradually you will be professional in your field. 版主的话很中肯。楼主的“摘要”、“绪论”部分主观性太强，所述空洞迂回，且充满愤懑，让人难以接受，也不好接受，因为你想讲的关键而有说服力的内容一直没说。很可能编辑没有耐心读到你论文的核心部分。
建议在摘要中客观陈述：我们研究了“多少篇”科技论文，发现了“哪些”数理逻辑问题，列举“哪五个”个案以揭示其如何伪造能量特征值……
有条有理、有根有据，丝丝入扣、有条不紊、心平气和、娓娓道来......
楼主的英文表达本身还是很不错的，只是与英文论文摘要和论文写作的文体要求和语用目的不太相符。 引用第6楼ellencheng于2008-03-01 22:08发表的 :
版主的话很中肯。楼主的“摘要”、“绪论”部分主观性太强，所述空洞迂回，且充满愤懑，让人难以接受，也不好接受，因为你想讲的关键而有说服力的内容一直没说。很可能编辑没有耐心读到你论文的核心部分。
建议在摘要中客观陈述：我们研究了“多少篇”科技论文，发现了“哪些”数理逻辑问题，列举“哪五个”个案以揭示其如何伪造能量特征值……
有条有理、有根有据，丝丝入扣、有条不紊、心平气和、娓娓道来......
.......
谢。因为文章分７节完成，所以把摘要写得的确太长了，ABSTRACT, INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS OF A PAPER （1.2）正在继续介绍文章的结构和所论述的内容。本来平时总是笑脸迎人，但写起文章来，老是火往上窜。您可能不知道，我坚持了二十几年，一无所获。国内的学者们，有人嘲弄我的稿件仅是大学某年级习题而已，却没有任何数学和物理上的批评，再向发信请教有的著作者的时候，他们说引用的那些文献，他都没有时间去看。而一些基本数学推论，似乎也不是很清楚的。我好多年都不向国内期刊投稿了。国外虽然批评尖锐，但人家还是懂经典物理逻辑的。“有条有理、有根有据，丝丝入扣、有条不紊、心平气和、娓娓道来...... ”。您是作家吧？这个我还缺功夫啊。最后感谢您的鼓励，如果在学校，您一定是一位好老师，善于鼓励他人，并给人以信心的优秀老师。 关于学术论文的写作，我有以下几点体会：
1、有思考、有新意；
2、重表达、重形式。
3、不要认为论文就必须是发明创造，更不要奢望自己的一篇论文就能改变世界；
4、务请坚信好的思想一定存在能让人接受的表达方式，只是我暂时还没有找到。 引用第8楼ellencheng于2008-03-01 22:43发表的 :
关于学术论文的写作，我有以下几点体会：
1、有思考、有新意；
2、重表达、重形式。
3、不要认为论文就必须是发明创造，更不要奢望自己的一篇论文就能改变世界；
4、务请坚信好的思想一定存在能让人接受的表达方式，只是我暂时还没有找到。
“好的思想一定存在能让人接受的表达方式！”这话可以收进经典语录。我读Ｎ遍（广东人的习惯语言，不过我不是广东人）了，记下了。“好的思想一定存在能让人接受的表达方式！”——妙！
修改的摘要
（感谢macauor 和ellencheng的良好建议。我心平气和地将摘要改了好几遍，贴在这儿了。）We ever investigated various theories on solving Dirac equation and found that there are many serious mistakes of mathematical logics such as %￥& concealed in thousands of literatures, in which the mistakes have been covered up by the corresponding specious algorithm and explanations. Some literatures seem to be purposive to make the inauthentic mathematical calculations and the pseudo deductions were given for mixing the false with the genuine therein. Some literatures seem to be unintentional to make the incorrect calculations but the ABC of differential equations such as the existence of solution and uniqueness of solution and so on were missed. As examples, five typical literatures that conceal the representative problems are commented on in the present paper. It is disclosed how the critical literatures use some devious distortions to speciously fabricate the energy eigenvalues for fine structure of atom. These mistakes are completely covered up by the forced injunction to select Dirac formula of the energy levels for hydrogen and hydrogen-like atoms. One will find that most of such mistakes concealed in the critical literatures are unable to be corrected, fewness could be corrected in form but the corrected results are not in agreement with the order of nature.
（不过与原贴相比，好象没有什么区别。人老了，笔和纸，包括键盘也都跟着脑子一起固化了。还是感谢各位批评指教。By the way, 发表论文对我来说并不是赖以生存的事情。在此之前，我发表在核心期刊和SCI期刊的部分论文，是没有带来任何利益的。但以这种方式有效地学习英语，对您对我都是造化了。但属于所谓知识产权的东西，就请慎重考虑，我永远都不愿意侵犯他人。） 引用第2楼macauor于2008-03-01 14:28发表的 :
1. In Section Abstract, ... Most of such mistakes concealed in the criticized literatures... I think "criticized" should be replaced by "critiqued" according to my understanding.
2. The same problem occurs in Section Introduction, ...Here we criticize five examples of literatures chosen from thousands of the similar literatures... “criticize” should be "critique"
3. Meanwhile, in the above sentence, the statement is weak and unacceptable for most experts !
.......
想起来了，AMJP还是JMP的审稿人好像用的是“The critical paper”。 我没仔细看这篇的内容，不过发现有个观点不大赞同...
"The soul of quantum mechanics is just deriving and solving the wave equation with the correct boundary condition or initial value condition."
量子力学何止如此
另外we ever investigated... 感觉很怪，直接说 we have investigated不就可以了？ 引用第12楼resonance于2008-03-03 21:25发表的 :
我没仔细看这篇的内容，不过发现有个观点不大赞同...
"The soul of quantum mechanics is just deriving and solving the wave equation with the correct boundary condition or initial value condition."
量子力学何止如此
另外we ever investigated... 感觉很怪，直接说 we have investigated不就可以了？
后一个建议是很不错的。至于前一个观点，量子力学的灵魂是什么，则属于学术问题，可能需要严密推理若干理论后才能真的说得清楚。有机会再讨论啦。 引用第13楼sunroom于2008-03-04 07:40发表的 :
后一个建议是很不错的。至于前一个观点，量子力学的灵魂是什么，则属于学术问题，可能需要大量的论证才能说得清楚。
前人之述备矣。老哥没弄清楚基本问题罢了。
well, I noticed that this post is only related to language issues, and is not in a true/false section, so... no more argument. 引用第14楼resonance于2008-03-04 09:41发表的 :
前人之述备矣。老哥没弄清楚基本问题罢了。
well, I noticed that this post is only related to language issues, and is not in a true/false section, so... no more argument.
小兄弟知道的自然比我的多得多，还望多多赐教！ Do not use "The soul of quantum mechanics". You manuscript is not a literary article. It belongs to science or engineering. 引用第16楼macauor于2008-03-04 10:43发表的 :
Do not use "The soul of quantum mechanics". You manuscript is not a literary article. It belongs to science or engineering.
This is a good idea! Thanks!
页:
[1]