有奖活动-ABSTRACT, INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS OF A PAPER（1.2） 论文英语表达

sunroom

[align=justify]The first literature that we comment on is the book entitled “Anatomy on Choice Problems in Quantum Mechanics” [1] published by Science press, the first edition in 1988. For recovering the distinguished Dirac formula of the energy eigenvalues from the so-called second-order differential equation, in this book, a real transformation of functions was introduced. However the obtained two second-order equations have different formal eigenvalues sets, violating the uniqueness of solution. But one was chosen and another was stealthily deleted. The incorrect theory cannot be corrected.

The second literature that we comment on　is the paper entitled ``Simplified solutions of the Dirac-Coulomb equation'' published by Physical Review in 1985 [2] constructed a new different system of first order differential equations with the strange hyperbolic functions, and it was called the radial Dirac-Coulomb equation. In fact, it is not the Dirac equation but is only a similar system of equations. In form, the new radial Dirac-like equations of first order were also transformed into the Schr鰀inger-like equation, in which four second-order differential equations were written in one form with another unnecessary sign {\\omega }=\\mp 1. By the correct mathematical calculation, we obtain two correct Schr鰀inger-like equations from the original Dirac-like equations without the unnecessary sign {\\omega }=\\mp 1, which are essentially different from the given form in the criticized paper, and solving the second-order equations violates the uniqueness of solution. One can only obtain the Dirac formula of energy eigenvalues by solving one of the second-order differential equations for the components of radial wave functions and hiding the other incompatible deduction of the energy eigenvalues from solving the other second-order differential equation. The theory cannot be corrected.

[align=justify]The third literature that we comment on is the paper entitled “A simpler solution of the Dirac equation in a Coulomb potential” [3] published by American Journal of Physics in 1997. There is a completely incorrect calculation of differential coefficient for the introduced new function with the matrix coefficients therein. All of deductions that come from this incorrect formula are hence completely incorrect. The corresponding comment on its pivotal mathematical mistakes ever incurred some traverses with the unreal mathematical calculations. In Fact, if we use the radial wave function given in the criticized paper to compare the other form that come from any real mathematical calculations, one will find how the unreal and incorrect mathematical calculation lead to specious deductions. None of the mistakes in this criticized paper can be corrected.

sunroom

我非常感谢macauor的指教和鼓励。因为考虑到文章写完后，还是先后投给国外一些期刊，以听取他们的非难，原贴加密甚高，时间已超过允许编辑的时间，不能在上一贴中加入回复。在此特别表示感谢。我将在后面的写作中努力注意到这些英语基本知识。三人行，必有我师焉，能够在读书园地里得到各专家们的批评指教，实感万分荣幸！

sunroom

发在某些预印服务器中少数文章，有的被下载数百次了。如果您参考文章的内容写毕业论文的话，倒无所谓。如果您期望出版包含相关内容的您的文章，如果您愿意，欢迎您来信和我联系。前面已经说过，那些文章中加有一些非常隐蔽的BUBS，因为当时还充满着斗争的激情。有些推理和部分结论是不能够发表在正式期刊的。但如果您从文章中读到我个人的有关已出版和即将出版的文章，其逻辑在我个人来看没有问题的。但我不能向您保证结论完全正确。这是因为国内国际的学者对相关的逻辑还缺乏真正的精通，虽然所用的只是简单的数学，但只有按照传统的思维方法写作，才能够出版一点文章。10年前我的想法是把问题提交给国内的理论物理学家们。事实上，有些同志太自负了，另有些同志的数学基础实在无法令人恭维。后来我想把问题提交给国际上的理论物理学家们，然而他们几乎恼羞成怒。我们可以回避他们发表的文章，但却不能够回避批评他们一直以来所犯的同样的数学错误和逻辑错误。远行的道路，总是更加艰难......

macauor

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.

sunroom

引用第3楼macauor于2008-03-01 21:37发表的 :
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.

这建议实在太妙了, 版主阁下! 我将慎重考虑您的建议, 如何回避那些刺激性的字眼, 并能够将思想准确地表达出来. 或许我得从头到尾重新构思了. 如果是汉语, 这个并不难, 可惜是英语, 对我来说, 又难几十倍了. 我试试吧. 非常感谢!