arXiv Blacklisting and the World of Physics

 

Some of my Bad experiences have been with

Physics Journal Refereeing

and with

Rejection in 2002 of my request to be registered as an author on the e-print archives at arxiv.org

 

 

Even though the Cornell arXiv blacklisted me in 2002, in 2003 and 2004 I was able to put on the web T-Quark Mass and Hyperfinite II1 von Neumann factor and WMAP ratio calculations as EXT-2003-087 and EXT-2004-013 on CERN CDS

.

Many thanks to CERN CDS, because blacklisting had prevented me from posting that revised version on the Cornell arXiv. Here is an 825 kb file including some e-mail messages related to the matter.

If I don't go to the Northern District of New York, Binghamton Division, to file a new suit against the Cornell Defendants, I may just give up and go off the web, leaving my web site up as it is now, as long as innerx lets it stay as a memorial.

As of now, 13 August 2003:

Carlos Castro, who is also blacklisted, is contacting lawyers in California who might be able to help; and

after seeing a 2 July 2003 article by Jim Galloway in the Atlanta, Georgia, AJC that said

"... former Gov. Roy Barnes on Tuesday [1 July 2003] opened a small law office ... With his son-in-law, John Salter, 27, Barnes has set up a temporary office on the Marietta Square. His daughter, Allison Barnes Salter, an assistant solicitor for Cobb County, will join the firm Sept. 1. All three are University of Georgia law school graduates. Barnes said he intended to keep the Barnes Law Group small, with no more than 10 attorneys. The firm will specialize in consumer actions, including predatory lending and negligence cases. The former governor also plans to resume his specialty, First Amendment cases. ...".

I contacted the new firm on Marietta Square about helping with my First Amendment suit against Cornell et al. On Tuesday, 15 July 2003, I received a letter that confirmed what a receptionist at their office had verbally told me the day before: "... Although we have no opinion as to the validity or non-validity of your claims, this matter is not the type of litigation we are accepting into our firm at this time. ...".

On 3 August 2003, I had written a new paper, with new ideas extending the last paper (physics/0207095) that I had been allowed to post on the arXiv, and I noticed that arXiv had revised some of its procedures relative to author registration, so I sent an e-mail to register-query@arXiv.org requesting that I be registered as an author, effectively ending my being blacklisted. On the following day, register-query@arXiv.org replied, stating "... The registration interface has changed, the underlying policies have not. ...", thus again refusing to register me and continuing my blacklisting.


 

Life is not all bad - there are some Good experiences.


 

My bad experience with physics journal refereeing was when I tried to get my F4 model published in Nuclear Physics B, and then in Mod. Phys. Lett. and Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. (Singapore). This was around 1991, in the same general time frame that my attempts to contribute papers to the APS DPF 1990 meeting at Houston (Rice) and to the APS DPF 1992 meeting at Fermilab were rejected.

The reason that I submitted the papers to European and Asian journals was that the USA journals Phys. Rev. and Phys. Rev. Lett. required substantial page charges for publication, and I had no institutional backing to pay such page charges.

After 3 referees in Nuc. Phys. B, none of whom gave specific criticism ( other than to say the Coleman-Mandula theorem was violated by the F4 model - In fact, the F4 model is specifically designed so that the Coleman-Mandula theorem does not apply, so that referee obviously did not even understand whatever part of the F4 paper he read ), the paper was rejected by Nuc. Phys. B. An editor of Nuclear Physics B told me that it was not possible for him to find a referee who would put in the time to read/understand such a large paper with many non-standard facets. I don't have any hard feelings toward Nuclear Physics B, because the editor was honestly telling me that he couldn't find a willing competent referee, and it is a fact that the paper is big and not easy to read.

Then, trying to make it easier for referees, I broke up the large many-faceted paper into 6 or 7 smaller papers and submitted them to the Singapore journal Mod. Phys. Lett.

The Singapore refereees said that the papers were interesting and related, and that I should combine them into one big paper.

I followed their advice, and combined them into one big paper, which I submitted to their sister journal Int. Jour. Mod. Phys.

Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. rejected the combined big paper, saying that it was only a combination of previously rejected smaller papers.

When I then complained to the editors in Singapore that the combination had been done at their request, they just flatly rejected the paper, without ever giving me any specific reason.

 

It is fascinating to compare my experience of rejection by the journal referee system with the success of the Bogdanov (or Bogdanoff) brothers in getting publication of the articles

not to mention further publications. As Peter Woit said in a 24 October 2002 post to the sci.physics.research thread Physics bitten by reverse Alan Sokal hoax?

"... Refereeing in this field has clearly become a complete joke,

largely because there is no way to consistently impose standards given what has happened in particle theory over the last twenty years. ...".

Here are some excerpts from that thread:

==================================================================

... From: John Baez (baez@galaxy.ucr.edu)

... We all laughed when Alan Sokal wrote a deliberately silly
paper entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a
Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", and managed
to get it accepted by a refereed journal of social and cultural
studies, Social Text.

But now I hear that two brothers have managed to publish 3
meaningless papers in physics journals as a hoax - and even
get Ph.D. degrees in physics from Bourgogne University in
the process!  The theses are available in PDF format online,
at least for now:

Igor Bogdanov
ETAT TOPOLOGIQUE DE L'ESPACE TEMPS A ECHELLE 0
http://tel.ccsd.cnrs.fr/documents/archives0/00/00/15/03/index_fr.html

Grichka Bogdanov
FLUCTUATIONS QUANTIQUES DE LA SIGNATURE DE LA METRIQUE A L'ECHELLE DE PLANCK
(Quantum fluctuations of the signature of the metric at the Planck scale)
http://tel.ccsd.cnrs.fr/documents/archives0/00/00/15/02/index_fr.html

They have also published at least four papers based on their
theses:

Grichka Bogdanov and Igor Bogdanov,
Topological field theory of the initial singularity of spacetime,
Classical and Quantum Gravity 18 (2001), 4341-4372.

Grichka Bogdanov and Igor Bogdanov,
Spacetime Metric and the KMS Condition at the Planck Scale,
Annals of Physics, 295 (2002), 90-97.

Grichka Bogdanov and Igor Bogdanov,
KMS space-time at the Planck scale,
Nuovo Cimento, 117B (2002) 417-424.

Igor Bogdanov,
Topological origin of inertia,
Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, 51 (2001), 1153-1236.

... and now I see there is possibly one more:

Igor Bogdanov,
KMS state of the spacetime at the Planck scale,
Chinese J. of Phys. (2002).

...
======================================================================

... From: Greg Kuperberg (greg@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu)

... 

This should be 296 (2002), no. 1, 90-97.  But yes, the paper is bullshit.

[Moderator's note: Let's try to keep things polite. -TB]

I hope to see one major difference between the aftermath of this
case and Sokal.  No one should criticize the Bogdanovs for doing
this.  This is a bitter pill that these journals and this university
must richly deserve.

...
======================================================================

... From: Peter Woit (woit@cpw.math.columbia.edu)

... Looking at these papers more carefully,
three of them are nearly identical and all three are more or
less an extract of the first one (the Classical
and Quantum Gravity article).

You may be able to convince yourself that "spacetime must be
considered as being subject to the KMS condition at the Planck scale"
is an intelligible scientific idea worthy of publication,
but the editors and referees at Nuovo Cimento, Annals of Physics and the
Chinese Journal of Physics have a lot of explaining to do.
Similarly for Igor Bogdanoff's thesis examiners,
who don't seem to have noticed that much of his thesis was
several identical articles stapled together.
...
... I just heard from a physicist at NYU, who heard about this from
a colleague who was in contact with a New York Times reporter
who is looking into this.  The "Bogdanoff" brothers have degrees
in semiology, their names and most else about them seems to be
a put-on (they are French, not Russian). For a recent profile of them
(in French) see
http://www.liberation.com/page.php?Article=58973
and for something about their TV show, see
http://www.france2.fr/semiStatic/61-NIL-NIL-173054.html

Their theses and papers are clearly nonsense and the fact that they've
managed to get these things published and get doctoral degrees should
lead to a scandal of some sort.  Whether they think of what they do
as real science or are doing this as a complete fraud a la Sokal is
certainly an interesting question.

I've off and on thought about trying to publish a hoax paper on string
theory, but gave up on the idea, partly because while it seemed
eminently doable to make up some nonsense about string theory
and get it past a referee, it's not clear what the distinguishing
characteristic of my nonsense would be.  Would it be that
I didn't believe it (this probably is not unheard of among people
who write string theory papers)?  Would it be that the paper was
inconsistent and had nothing to do with the real world (that
characterizes most of hep-th)?.

Refereeing in this field has clearly become a complete joke,
largely because there is no way to consistently impose standards
given what has happened in particle theory over the last twenty
years.  The Sokal hoax had a very salutary effect on the
"science studies" people, perhaps this one will have a similar
effect here.


...
======================================================================

... From: Aaron Bergman (abergman@princeton.edu)

... I took a look at this one:

<http://www.iop.org/EJ/S/3/492/abstract/0264-9381/18/21/301/>

and the referee clearly didn't even glance at it.  I particularly like:

> Definition 1.2: A theory if topological if (the Lagrangian L being
> non-trivial) it does not depend on L.

I also like the part where they put a Tr(-1)^n in the path integral.
Given that a number of terms are used incorrectly on the first few
pages, this seems to be quite an indictment of the refereeing process.

I can't say I'm completely surprised that something like this could
happen. I'm surprised that they got CQG, though.


...
=======================================================================

... From: John Baez (baez@galaxy.ucr.edu)

... A New York Times reporter was planning to do a story on this,
but he spoke with one of the Bogdanovs, who huffily denied that
it was a hoax.  Apparently the reporter decided to drop it.  He
said he could write a story about a hoax, but not about some papers
that are so silly people *think* they are hoax.  :-)

Of course, not everyone committing a hoax instantly admits
to committing a hoax when you ask them!

Also, the Bogdanovs are not only science fiction writers, but
TV personalities (or ex-TV personalities?) in France.  It
seems a bit odd to me that two such people would suddenly
take time off from their careers to get physics PhDs and
publish a bunch of laughably incoherent physics papers
unless they were "up to something".  Am I being too suspicious?
Could they be merely incompetent?  I was hoping for something a
bit more original.

>>So, it's possible that instead of being scared to look foolish,
>>the people who got duped were simply too busy to actually read
>>what they were supposed to be reading.
>If true, some anonymous reviewers will certainly look terribly
>foolish. I suppose the whole field will look foolish.

They (or we? - but it's not *my* fault) should feel foolish
regardless of whether it's a hoax or not, because the papers
are a bunch of baloney.

It's also amusing that their Annals of Physics paper is almost
identical to their Nuovo Cimento paper.  Of course, this cheap
way of padding one's resume is nothing new.  As someone once put
it: "It'd be plagiarism if it wasn't me who wrote it in the first
place".

Fans of topological field theory will like this line in their
paper "Topological Field Theory of the Initial Singularity":

 Now, the topological field theory (for D = 4) is established when the
 Hamiltonian (or the Lagrangian) of the system is H = 0, such as the
 theory is independent of the underlying metric. We propose to extend
 this definition, stating that a theory can also be topological if
 it does not depend on the Hamiltonian H (or the Lagrangian L) of the system.

Of course, this is like saying the theory doesn't depend on
the theory!  They then give this as an official numbered "Definition"
in their paper, in solemn mathematical style.

==========================================================================

... From: Dirk Bruere (dirk@neopax.com)

... I assume a number of people here have received email from Drs Bogdanov
claiming this is no hoax, so I will not quote it in full.
However, there is a very interesting and telling comment:

   "This morning 
    told that they were frauds everyone was laughing at how obvious it is. 
    This afternoon, 
    told they are real professors and that this is not a fraud, 
    everyone here says, well, maybe it is real stuff".

Is it really the case that ... only a few people can distinguish 
between legitimate theory and blatant bullshit? ...". 

==========================================================================
 

Ark Jadczyk has a web page discussing the Bogdanov affair, including e-mail exchanges with the Bogdanov brothers themselves.

There, the Bogdanov brothers are quoted as saying:

"... apparently no one has really read nor understood our papers as shown by this email from Harvard that was fwd to us :

"... Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:10:29 -0400 From: Laurent Freidel < ...@perimeterinstitute.ca>... Subject: RE: Hoax: Alan Sokol phenomenon reversed (fwd)

" What is going on??? guys?? the claim is now that the Bogdanoff brothers are not a fraud and that they not only won Phd's with these papers that no one can understand, that yesterday everyone was convinced were fraudulent, they won appointment as professors to a french university, Bourgogne!!! So no one in the string group at harvard can tell if these papers are real or fraudulent. This morning told that they were frauds everyone was laughing at how obvious it is. This afternoon, told they are real professors and that this is not a fraud, everyone here says, well, maybe it is real stuff".

...".

 


In 2002 Cornell blacklisted me from being registered as an author in the arxiv.org e-print archives.

 

 

Here is an 825 kb file including some e-mail messages related to the matter.

If I don't go to the Northern District of New York, Binghamton Division, to file a new suit against the Cornell Defendants, I may just give up and go off the web, leaving my web site up as it is now, as long as innerx lets it stay as a memorial.

As of now, 13 August 2003:

Carlos Castro, who is also blacklisted, is contacting lawyers in California who might be able to help; and

after seeing a 2 July 2003 article by Jim Galloway in the Atlanta, Georgia, AJC that said

"... former Gov. Roy Barnes on Tuesday [1 July 2003] opened a small law office ... With his son-in-law, John Salter, 27, Barnes has set up a temporary office on the Marietta Square. His daughter, Allison Barnes Salter, an assistant solicitor for Cobb County, will join the firm Sept. 1. All three are University of Georgia law school graduates. Barnes said he intended to keep the Barnes Law Group small, with no more than 10 attorneys. The firm will specialize in consumer actions, including predatory lending and negligence cases. The former governor also plans to resume his specialty, First Amendment cases. ...".

I contacted the new firm on Marietta Square about helping with my First Amendment suit against Cornell et al. On Tuesday, 15 July 2003, I received a letter that confirmed what a receptionist at their office had verbally told me the day before: "... Although we have no opinion as to the validity or non-validity of your claims, this matter is not the type of litigation we are accepting into our firm at this time. ...".

On 3 August 2003, I had written a new paper, with new ideas extending the last paper (physics/0207095) that I had been allowed to post on the arXiv, and I noticed that arXiv had revised some of its procedures relative to author registration, so I sent an e-mail to register-query@arXiv.org requesting that I be registered as an author, effectively ending my being blacklisted. On the following day, register-query@arXiv.org replied, stating "... The registration interface has changed, the underlying policies have not. ...", thus again refusing to register me and continuing my blacklisting.

 


Here is a copy of my 10 August 2002 letter:

Frank D. (Tony) Smith, Jr. attorney at law P. O. Box 370, Cartersville, Georgia 30120 (770) 382-5875 e-mail: tsmith@innerx.net WWW URL: http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/
10 August 2002
Express Mail No. *EU256905334US*
Re: e-print archive registration request
CU Library Gateway - Re: arXiv.org e-print archives
201 Olin Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Enclosed is a copy of my e-mail message to you and to register-query@arxiv.org sent 10 August 2002, which message is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
Frank D. (Tony) Smith, Jr.

Here is a copy of the e-mail message that was enclosed:

Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
X-Sender: tsmith@pop3.innerx.net (Unverified)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:49:49 -0400
To: register-query@arXiv.org
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: request for registration
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net, LIBGATEWAY-L@cornell.edu
   
As you can tell by checking correspondence files over July and August 2002,
I have had complications with respect to attempts to put
papers on the e-print archives.
   
Eventually my put of
http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0207095
was accepted, as was my replacement to correct some material
about the Kobayashi-maskawa phase.
   
However, my attempt to put my paper TS-QM03-1 entitled
Penrose-Hameroff Quantum Tubulin Electrons,
Chiao Gravity Antennas, and Mead Resonance
was rejected, and even though I sought reconsideration,
and as far as I know it still stands rejected.
   
   
In order to resolve the matter of my status with clarity,
and to avoid future complications and perhaps to
expedite your reconsideration of my paper TS-QM03-1
I am sending this my request that I be registered as
an author on the e-print archives.
   
I did attempt to do so, in connection with my attempt
to put my paper TS-QM03-1, but I received a rejection reply
that said, in part:
   
"... Your register request has been deferred.
Ordinarily we require an appropriate institutional affiliation
... please use ... your university account.
If you are trying to register from an e-mail account with
a research employer that officially sponsors your work ...
If you have no suitable institutional affiliation,
then please find someone with such an affiliation,
and with expertise in the relevant subject matter,
to sponsor your activities. ...".
   
   
I do have a university e-mail account which is
fdtsmith@mail.alumni.princeton.edu
 (In fact one reason that I obtained it in July 2002 was to try
  to compy with your request that I "use ... [my] university account".)
and
I did use it in my attempt to put up my paper TS-QM03-1
but
since that attempt was rejected,
it must be that for some reason you do not consider it
to be a "university account".
I hereby request that you state your position with respect
to that university account clearly and explicitly.
   
I am self-employed, and do not have a third party "research employer".
   
I do not understand exactly what you mean when you say
that I should "find" "someone with such an affiliation"
who is "with expertise in the relevant subject matter"
to "sponsor [my] activities".
   
More particularly:
   
  Exactly what would "someone" have to do to "sponsor [my] activities" ?
   
  Exactly how much "expertise" would that "someone" have to have with
  respect to each paper that I might want to put on the e-print archives ?
       For instance, would that require such a "someone" to read in detail,
       understand, and effectively referee each such paper ?
   
  Exactly what is "such an affiliation" ?
       For instance, would a professorship at an accredited physics
       department in a USA university be sufficient, or might there
       be other and/or further requirements ?
   
  Exactly what would be involved in my effort to "find" such a
  a "someone" ?
       Especially, would I be required to pay such a "someone" for
       time and effort expended to "sponsor [my] activities" ?
   
   
   
I think that my history of putting papers on the e-print archives
is relevant, so here it is:
   
When I had the e-mail account gt0109e@prism.gatech.edu at Georgia Tech,
I put up the following papers from Georgia Tech:
   
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9301210
   
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9302008
   
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9302030
   
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9306011
   
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9402003
   
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9403007
   
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9501252
   
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9503009
   
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9503015
   
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9512438
   
After I no longer had a Georgia Tech e-mail account,
I had for a time the account fsmith@pegasus.cau.edu at CTSPS
at Clark Atlanta University, from which I put up the following papers:
   
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9708379
   
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9806023
   
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9908205
   
After the CTSPS - Clark Atlanta University account ceased to be
used regularly by me, I had an e-mail discussion with the people
at xxx.lanl.gov which resulted in their telling me:
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 07:52:32 -0600
> From: www-admin@xxx.lanl.gov (www admin for xxx.lanl.gov)
> To: tsmith@innerx.net
> Subject: RE: register
> Cc: www-admin@xxx.lanl.gov
>
> > ould you please tell me why my request to register as
> > an author at gen-ph@xxx.lanl.gov was not accepted ?
>
> No registration is required. Just submit by e-mail
> To: gen-ph@xxx.lanl.gov
> Subject: put
> when you have a new submission to make.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
   
That arrangement, suggested by the people at xxx.lanl.gov,
was at that time satisfactory with me
and pursuant to it I put up the following papers:
   
http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0006041
   
http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0102042
   
That brings my history to the time of the complications
that I have encountered during July and August 2002.
   
Since the complications that I have encountered during
July and August 2002 involve whatever policy that you may have
with respect to registration,
and
since your web page at
http://arXiv.org/
states in part "... $This archive is based upon activities
supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation
under Agreement No. 0132355 (7/01-6/04) with Cornell University.$$ ...".
   
I hereby formally request to be registered as an author
on the e-print archives and that I be given
an author username and password that is as effective
as are most such author usernames and passwords,
and
I also hereby formally request that you send to me a
complete statement of any policy or policies that you
may have with respect to registration, as well as copies
of all documentation in your posession or control (including
electronic documentation) relative to such policy or policies
and the formulation of such policy or policies.
I further formally request that you preserve all such documentation
for at least the balance of the calendar year 2002, and perhaps
longer if circumstances warrant.
   
Since the web page at
http://campusgw.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/manntom2.cgi?section=networked&URL=g
ateway.html
lists the CU Library Gateway e-Reference Collection as including
"... arXiv.org e-print archive ..."
I am sending a copy of this messaage to LIBGATEWAY-L@cornell.edu
and a paper printout copy of this message by US mail addressed to:
   
CU Library Gateway Re: arXiv.org e-print archive
201 Olin
Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
   
   
   
Frank D. (Tony) Smith, Jr.       10 August 2002
   

On 8 September 2002 I received a rejection message from register-query@arXiv.org (register-query for arXiv.org) that said:

"... Alumni addresses do not count as current affiliation. ...
Moreover
the nature of your former use of institional e-mail accounts is unclear.
...
This is no longer xxx.lanl.gov, so the history is not strictly relevant.
...
There is no evidence that any of these [papers that I had put up
since 1993] has been considered peer-reviewable by a conventional journal
...
   The policy here is to restrict submissions to those that would
be considered peer-reviewable by conventional journals. 
That is what sponsorship by someone with expertise in the subject matter
means in your case, without a suitable institutional sponsorship for
your activities.
Do not send further messages to any address other than this one.
Any message sent to any other address will be put at the bottom
of the queue, and take that much longer to receive response. ...".

 

On 10 September 2002 I made some efforts to obtain a sponsor for me to become a registered author on the e-print archive. I went to Georgia Tech and talked to my friend and former teacher, professor David Finkelstein, but he was not enthusiastic, saying that he did not understand all the aspects of my D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physics model. He did not directly say "No.", saying that he would think about it, but I could tell that he really did not want to get involved in my work to the extent of being a sponsor. I then had another idea, which I proposed by e-mail to Stuart Hameroff. Early on 11 September 2002 I received his reply, which was, with my message quoted below it:

Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 00:39:46 -0700
From: hameroff@email.arizona.edu
Subject: RE: e-print archive authorship
To: "Tony Smith" <tsmith@innerx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: UofA Webmail
X-Originating-IP: 195.101.217.200
   
Dear Tony
   
Roger is so busy that I hesitate to contact him about anything, including
our collaboration. I can almost assure you that he would not be interested,
with no aspersions on your work.
   
There must be someone you know who would do it.
   
Good luck
   
Stuart
   
>-- Original Message --
>Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:15:39 -0400
>To: hameroff@email.arizona.edu
>From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
>Subject: e-print archive authorship
>Cc: tsmith@innerx.net
>
>
>As you recommeded to me in e-mail messages back around 8 August 2002,
>I have been in discussion with arXiv.org to try to get them to
>register me as an author and to put up my paper that I have contributed
>to Quantum Mind 2003. As I indicated in an earlier message to you,
>I have put a pdf version of the paper on the web at
>http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/QM03.pdf
>
>After about a month or so, I have received a message from
>register-query@arXiv.org
>that rejected my attempt to be registered as an author and
>to put up that paper on the gen-ph e-print archive.
>
>The rejection message said, in part:
>"... The policy here is to restrict submissions to those that would
>be considered peer-reviewable by conventional journals.
>That is what sponsorship by someone with expertise in the subject matter
>means in your case, without a suitable institutional sponsorship for
>your activities. ...".
>Therefore,
>it seems to me that to be registered as an author under the
>rules of arXiv.org as it is now being administered
>by Cornell, which rules seem to be different from the rules
>when xxx.lanl.gov at Los Alamos was administering the archive,
>the change having taken place within the past year,
>I must find a respected physicist at a respected university
>who will review my body of work (I have somewhat over a dozen
>papers that were put on the archive under Los Alamos administration)
>and
>then certify to the Cornell administrators at register-query@arXiv.org
>that they will sponsor my activities, including being an author
>on the archive.
>
>I am uncertain as to how I should proceed.
>Today I discussed the possibility of sponsorship with
>my former teacher, David Finkelstein, but, although he
>said that he would think about it, it was clear to me
>that he was uncomfortable with sponsoring me, in part
>because, as he said, he does not fully understand my work.
>
>A possible approach that came to my mind is that,
>since the paper in question is a quantum consciousness paper,
>and since it is based on the work of you and Roger Penrose,
>and since you are technically a M.D. instead of a physicist,
>that Roger Penrose might be a logical person to evaluate my work.
>
>On the one hand, I recognize that Roger Penrose has his own
>work to do and is very likely too busy to study my work,
>but
>on the other hand, he is at Oxford where there are many highly
>intelligent doctoral students and post-docs,
>so
>I thought that perhaps he could ask a student or post-doc to
>look at my body of work and make an evaluation that he could
>use in making a determination of my fitness to be an author
>on the e-print archive.
>
>Instead of reviewing all my papers (over a dozen),
>I suggest that the most recent one on particle physics might
>give a reviewing student or post-doc enough information to evaluate
>my work. That paper is at
>http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0207095
>and
>I think that it and my consciousness paper taken together
>constitute a fairly representative sample of my work.
>
>If you think that might be a good idea, please feel free to
>forward this message to Roger Penrose along with any comments
>that you might have.
>
>Also, if Roger Penrose were to agree to that proposal,
>please let him know that I would be willing to go to
>Oxford at my expense at some mutually agreeable date
>to confer with any student or post-doc who might find
>discussion with me helpful in making such an evaluation.
>
>Whether or not you agree with the above idea,
>I thank you very much for your work and ideas,
>and I look forward to seeing you in March 2003.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Tony Smith   10 September 2002
>
>
>
>
>
 

Unfortunately, even after a lot of serious thought, I cannot think of anyone I "... know who would do it. ...".

 

After a friend of mine asked the Cornell e-print archives some questions about my situation, I received copies of some of the statements of the Cornell e-print archives concerning me, and I then sent an e-mail message to register-query@arXiv.org that said:

"... Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 00:32:55 -0400
To: register-query@arXiv.org
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: RE: arXiv.org policy
...
... Possibly in accord with your request that he "... copy
or retransmit messages for informational purposes. ..."
...[a friend of mine]... has forwarded to me comments
by you, register-query for arXiv.org, that concern me.
   
---------------------------------------------------
   
You say that I am in "... a large pool here -
- typically flagged by reader complaints -
- encouraged to find alternate outlets. ...".
   
Please tell me who has complained about me,
and exactly what they have said about me,
and
please give me a reasonable opportunity to reply to any such complaints.
   
---------------------------------------------------
   
With respect to my posts on the e-print archives since 1993,
you demand specification of "... in what journal "any [of my papers
on the e-print archive]" have been published. ...".
   
I have NEVER submitted ANY of my papers that are on the e-print
archive to ANY journal,
therefore
it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine how they might have been treated.
Not only is it impossible for me to show that they might
have been reviewed favorably,
it is also impossible for you (or anyone else) to show that
they might have been reviewed unfavorably,
because no such articles have been submitted.
   
The reasons that I have not submitted those papers for publication
include:
1 - I am self-employed, and do not need citations of publications
for grants or tenure;
2 - I have seen some evidence of arbitrariness in refereeing
processes, and do not wish to get involved in such processes if
I do not have to do so, which I do not because of (1).
3 - Even an optimal journal refereeing and publication process
results in substantial time delay in publication, compared to
the nearly instantaneous posting of papers on the e-print archives;
4 - Most journals require assignment of copyright, which I find
objectionable if I can avoid it, and I can avoid it by posting
on the e-print archives;
5 - My experience as a regular reader of the e-print archives
for many years indicates to me that archived e-prints get a far
wider readership than ANY journal.
   
I have made no secret of the fact that I have not submitted
any of my archived papers to any journal, and lack of submission
has NOT been a problem for ANY of the over a dozen papers that
have been posted by me to the e-print archive from 1993 to July 2002.
   
Do you now require that ALL papers posted to the e-print archive
be submitted to refereed journals for publication?
   
What about contributions to conferences that are not submitted
to journals?
In that connection, I note that the paper that you rejected
in August 2002 when I attempted to post it has in fact been
contributed to a conference, which is Quantum-Mind 2003
at the University of Arizona, which conference has web site at 
   http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/quantum-mind2/ ".

I have not (as of 4 December 2002) received any reply from Cornell. It makes me sad to realize that:

In my opinion, the real reason that Cornell has blacklisted me is that Paul Ginsparg dislikes me because in the year 2000 I supported a friend of mine, Carlos Castro of Clark Atlanta University, in a controversy involving the e-print archives, then being administered by Los Alamos. Here is a 317 kb file including some e-mail messages related to that controversy. Paul Ginsparg's state of mind is evidenced by the following statement that he made in 2000:

Paul Ginsparg stated: "... if clark university will insist on this, then we will cease to regard clark university as a responsible accredited institution. ...".

By that statement, Paul Ginsparg threatened to cut off archive authorship of everybody at Clark Atlanta University unless Clark Atlanta University stopped supporting Carlos Castro.

The next year, 2001, Paul Ginsparg was made a Professor of Physics at Cornell University. According to an e-print archive web page:

According to a September 2001 article in Physics Today by Toni Feder:

"... The electronic preprint server that revolutionized communication among physicists moved in late summer from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to Cornell University, along with its creator, string theorist Paul Ginsparg, who has taken a joint position in physics and computer information science. ... Martin Blume, editor of the American Physical Society (APS) journals ... says ... "I won't say Paul was unappreciated at Los Alamos, but what he did was peripheral, whereas now he'll be at the center of things." ... Ginsparg ... says ... "At a weapons lab, a project like this has never been central to the overall mission," says Ginsparg, adding that "middle managerial pettiness and small-mindedness" were "pertinent" to his decision to leave. ... Cornell librarian Sarah Thomas ... says ... "The archive is a highly successful model of how a community looks at research in its field. It's become very timely, and very democratic. ...".

In light of being blacklisted by Cornell, I find it quite ironic that Cornell had been bragging about the e-print archives being "very democratic".

My opinion that Cornell did not blacklist me because I don't submit papers to refereed journals is supported by something that Paul Ginsparg wrote on 19 April 1995: "... Some measure of the success of e-print archives is given, first, by widespread testaments from users that they find it an indispensable research tool - effectively eliminating their reliance on conventional print journals (and some report no longer submitting to journals, either because they have unconsciously forgotten, since the information is already communicated, or because they have consciously chosen not to deal with a tedious and seemingly unnecessary process ...".

I find Cornell's statement "... The policy here is to restrict submissions to those that would be considered peer-reviewable by conventional journals. ..." to be almost hilariously ridiculous, in light of the Bogdanov publications in Classical and Quantum Gravity 18 (2001), 4341-4372 and Annals of Physics, 296 (2002), 90-97. As Peter Woit said in a 24 October 2002 post to the sci.physics.research thread Physics bitten by reverse Alan Sokal hoax?
"... Refereeing in this field has clearly become a complete joke,
largely because there is no way to consistently impose standards given what has happened in particle theory over the last twenty years. ...".

Also, my use of a .net e-mail address does not seem to me to be a consistent reason for Cornell to blacklist me, because, according to an e-print archive web page: "... Distribution according to e-mail domain of submitting author of all 134945 submissions received during the five year period 1 Jan 97 through 31 Dec 01 ...[was]...

so that the total number of .net submissions is more than ten times greater than the number of my .net submissions.

 

 It is interesting to me that at about the same time that Cornell was blacklisting me, Ginsparg received what is commonly called a MacArthur Genius Award. According to a 25 September 2002 AP article in The New York Times: "... The list of 24 fellows announced Wednesday by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Each will receive $500,000 over five years: ... Paul Ginsparg, 46, Ithaca, N.Y.; professor of physics and computing and information science at Cornell University who created a computer-based system for physicists and other scientists to share their research results. ...".

Despite my unhappiness at being blacklisted by Cornell, I think that, not only should Ginsparg have won a MacArthur award, but that:

An earlier and larger award would have been (in my opinion) much closer to the intent of the MacArthurs:

"... that money should be set aside to allow truly creative individuals the free time to be alone and think. ... Recipients should be left alone without the annoyances and distractions imposed by grant applications, reviewing committees, and pressure to publish ...".

I think that the way the MacArthur awards are implemented, being given by a committee as rewards for prior work and being limited to five years, is a sad distortion of the true intent of John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur.

For instance, a January 1996 capitalresearch.org web article by Martin Morse Wooster says:

"... The MacArthur Fellows Program is a relatively small part of ... the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur ... Foundation's activities ... When the first MacArthur Fellows were announced in 1981 ... The New Republic's Michael Kinsley ... noted ... "Not one of the first MacArthur fellows is suffering from lack of recognition for his or her talents ... What's more, not one really faces financial obstacles in exercising his or her creativity. They are already doing whatever it is the MacArthur Foundation admires them for doing; many are already doing quite well at it, and presumably they will keep on doing it, unless this windfall encourages them to stop." Moreover, Kinsley argued, the MacArthur Fellows program contradicted the "rugged individualism" inherent in the life of John D. MacArthur, a heroic entrepreneur who began his career penniless and died a billionaire, never receiving a grant from anyone. ... the MacArthur Fellows program has changed remarkably little between 1981 and today. ...

... Within a few weeks after John D. MacArthur's death in 1978, ... son J. Roderick "Rod" MacArthur ... had perfected the idea of the MacArthur Fellowships and had recommended that they be the primary purpose of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. ... the MacArthur Foundation did resist two of [Rod] MacArthur's ideas, awarding lifetime fellowships and tying the list of recipients to a list of world problems the foundation wanted to solve. ...

... One-third of MacArthur recipients are over age 50, and when Roy Hoopes interviewed some of them for Modern Maturity, he found that the major effect of the MacArthurs was to act as a credential that generated more income from lecture fees and other assignments. Some of the people Hoopes interviewed regretted that they did not receive the award when they were younger and hungrier. ...".

A more timely and generous MacArthur award would have been helpful to Ginsparg and the e-print archives in their earlier years. As Ginsparg wrote on 19 April 1995: "... hep-th@xxx.lanl.gov, the e-mail address for the first of a series of automated archives for electronic communication of research information, went on-line starting in August, 1991. ... The system originally ran as a background job on a small Unix workstation (a 25 MHz NeXTstation with a 68040 processor purchased for roughly $5k in 1991) which was primarily used for other purposes by another member of my research group, and placed no noticeable drain on cpu resources. The system has since been moved to an HP 9000/735 that sits exiled on the floor under a table in a corner. ... While it long remained a spare-time project with little financial or logistical support, as of 1 Mar 1995 it is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Agreement No. 9413208. ...".

 

Being frustrated by Cornell's refusal to discuss my situation in a reasonable manner, I consider the possibility of

a law suit for denial of access to a federally funded organ of free speech expression (the archives) without due process.

To file such a suit, I looked for a law firm with offices in both Atlanta (in my home state of Georgia) and in New York (Cornell's home state). The first firm I contacted was King and Spalding. I told them that I was willing to pay going-rate legal fees, and they began to check whether or not there would be any conflict.

My hope was that the New York office of the firm would contact Cornell's legal department and show them the proposed suit, which if filed publicly in New York would be hard for New York media to ignore. Then hopefully Cornell legal would have realized the difficulty of defending individual arbitrariness in the matter, and instructed the Cornell powers-that-be that it would be in the best interest of Cornell (and in fact of Ginsparg) to carry out their own declared policy of open authorship.

A few days after my initial contact, King and Spalding said that their New York office had conflicts with taking my suit against Cornell.

I then contacted Holland and Knight, another firm with both Atlanta and New York offices. After checking with their New York office, they also said that conflicts prevented them from taking my case. After that, I called Alston and Bird (yet another firm with both Atlanta and New York offices), but they did not want to take my case.

My discussion with Holland and Knight was very helpful to me in understanding the reason for my inability to find a suitable law firm to take my case. It became clear to me that, from the point of view of a New York law office:

I now believe that it is highly unlikely that I will be able to retain a large establishment law firm to take my case against Cornell. If Cornell could remove any such suit to the State of New York, then, since I think that the New York judicial system is also likely to be unfavorably disposed to a suit against Cornell by a mere individual such as me, I believe that a large establishment law firm would probably be necessary to get serious attention of Cornell's lawyers and a just result.

However,

if my suit could be brought in Georgia and remain there, I might have a chance of success.

According to a June 1998 Temple University Law School/Cyberspace Law Institute web page by David G. Post:

"... The courts, not surprisingly, are struggling to come up with a coherent doctrine of personal jurisdiction for Internet transactions. It is probably far too early to suggest that concrete rules have yet emerged. ... A few general themes appear to be emerging. ...
  • 1. Presence on the World Wide Web is not sufficient, in and of itself, to support the exercise of general jurisdiction over non-resident defendants. ...
  • 2. Some courts will read the due process constraints "liberally," sustaining exercises of jurisdiction on the basis of little more than the accessibility of defendant's (foreign) web page to residents of the forum State. Cases generally applying the broadest possible view of Internet contacts, and sustaining exercises of personal jurisdiction on the basis of the accessibility of defendant's web sites to residents of the forum state, include ... Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 161 (D. Conn. 1996) ...
  • 3. A "sliding scale" for the evaluation of Internet contacts, under which the "likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet," has been endorsed by a number of courts in recent months, and may be in the process of becoming a generally-accepted standard for evaluating the exercise of personal jurisdiction based on contacts over the Internet. As set forth in the case of Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa., Jan 16, 1997):
    • "At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet. If the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper. E.g. Compuserve, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.2d 1257 (6th Cir.1996).
    • At the opposite end are situations where a defendant has simply posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to users in foreign jurisdictions. A passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise personal jurisdiction. E.g. Bensusan Restaurant Corp., v. King, 937 F.Supp. 296 (SDNY 1996).
    • The middle ground is occupied by interactive Web sites where a user can exchange information with the host computer. In these cases, the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Website. ..."(emphasis supplied). ...".

If my case might be determined by that "middle ground", then, since my case is a due process and free speech case with no commercial factors, and since the Cornell archives also have no commercial factor, the issues would be:

 

It is clear that the Cornell archives are an interactive Web site where a user can exchange information with the host computer.

 According to a Cornell e-print archive web page:

"... General Information About the Archives

Started in Aug 1991, arXiv.org (formerly xxx.lanl.gov) is a fully automated electronic archive and distribution server for research papers. Covered areas include physics and related disciplines, mathematics, nonlinear sciences, computational linguistics, and neuroscience.

Users can retrieve papers from the archive either through an on-line world wide web interface, or by sending commands to the system via e-mail. Similarly, authors can submit their papers to the archive either using the on-line world wide web interface, using ftp, or using e-mail. Authors can update their submissions if they choose, though previous versions remain available. ...".

 

 The Cornell archives clearly have a high level of interactivity.

Since "... authors can submit their papers to the archive either using the on-line world wide web interface, using ftp, or using e-mail. ...", each submission of a paper to the Cornell archives is clearly an instance of interactivity. According to a Cornell e-print archive web page monthly submissions from January 2000 through October 2002 exceeded 2,000 submissions per month.

Since "... Users can retrieve papers from the archive either through an on-line world wide web interface, or by sending commands to the system via e-mail. ...", each connection might also be considered to be an instance of interactivity. According to a Cornell e-print archive web page, from January 2002 through October 2002 the number of connections per month exceeded 1 million.

As Paul Ginsparg said at a UNESCO Conference in Paris in 1996: "... These archives now serve over 35,000 users worldwide from over 70 countries, and process more than 70,000 electronic transactions per day. In some fields of physics, they have already supplanted traditional research journals as conveyers of both topical and archival research information ... For some fields of physics, open (i.e. unrefereed) distribution of research can work well and has advantages for researchers both in developed and undeveloped countries. ...".

As Paul Ginsparg said at a UNESCO Conference in Paris in 2001: "... According to the submission statistics sorted by e-mail domain of the submitting author, roughly 30% of the submissions come from United States based submitters; 12% from Germany; 6% from each of the U.K., Italy, Japan; 5% from France; and submissions overall arrive from about 100 different countries. ...".

Although I do not have full statistics for submissions from the Northern District of the State of Georgia, USA, a (probably very small) sample of submissions from there during 2002 include:

Therefore, it seems to me that

the Cornell archives are an interactive Web site where a user can exchange information with the host computer, with a high level of interactivity and are therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in the State of Georgia.

My case against the Cornell archives seems to me to be sort of related to a case described in a Temple Law School web page:

"... American Nework, Inc. v. Access America, 1997 WL 466507 (S.D.N.Y. August 14, 1997).

The District Court concluded that exercising personal jurisdiction over a Georgia Corporation, based on the maintenance of a web site and 6 contracts with New York residents was reasonable. ... As for a due process analysis, the court acknowledged that simply maintaining a web site on the internet would not, necessarily, by itself constitute purposeful availment. However, Access's consistent marketing to the entire U.S., as well as, servicing its customers in New York, were sufficient. Based on these activities it was foreseeable that Access could be haled into court not only where its web site had been viewed, but where Access had secured customers. ...".

In my case, instead of a Georgia entity being subjected to the jurisdiction of New York,

a New York entity (Cornell) would be subjected to the jurisdiction of Georgia.

 

For reference, according to a ganet.org web page, the Georgia long-arm statute says:

"... 9-10-91. A court of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident ... as to a cause of action arising from any of the acts, omissions, ownership, use, or possession enumerated in this Code section, in the same manner as if he were a resident of the state, if in person or through an agent, he: (1) Transacts any business within this state; ... (3) Commits a tortious injury in this state caused by an act or omission outside this state if the tort-feasor regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, ... in this state; (4) Owns, uses, or possesses any real property situated within this state; ...".

In the context of my case, "business" would include submission to and connection to the Cornell archives.

On 26 November 2002 I received an e-mail message signed "- Someone who reads" that led me to discover that

the e-print archives have declared that they have a policy of open authorship

on an e-print archives web page related to the Open Archives / Santa Fe Convention.

The fact that the e-print archives blacklist is inconsistent with their declared policy of open authorship makes me think that not only is a suit well founded, but also that it is necessary to correct actions that are blatantly inconsistent with the declared policy of the e-print archives.

My objectives in a suit are:

 I filed my suit in the United State District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on 6 December 2002.

Here is a pdf version of my Complaint.

On 3 February 2003 Cornell (and its individuals) and The Regents (of the University of California) d/b/a Los Alamos National Laboratory (and their individuals) filed their Motions to Dismiss my suit, along with supporting Memoranda (briefs) and Affidavits. I received their material in paper form (not electronic), so I am not putting it on my web site, but I am filing my Response to their Motions along with my Memorandum (brief) and Affidavit in support thereof. Here in pdf form is my Response, and here in pdf form is my Memorandum, and here in pdf form is my Affidavit. NSF and DOE (as parts of the U.S. government) filed on 19 March 2003 their Motion to Dismiss my suit, and I filed my Response to their Motion and Memorandum in support thereof on 20 March 2003. I received their material in paper form (not electronic), so I am not putting it on my web site, but here in pdf form is my Memorandum opposing the Motion to Dismiss by NSF and DOE., and here in pdf form is my 21 March 2003 amendment to my Complaint.

Now, subject to any reply that NSF and DOE might file within 10 days (excluding weekends and holidays), we are waiting for the Court to rule on the Motions to Dismiss.

According to Court Rules and an order of the Court, if the Motions to Dismiss are denied, we are supposed to have a pre-trial conference within 20 days of that ruling, at which time we are supposed to discuss such things as discovery and possibility of settlement. With respect to the possibility of settlement, I have submitted to the Cornell Defendants my proposal for settlement, which is here in pdf form. My proposed settlement with the Cornell Defendants would render moot any further action in this case against NSF, DOE, or the Los Alamos Defendants.

On 24 March 2003 Judge Murphy of the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered a 70-page order in my suit, Civil Action File No. 4:02-CV-0280-HLM, ruling as follows:

Here are some excerpts from the 70-page order:

"... Plaintiff's Complaint and briefs are not models of clarify [sic] ...

... Because the actions of which Plaintiff complains occurred in 2002, and because Plainbtiff has not alleged that a connection exists between Defendant Cornell University and Defendants Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, Luce, Browne, and Van Ness, Plaintiff's Comnplaint fails to state a cause of action against Defendants Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, Luce, Browne, and Van Ness. The Court therefore grants the Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Defendants Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, Luce, Browne, and Van Ness. ...

... Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of California to resume management and control of the arXiv.org website. The Court finds that this argument is without merit. ...

... To determine whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Cornell University, the Court must first examine whether a provision of Georgia's long-arm statute applies to Defendant Cornell University. Carekeeper Software Dev. Co. v. Silver, 46 F. Supp 2d 1366, 1369 (N.D. Ga. 1999) ... Georgia's long-arm statute ... O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91(1) confers personal jurisdiction over a defendant who "[t]ransacts any business within this state." ... At most, arXiv.org and Defendant Cornell University engaged in e-mail communications with Plaintiff in response to Plaintiff's inquiries, and allowed Plaintiff and other individuals associated with Georgia institutions to post articles on arXiv.org. Those activities simply are insufficient to allow the Court to conclude that Defendant Cornell University transacted business in Georgia. ...

... Plaintiff apparently argues that Defendant Cornell University is subject to the jurisdiction of the Court under theories of general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. ...

.... A defendant is constitutionally amendable [sic] to a forum's specific jurisdiction if it possesses sufficient contacts with the forum to satisfy due process requirements, and if the forum's exercise of jurisdiction comports with 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Vermuelen v. Renault, U.S.A., Inc., 985 F.2d 1534, 1545 (11th Cir. 1993) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)) ... Here, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Cornell University is subject to the specific jurisdiction of this Court because Defendant Cornell University operates and maintains the arXiv.org website and its database. Although the Court located no case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressing personal jurisdiction based on a defendant's maintenance of a website or database, other courts have adopted the following standards for determining whether personal jurisdiction exists in those circumstances.

[T]he likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet. This sliding scale is consistent with well developed personal jurisdiction principles.

At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet. If the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper.

At the opposite end are situations where a defendant has simply posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to users in foreign jurisdictions. A passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise [of] personal jurisdiction.

The middle ground is occupied by interactive Web sites where a user can exchange information with the host computer. In these cases, the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site.

Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (citations omitted) ... Other courts have added a requirement that the operator of the website must "manifest an intent to target and focus on" citizens of the forum state. Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F. 3d 446, 452-53 (3d Cir. 2003); see also Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F. 3d 256, 263 (4th Cir. 2002) (requiring that defendant's website target Virginia residents). ... The arXiv.org website "is not a passive site that only makes information available," and it is not "a site that clearly does business over the Internet." iAccess, Inc. v. WEBCard Techs., Inc., 182 F. Supp. 1183, 1187 (D. Utah 2002). The arXiv.org website thus falls within the middle range of the Zippo spectrum, and the Court must determine whether the level of interactivity and the commercial nature of arXiv.org's website are sufficient to warrant exercising specific jurisdiction. Id. ... the arXiv.org website sells no products to users, and charges no user or subscriber fees. ... Those contacts "fail to apint the picture of a significantly commerical website that is visited regularly by [Georgia] residents." Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. DAMMADD, Inc., No. Civ. A. 302CV1712G, 2003 WL 29162, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2003). Further, nothing before the Court indicates that the arXiv.org website specifically targets Georgia residents. Under these circumstance, the Court may not exercise specific jurisdiction over Defendant Cornell University based on its manitenance of the arXiv.org website. ...

... Plaintiff also apparently argues that the Court may exercise general personal jurisdiction over Defendant Cornell University. A foreign entity's "contacts with the forum that are unrelated to the litigation must be substantial in order to warrant the exercise of general personal jurisdiction." Meier, 288 r. 3d at 1274. "'The due process requirements for general personal jurisdiction are more stringent than for specific personal jurisdiction, and require a showing of continuous and systematic general business contacts between the defendant and the forum state.'" Id. ... The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant Cornell University has engaged in "continuous and systematic general business contacts" with Georgia. Meier, 288 F. 3d at 1274. ... The Court consequently does not have general personal jurisdiction over Defendant Cornell University. ...

... the Court concludes that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Cornell Defendants. ...

... The Court consequently need not, and does not, consider the Cornell Defendants' argument that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim for relief. ...

... Plaintiff's claims asserted against Defendants National Science Foundation and the United States Department of Energy, however, still remain pending.

It is so ordered, this the 24th day of March, 2003. /s/ Harold L. Murphy UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ...".

 As I said above, although I have not yet seen a ruling with respect to NSF and DOE, I expect that my suit against them will be dismissed at least with respect to jurisdiction. [ In fact, on 16 April 2003, my expectation was realized as Judge Murphy dismissed my claims against NSF and DOE on their merits, so that the Cornell Defendants, who are the only Defendants who actively participated in blacklisting me, are the only Defendants as to whom my claims were NOT dismissed as to their merits. ]

Among the issues not decided in the above ruling are my contentions that:

arXiv is a public forum; and arXiv is bound by its declared policy of open access.

 

If I don't go to the Northern District of New York, Binghamton Division, to file a new suit against the Cornell Defendants, I may just give up and go off the web, leaving my web site up as it is now, as long as innerx lets it stay as a memorial.

As of now, 13 August 2003:

Carlos Castro, who is also blacklisted, is contacting lawyers in California who might be able to help; and

after seeing a 2 July 2003 article by Jim Galloway in the Atlanta, Georgia, AJC that said

"... former Gov. Roy Barnes on Tuesday [1 July 2003] opened a small law office ... With his son-in-law, John Salter, 27, Barnes has set up a temporary office on the Marietta Square. His daughter, Allison Barnes Salter, an assistant solicitor for Cobb County, will join the firm Sept. 1. All three are University of Georgia law school graduates. Barnes said he intended to keep the Barnes Law Group small, with no more than 10 attorneys. The firm will specialize in consumer actions, including predatory lending and negligence cases. The former governor also plans to resume his specialty, First Amendment cases. ...".

I contacted the new firm on Marietta Square about helping with my First Amendment suit against Cornell et al. On Tuesday, 15 July 2003, I received a letter that confirmed what a receptionist at their office had verbally told me the day before: "... Although we have no opinion as to the validity or non-validity of your claims, this matter is not the type of litigation we are accepting into our firm at this time. ...".

 On 3 August 2003, I had written a new paper, with new ideas extending the last paper (physics/0207095) that I had been allowed to post on the arXiv, and I noticed that arXiv had revised some of its procedures relative to author registration, so I sent an e-mail to register-query@arXiv.org requesting that I be registered as an author, effectively ending my being blacklisted. On the following day, register-query@arXiv.org replied, stating "... The registration interface has changed, the underlying policies have not. ...", thus again refusing to register me and continuing my blacklisting.


 On the Good side of things, I attended

The 6th Conference on Clifford Algebras and their Applications in Mathematical Physics, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tennessee, May 20-25, 2002

and presented a talk (here is a web page used for the talk) and a poster (here is a web page about the poster), abstracts of which are:

talk: Cl(8), Spin(8)=D4, D5, E6 and the Truth Quark Mass

Abstract: Cl(8) is 256-dimensional, with graded structure

1 + 8 + 28 + 56 + 70 + 56 + 28 + 8 + 1

The bivector 28 represents the D4 Lie Algebra Spin(8), a basic local symmetry of the Conformal Symmetric Spaces:

  • D5 / D4xU(1)
  • E6 / D5xU(1)

Related geometric structures, such as Bounded Complex Domains and Shilov Boundaries, along with combinatorial relations, allowed (as far back as February 1984) calculation of the Truth Quark mass (tree-level) as about 130 GeV.

Fermilab has observed the Truth Quark, and Fermilab first reported that observation in April 1994, but Fermilab's analysis of the events gives a T-quark mass of about 170 GeV.

My independent analysis of the same events gives a Truth Quark mass of about 130 GeV, consistent with my theoretical tree-level calculation.

poster: Periodicity, 26d Bosonic Strings, 27d Jordan Algebra

Abstract: By Clifford Periodicity, a large real Clifford Algebra Cl(8N) factors into the tensor product of N Cl(8) Clifford Algebras:

Cl(8N) = Cl(8) x ...(N times)... x Cl(8).

Each Cl(8) is 256-dimensional, with graded structure

1 + 8 + 28 + 56 + 70 + 56 + 28 + 8 + 1 =

= 256 dimensions = 16x16 = (8+8)x(8+8)

The vector 8 and the two half-spinor 8s correspond to the octonions Ov, O+, O- in the 27-dimensional Jordan algebra J3(O) matrix representation:

a O+ Ov *O+ b O- *Ov *O- c

where a,b,c are real and * means octonion conjugate.

The 26 dimensions of Closed Unoriented Bosonic String Theory are interpreted as the 26 dimensions of the traceless Jordan sub-algebra J3(O)o.

Each of the 3 Octonionic dimenisons have the following physical interpretation:

  • Ov: 4-dimensional physical spacetime plus 4-dimensional internal symmetry space;
  • O+: 8 first-generation fermion particles;
  • O-: 8 first-generation fermion anti-particles.

 

Also on the good side,

I have contributed a paper to

the Southeast Section 2002 APS Meeting, October 31 - November 2, 2002, Auburn, Alabama.

My talk was given on 1 November 2002. Here is a web page about the paper, here is the paper in pdf format, and it is also at physics/0207095. A long version of the abstract of the paper is:

A theoretical model based on the D4 Lie Algebra and Hermitian Symmetric Spaces D5 / D4xU(1) and E6 / D5xU(1) and related Shilov Boundaries, along with combinatorial relations, allows the calculation of ratios of particle masses:
  • Me-neutrino = Mmu-neutrino = Mtau-neutrino = 0 (tree-level)
  • Me = 0.5110 MeV
  • Md = Mu = 312.8 MeV (constituent quark mass)
  • Mmu = 104.8 MeV
  • Ms = 625 MeV (constituent quark mass)
  • Mc = 2.09 GeV (constituent quark mass)
  • Mtau = 1.88 GeV
  • Mb = 5.63 GeV (constituent quark mass)
  • Mt = 130 GeV (constituent Truth Quark mass)

and

  • W+ mass = W- mass = 80.326 GeV
  • Z0 mass = 91.862 GeV
  • Higgs mass = 145.8 GeV
  • weak force - Higgs VEV = 252.5 GeV (assumed, since ratios are calculated)

as well as ratios of force strength constants:

  • Gravitational G = (Ggravity)(Mproton)^2 = 5 x 10^(-39) (assumed, since ratios are calculated)
  • electromagnetic fine structure constant = 1/137.03608
  • Gfermi = (Gweak)(Mproton)^2 = 1.02 x 10^(-5)
  • color force strength = 0.6286 (at 0.245 GeV) - perturbative QCD running gives
    • color force strength = 0.167 (at 5.3 GeV)
    • color force strength = 0.121 (at 34 GeV)
    • color force strength = 0.106 (at 91 GeV)
  • If Nonperturbative QCD and other things are taken into account, then the color force strength = 0.123 (at 91 GeV)

The theoretical calculated electromagnetic fine structure constant = 1/137.03608 solves Feynman's mystery (QED, Princeton 1985, 1988, at page 129): "... the inverse of ... about 137.03597 ... [the] square [of] ... the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon ... has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it. ...".

The Truth Quark constituent mass (tree-level) calculation of about 130 GeV had been made by February 1984.

About 10 years later, in April 1994, Fermilab officially announced observation of the Truth Quark.

Fermilab's analysis of the events gives a T-quark mass of about 170 GeV.

My independent analysis of the same Fermilab events gives a Truth Quark mass of about 130 GeV, consistent with the theoretical tree-level calculation.

The local Lagrangian of the theoretical model is based on the structure of the real Cl(1,7) Clifford algebra which, through 8-fold periodicity, might be used to construct a Generalized Hyperfinite II1 von Neumann Algebra factor.

 and

I have contributed a paper to

Quantum Mind 2003 - Consciousness, Quantum Physics and the Brain,March 15-19, 2003, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Here is a web page about the paper, and here is the paper in pdf format. The abstract of the paper is:

Penrose and Hameroff have proposed that consciousness in the human brain may be based on gravitational interactions and quantum superposition states of electrons in tubulin cages in microtubules.

Chiao has proposed experimental construction of a gravity antenna that might be analogous to tubulin caged electrons.

Tegmark has criticized Penrose-Hameroff quantum consciousness, based on thermal decoherence of any such quantum superposition states.

This paper briefly describes some experimental results and theoretical ideas that indicate to me that Tegmark's criticism may be invalid.

Such theoretical ideas include Mead's quantum physics of resonance.

This paper closes with brief summaries of

Although I had earlier made airline and hotel reservations, I did not actually attend the conference, as I was tied up with matters here in Georgia, including my suit against Cornell et al. for blacklisting me.

Also, even though the Cornell arXiv blacklisted me in 2002, in November 2003 I was able to put on the web a revised version of my paper T-Quark Mass and Hyperfinite II1 von Neumann factor as EXT-2003-087 on CERN CDS

.

Many thanks to CERN CDS. Until Feb 2004 blacklisting had prevented me from posting that revised version on the Cornell arXiv. In Feb 2004 arXiv rejected my WMAP ratio calculation paper, but CERN CDS let me post it as EXT-2004-013.


Tony Smith's Home Page

......