1995年，北大本科生尉海清和导师 韩汝珊教授合作， 在 Phys. Rev. Lett. 上 发表了 论文 Q u antum Phase of Induced Dipoles Moving in a Magnetic Field (论文 及中文介绍见末尾附件)，国际上著名实验室的立即验证跟进，后续的理论和实验研究此起彼伏，至今还牵引着研究人员的目光。 少年发表顶级刊物 ， 可谓 偶然，二十余载保持长青 ，才是传奇 。论文作者尉海清后来的人生经历如何 ? 请看下文。 ------- 您的 博文 实在是很精彩，见解独到，立论明确，逻辑清晰，典型的科学工作者的思维和行文风范。然而您对小弟却是过誉了。韩教授出于对自己徒儿的偏爱，也不免会有些过奖。 我19 89 年考入北大，先在军校里训练了一年， 1990 年实入燕园， 1994 年毕业。 1993 年北大无人毕业。再就是，我与 2000 年初在 McGill 呆足了 “ the residence requirement ” of Ph.D. candidacy per university policy ，修完了必需的课件，并没有立马拿着博士学位（ McGill 的治学还是很严谨的，学位并不好混），就到硅谷加入了 “ 高科技 ” 大潮。当时那模式很盛行，俺老尉也随波逐流了。后来边工作边 research ， 2006 年得博士证书。 回首 20 余载，自知学术上无甚重要建树，却无愧为虔诚的科学信徒。小弟确是自很小的时候就对数学和物理产生了浓厚的兴趣，直至今日，而且随年岁的增长单调增强。对于有兴趣的学科或问题，学习钻研有原动力，不觉得累，偶尔出点新结果是自然的。这一点，我想刘教授必是感同身受。我自认为还算是充实的大学生活，受益于当时校园里良好的教研氛围和周边的读书听讲座条件。老先生们身体力行，贵在先做事，求真知，而后得。对于学生，他（她）们善于引导，注重支持和鼓励，提倡学术民主，注意培养独立思考能力。教导学生不要畏惧和盲从所谓的学术权威和大师，而是提供便利条件促进接触交流，让年轻人认得权威和大师亦为常人，日后必能与其为伍，只要努力不懈。 尤为重要的是，那时的学术思潮，追求的是真知和长远的业务素养，而不是短时的名利。你不必拥有百万或千万经费，佣有数十名弟子，再加几百篇论文的 list （其中多少真有创意，确有价值？又有多少是那 “ 大老板 ” 花了心思真正懂得的？），只要您对波函数或者 Lebesgue 测度或者 Feynman 路径和的真正涵义理解深刻，讲解透彻，我等便是肃然起敬，心服口服。恕我妄加揣测，若那时的治学和工作风气沿袭至今，即便假定当时的设施和经济条件，我中华之科教和工业技术水准，可及更高境界。当今现实，经济发达了，硬件设施先进了，但软设施建设不可忽视。这包括人心所向，思想修养，敬业精神，待人接物之真诚态度，奋发上进之精神， “ 彼人能，吾亦能 ” 之勇气，都是可贵的群体素质。援引我们学生时代大喇叭里常听到的成语 “ 精神和物质两个文明一齐抓 ” 。不然，优越的设备和经济条件会浪费在许多地方和不少投机者手里。 在我看来，不论是科学研究，还是工作在各行各业里，发掘和培养兴趣，对所攻业务的热情和执着，是做好事情的关键。科学家痴迷于工作的故事是太多了。刘教授举例的 Gates 和 Jobs ，也是本着推广 personal computing 的浓厚兴趣和 PC 的必要性的坚定信心，加上成就一番商业伟绩的极大热情，而成就大事的。 我的两位同窗好友的故事，也会让人深受启迪。现浙江大学教授冯波， Purdue University 教授胡江平，本科时期即凸显对物理和数学之痴狂，读书悦文孜孜不倦，并勤于深思酷研，身为学徒即有重要著述见报，被誉为 “ 物理诸系学生中真正喜爱物理之人 ” 。后来二人分别到 MIT 和 Stanford University 领先物理研究组学习，得博士学位。冯在超弦和 M- 理论上颇有建树，与 Witten 等人合作，得 “ Direct Proof of Tree-Level Recursion Relation in Yang-Mills Theory ” 之精妙成果 ( http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v94/i18/e181602 ) ，为 Arkani-Hamed （ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nima_Arkani-Hamed ）等人的新论， “ Quantum field theory based on scattering amplitudes without Feynman diagram expansions ” ，提供了典型素材。胡则在高级数学物理工具到固态物理理论的应用上多有收获。例如， 2001 年他在《 Science 》上撰文推广量子霍尔效应到四维空间上，并讨论了量子霍尔及其他特殊物质状态赖以存在的深刻的代数和几何根源（ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/294/5543/823.short ）。在我等了解其人的同窗看来，此二贤取得这般成绩，乃水到渠成，自然之果。 对于刘教授的 “ 游学 ” 之论，我并不一定理解透彻。我的粗浅看法， “ 游学 ” 的一种基本体现或做法，就是体制、 校方和导师应创造条件让学生能够 access more and wider references conveniently, participate more in academic communications and exchanges 。学生们则要用好可及的资源和条件，多看多想本专业的资料和信息，多参加与专业相关的学术交流活动，也要关心和参与跨学科、跨系、跨学校、跨城市、甚至跨国度的学术动态和交流。 One of the most important resource is your own mind. 应该善于开启它，勇敢地想，认真地做。不要畏惧权威的思路或人物。真理面前人人平等。参加学术活动多了，问的问题多了，见的牛人多了，神理论也就不那么神了，牛人也就不那么牛了，你自己反倒变牛了，无论是心里上还是真实水平上，那时就离出一流的成果不远了。说到底，顶尖的学术成果，一流的技术创新，令人耳目一新的商业模式发明，无一不是其创作者从巧妙的角度提了一个独到的问题，然后 给出往往并不是很困难的解答，与学生完成课后作业或求解考试题目并无二致。敢问并会问问题，是很重要的能力，也是教育过程中应该特别注重培养的一个关键方面，与具体知识和解题技巧同等重要， if not more important. Einstein 在最初学习黎曼几何和张量分析时可能并不很牛，绝不是解题高手。传说里他的同学 Grossman 要比他牛得多，常辅导他，借笔记或习题解答给他。但 Einstein 肯定理解和掌握了那学问的真谛。所以当他自问一个前人不曾问及的问题 “ 万有引力是否可以看做是一种空间几何畸变的效应 ” 时， Einstein 自然地想起了黎曼几何， formulated his theory of general relativity in the language of Riemannian geometry. 我们上大学时，极大地受益于北大的 “ 一塔湖图 ” 。 “ 塔 ” 和 “ 湖 ” 概括了燕园优美的学习和生活环境。这里我 主要想说的是 “ 图 ” 。北大图书馆，就一个字，全。好比一眼底蕴丰厚的山泉，任你多少求知若渴的攀山者尽情豪饮，甘美的泉水源源不断。怕的是你不想读。古今中外，不管什么文献，以及文献后面索引的文献，很少让 你失望。偶尔有特别稀少的书籍或文章，骑上自行车，不出海淀区，你就能在科学院或者国家图书馆里找得到。要是还没有， 90 年代初 Internet 和 Email 刚刚兴起，发个 message 请国外的好友帮忙。图书馆的每个藏书室，我都爱往里钻，不管数学，物理，化学，电工，或是计算机（做个检讨，我偏科挺严重的，文史是瘸腿，所以不管哪个图书馆，至少有半壁江山，咱连一步都没来得及踏入！），看不懂不在乎，忙不过来也不要紧，至少记住个书名或者内容提要吧，至少认识到咱是多么浅薄，有多少东西咱不知道吧，所以应该更加努力吧。 再应感激的是燕园里和周围那丰富活跃的学术和文化交流。数学、物理报告咱都不想落。化学楼跟咱物理楼是对门儿，他们的报告好多咱也想听听。有时候早上睡懒觉，做了 “ 九三 ” ，逃了课，也没了早饭，就蹬车到物理所，理论物理所，或者数学所，蹭人家的学术报告，还可以混上咖啡和早点（现在在硅谷，还是经常去 Stanford 蹭人家的 talks and refreshments ）。学术圈里的人就是这么 open 和大度，不会有人拒你于门外。跟乱钻图书馆情况类似，大多的报告咱是听不懂的，更实在地讲，几乎所有的报告咱都听不懂，但总是见着好多人脸儿吧，总能揣回来几个新名词儿吧。其实，就是今天，咱自己的狭窄领域里的学术报告，依然是听不懂。一方面是咱注意力不总是很集中，另一面是报告人不见得讲得多透彻，往往是快速地闪 PowerPoint ，听众哪里来得及消化吸收。但总应该弄回来几个要点和文献索引，日后可细细琢磨。殊不知几年以后，就有那么一个新名词儿启发了咱去借用那位牛人的高招儿，解了咱的难题，写成了一篇妙文章，或是整了一项好发明哩。数年 “ 游学 ” 下来，不敢说别的成效，至少咱在俄文楼（或是附近什么 location ）里见过听过当时 “ 尚未发迹 ” （未得诺奖）的 Prof. Frank Wilczek, 在物理所听见过 Sir Michael Berry 并就咱的拙作和对 geometric phase 的愚见提问讨论，在理论物理所见过当时也是 “ 尚未发迹 ” 的 Prof. Daniel C. Tsui ，在昆仑饭店见过 STM 发明人诺奖得主 Heinrich Rohrer 并请其审阅我的一篇磁学的文章。。。 感觉上，牛人们也没那么高远，跟咱曾谨言、韩汝珊、苏肇冰老师也挺像。牛理论牛问题也没那么难，咱也可以试着啃两口。 我说的这些优越条件可能有些是北大特有的。有人会说别的地方和院校并不具备这样的条件。有一定道理。所以政府和社会各界应重视教育投入，关心教研条件的建设。但这也不能成为借口。相信近年来受益于腾飞的经济发展，国家和地方政府的大力支持，我国大多城市的大学院校，都已具备很好的学习和研究的条件和设施，特别是 Internet 电子信息检索的普及，是二十年前我们所想象不到的。试问，就算是现有的条件是有限的，我们是否充分利用好了呢？这里的图书馆藏书不多，但是有多少次你急切地要一本书或一篇文章，本校的图书馆没有？你不懈努力，尝试其它渠道了吗？去同一城市的姐妹院校查过了吗？找过你在北京或上海或国外的好友帮忙了吗？我就经常去 Stanford 或 Berkeley 帮我弟弟查找资料。 再有另一个担心，就是兴趣太广，战线拉得过长，恐不专不深。也有道理。所以要因人而异，平衡取舍。不过我还有一个心得，就是细致划分的学科之间，存在着惊人的类同和共通之处，知识和理解经常是可以移植和借用的。用比较形式化的数学的术语来说，好多学科之间存在着 isomorphism 或是 homomorphism 类似的对应。你在 A, B, C, D 多科目上所貌似分散花费的时间和精力，其实 will coherently and constructively superimpose together, 而这相干叠加的总和会作用到 A, B, C, D 每一个科目上，加深你对每一个科目的理解。还是举咱们老本行里的例子，大学基础物理课里，一个共通的很重要的概念，就是一个体系的态 S ，它可能是一个简单的标量，或是低维向量（如 Newton 力学里的坐标和速度），或是一个广义的向量（电磁系统的场分布，扩散或热传导问题里的粒子密度或温度分布，量子体系的波函数）。态这个概念之所以重要，而且 being so powerful, 在于它在任一时刻都简洁而完备地表示体系在该时刻的所有内容，体系在时间轴上的运动，亦即变化 dS/dt ，只依赖于当时的态 S ，是 S 的函数，记作 F(S). 就这么一个简单的态的概念，把 Newton 力学，理论力学，热物理学，电磁学，光学，量子物理，化学反应扩散现象，随机过程理论，信号和系统工程学，控制论等等多门学科里的大多问题统一到一个数学框架下，即微分方程或称演化体系， dS/dt = F(S). 每一个上述具体学科的学习过程，其实都是要弄懂和体会在该学科里的那个态的概念，剩下的就是处理和求解微分方程的数学技巧。而态的概念，在抽象的广义的理解的层面上是一致的。关于微分方程的数学技巧，就更是相通的了。再具体一点，好多情况下， F(S) 是一个 linear mapping ，描述的是一个线性系统，所以各学科里的工作者都经常使用数学上称之为谱分析（ Spectral Analysis ）的方法，具体表现为 Fourier 分析和变换方法， Laplace 变换方法，特征函数或者特征模分解方法，等等。数学上无非都是线性算子的谱分析。 当年我从物理换到工程系，要学很多 “ 新 ” 课程，包括 Signals and Systems, Digital Signal Processing, Random Processes, Stochastic Control, 甚至具体到 Antenna and Wave Propagation, Wave Guide Theory 等等，我总是觉得这些东西在物理本科时全都学过，只是在复习而已。特别地，我总是不能理解 stochastic process 研究者们为什么那么推崇 Markov 和他的那个 chain ，定义为某个随机序列 { X(n)} 满足 Pr = Pr . 就是说，对于一个 Markov 过程，要预言它的明天，只需要知道它今天的信息，昨天的，前天的，和更早的历史，都不用管。这不就是在说这个体系无记忆吗，也就是说这种过程有一个相应的态的概念吗？这玩意儿咱物理门的 Newton 先生早两百年就注意到了并加以利用了。 “ 态 ” 这观念咱们早在大学一年级学习力学和热学的时候就体会到了，后来电磁学，光学，量子物理，都重复了好几遍！再就是这 Markov chain 科目里用的数学技倆，什么算子半群，左特征向量，右特征向量，俺在弄量子力学的时候就熟悉了，只不过那时倒腾的是取复数值的分布函数，现在只需折腾取非负实数值的分布函数罢了。所以 Random Processes 不算新课程。 就侃到这里吧。莫见笑。 尉海清, 2012年3月31日 , Wappingers Falls, New York, USA ------- 1995 PRL Quantum Phase of Induced Dipoles Moving in a Magnetic Field.pdf 1996, 物理, 在磁场中运动诱导的偶极子量子相位.pdf ———————————— 海清兄评注(2018年3月25日)： 您的妙笔润色把我们哥俩之间的平素对白提升到了可以广传泛播的境界。只是，全慧兄出于谦恭，没有提及小弟陋文必须依存的背景和时间点。所以读者恐略感突兀，欲求逻辑连贯和承接。 1）当年小弟覆信慨言， 尽因拜读兄之名博《本科生中蕴藏着无限的创造力》（ http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3377-552303.html ）有感，共鸣，情不自已。无兄之博文为因引，弟之赘言断无意义，反似嫌空穴来风，无痛呻吟。 2）弟言已有六年之旧，正如兄之洞察，引据和时势，已多有变故。 So the exact date (March 31, 2012) should provide an accurate and needed reference and context for the readers. 抑且更加符合史实及治学习惯。 回复 ： 六年前， 《本科生中蕴藏着无限的创造力》 曾提及清兄及其大作。为免讹误，特去信请兄台核实，于是兄台回复数千言如上。《本》仅仅呈现片段事实，无非点滴感性；兄台文章 妙笔生花，思索缜密深刻 。几天前，贴出大作时，认为兄台大作，着手在 红萸黄菊 ，着眼却在大道之中， 故未曾链接到 《本》 。既然清兄认为甚为不妥，故全文贴出兄台评注， 并经将原有标注的日期(末尾)，原文原委(第一段)恢复。 全部过程，如有不妥，和兄台无涉。如果过错，就此致歉！
EndNote Output Styles EndNote offers more than 6,000 bibliographic styles Download all styles Submit a request for the creation of a new output style Use the Style Finder below to search for a style name and/or citation style and/or publisher. Style or Journal Name Is equal toIs not equal toContainsContains any wordContains all wordsStarts withDoes not start withEnds withDoes not end withDoes not containLength is shorter thanLength is longer thanRegular expression Citation Style Is one ofIs all ofIs none ofIs empty (NULL)Is not empty (NOT NULL) - Any -Author-Cited PagesAuthor-Short TitleAuthor-TitleAuthor-YearAuthor-Year-Cited PagesAuthor-Year-Cited PageseBibliography Number/Cited PagesFootnoteJournal-URL-Place_PublishedNon-superscripted NumberNoneOSuperscripted NumberTitle Publisher Is equal toIs not equal toContainsContains any wordContains all wordsStarts withDoes not start withEnds withDoes not end withDoes not containLength is shorter thanLength is longer thanIs empty (NULL)Is not empty (NOT NULL)Regular expression Style or Journal Name Citation Style Discipline Date IET Micro Nano Letters Non-superscripted Number Electronics 2012-02-06 Download Nano Letters Superscripted Number Nanotechnology 2012-02-02 Download http://endnote.com/downloads/styles?title_op=containstitle=physical+review+tid_op=ortid=Allfield_style_publisher_value_op=containsfield_style_publisher_value=
以下是本人投稿PRL被无理由拒稿，在本人答辩—— “ Dear Editor ： About motivation, I do not prove that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. Merely demonstrated that the second law of thermodynamics and basic principles of Newtonian mechanics are not compatible. On the level, Are you able to point out where I was wrong? About interested, If the result is more correct second law of thermodynamics; then, from quantum mechanics theory, how to explain this result? Will be an extremely interesting research topic. Thus, it may produce a wealth of new results, to promote human understanding deepened. Is it all right? Best regards, Li Weigang ”——后，收回成命；但是，一天后，再次无理由拒稿的论文。欢迎挑错。 A judgment experimental design about the basic principles of Newtonian mechanics and the second law of thermodynamics WeiGang L i (B in jiang school, Ankang 725011 , Shaanxi Province, China ) Abstract ： This paper describes an experimental design similar to “Maxwell’s demon”. Compared with the “Maxwell's demon” scheme, the proposed experiment does not need intelligence that is necessary for “Maxwell’ demon” when working. Moreover, the program is not a n ideal experiment only performed in thought. It can be implemented realistically. T he design fully follows the basic principles of Newtonian mechanics but contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The experimental design suggests that there is a logical contradiction between the basic principles of Newtonian mechanics and the second law of thermodynamics. Key words ： Maxwell's demon , The basic principles of Newtonian mechanics ，The Second Law of Thermodynamics ， Logical contradiction. PACS ： 5 1 . 1 0. +y , 05.20.Dd, 05.65.+ b,45.70.-n,34.90.+q INTRODUCTION Since Boltzmann built up a bridge between the Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics, the thermodynamics has been attribute to the Newtonian mechanics. After hundreds of years, people have become accustomed to thinking: the Newtonian mechanics and the second law of thermodynamics are logically self-consistent. However, is it really always logically self-consistent between Newtonian mechanics and the second law of thermodynamics? On the question, Maxwell cast doubt. In order to discuss the logical contradictions that may exist between the two, Maxwell designed “Maxwell's demon” - a famous thought experiment. However, this “demon” need to work based on the information of molecular motion . Getting information needs additional energy consumption . According to the modern point of view, Maxwell ideal experimental design does not constitute a challenge to the second law of thermodynamics and cannot be used as evidence that there is a logical contradiction between the basic principles of Newtonian mechanics and the second law of thermodynamics. Recent studies found : there is an experimental design which d o not need that kind of intelligence of the “demon” . In the design , the c onclusion that t here is a logical contradiction between the basic principles of Newtonian mechanics and the second law of thermodynamics can be derived . The program constitute a judgment experiment on - “Basic principles of Newtonian mechanics is correct or second law of thermodynamics is correct ? ” I t h as important theoretical and practical significance . If the judgment result of this experiment is that the basic principles of Newtonian mechanics is higher than the truth of the second law of thermodynamics , then the design itself constitutes the first human long-awaited successful perpetual motion machine of the second kind. Else i f the judgment result of the experiment is that the truth of the second law of thermodynamics is higher than the basic principles of Newtonian mechanics , t hen the field of physics concepts will have a huge change . No matter how the final results , t heoretical studies and research on the implementation details of the program require vigorously promotion . 1 . Experimental Design As we all know- 1. The ball injected into one end of the U-shaped pipe can be emitted from the other end. Ignoring friction losses, ball momentum diminished ; 2. Photons incident on one end of the fiber can be emitted from the other end with the same frequency (energy unabated) ; 3. As analogy, if there is a narrow tube, molecules can be injected into the narrow tube and emit from the other end. (Kinetic energy unabated. In theory, only a Narrow tube close to the ideal rigid body is need) . Then, when the tube is sufficiently n arrow (such as carbon nanotubes) and only allows a fluid with size of one molecule to enter, as shown in the figure 1 . Figure 1. In the initial state, for a fluid molecule 1 theoretically has the same probability to enter either end of all the narrow tubes 2 and flow out system cannot generate macro kinetic energy. However, if applying an initial start-up process to the system, the system will constantly produce macroscopic kinetic energy (jet) from a single heat source. After the boot process, the system is put in the working status that can be self-sustaining. Boot process can be: Pumping the fluid molecules into the main chamber from c onfluence- t ube spout until the formation of the macro jet. We can choose single atom of inert argon gas molecules as “working fluid” and carbon nanotubes with rigidity comparable to that of diamond as Narrow tubes （ Tsinghua University has already could make carbon nanotubes with half a meter ）. Therefore, the experimental design is not an “ideal experiment” like “Maxwell's demon”, but can be actually carried out . 2. A proof that the jet can be self-sustaining , based on the principles of Newtonian mechanics 2.1 A biased collision off-axis theorem proof and consequence . Definition 1 : For any one of the molecule A, before collision, centroid drift motion path is called “axis ( of molecules A)” . The forward direction of the molecule A is called “axial direction ( of the molecule A)” ; Definition 2: Molecule A, along the axis of molecules A, collided with another molecule B. When their centroid-connection is in the axis of the molecule A, the collision is called that the molecular A is “positive collided” by molecular B. Any other collisions are called “biased collision” . Theorem : W hen any molecules A are biased collided by another molecule B, both molecules A and B will deviate from the axis of molecule A . Proof of the theorem as follow : ∵ When biased colliding, two molecules centroid - connection is not on the axis of molecules A; ∴ When biased colliding, the impulse “ f *t” of two molecules interacting o utside of the direction of the axis of the molecule A is not zero ; ∴ After the biased collision, both two molecules A and B , will deviate from the axis of molecule A . QED . C onsequence : Because biased collision has much greater probability to happen than positive collision, nearly all the molecules out of the narrow biased collision making two molecules deviate from the direction of axis when flowing out of narrow tubes. In addition, they have no chance to return into the narrow tubes. Therefore, after the startup, the probability of molecules going into a narrow tube from its two port can be locked in an unbalanced state. 2.2 The significance that Confluence Pipe is locked at imbalance Inside the “Confluence Pipe” as shown, the outlet of the narrow tube is set trying keeping the consistency of outlet direction of Confluence Pipe and narrow pipe. Therefore, when the ratio of length to diameter of Confluence Pipe is large enough, the followed conditions can be achieved. 1. T he cross-sectional area of the Confluence Pipe outlet “ Sc ” is far smaller than the sum of all cross-sectional area of the narrow tubes outlet“ So ”. ( as shown in the figure 2) Figure 2. 2. In nearly all states, collisions of all molecules that come out of narrow tubes and enter Confluence Pipe will happen among themselves. 3. Based on the condition 2 , for both the colliding molecules have momentum component pointing to the direction of outlet of Confluence Pipe, the kind of collision will not make molecules return into the narrow tube . 4. B ased on the condition 3 , a high density of gas in Confluence Pipe is allowed . In addition, the negative pressure difference blocking “automatic flow” cannot form. 5. B ased on the conditions 1 to 4 , it is a jet that is directional and high-density molecular flow out of the Confluence Pipe. A large number of biased collision make the chance that molecules return into Confluence Pipe little. ( as shown in the figure 3) Figure 3. 6. That is, once the system generates “Auto Flow”, the “Auto Flow” will not stop. 7. Particularly interesting, if you set an impeller near the outlet of Confluence Pipe making the jet acting on the impeller. After doing work, the average kinetic energy of molecules decreases . The l ow kinetic energy molecules concentrate r elatively near the Confluence Pipe outlet f orming a relatively low temperature region . In theory, a common heat engine can work with conditions that it did not have initially. 8. When the jet acting on the impeller, the impeller drives generator. The energy outputs out of the system. The system temperature decreases, so that it can absorb heat from the environment. Means: the system which works in accordance with the basic principles of Newtonian mechanics, due to “self-organization” function of the narrow tubes and the Confluence Pipe, can constantly absorb heat from the environment. The energy of random motion of molecules can be transferred into macroscopic kinetic energy(constitute perpetuum mobile of the second kind ). Obviously, this is a direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics. 3 Conclusion The experimental design reveals the existence of a logical contradiction between the basic principles of Newtonian mechanics and the second law of thermodynamics. References Tsung-Dao Lee, Statistical Mechanics Shanghai: Shanghai Science and Technology Press, 2006.11 Lin Z H.. Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics . Beijing University Press, 2007
My paper on lattice chiral fermion theory was rejected by two RRL referees (very strongly) and by a PRL editor.The reason for skepticism is the long history of past failures (none by me). The editor did not say that The reason for skepticism is the long history of past failures of the author, which would be more relevant. The arguments for the main result of the paper is really simple, and can be easily presented within one page. Maybe, I am too easily convinced. When I am convinced to see something , it may not be convincing enough for some other people. The following are the referee's reports and my reply, and the editor's report. My point is: 走自己的路，欣赏自己的工作，看重自己的工作，是科学工作者对待科研的一种心态。 “ 写出来的文章，至少要得到自己的认可。最重要的也是得到自己的认可。自己看重自己的文章。这样别人不认可，也不会信心全无。写文章的目的，不是为了发表，是为了满足自己的好奇心。以此为目的，容易出好文章，容易发表。 ” =================================================== Lattice non-perturbative definition of an SO(10) chiral gauge theory and its induced standard model ( arXiv:1305.1045 ) by Xiao-Gang Wen ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Report of Referee A and my reply ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Referee A: In this letter, the author is proposing a non-perturbativelattice formulation of (anomaly-free) chiral gauge theories. This problem itself is of broad theoretical interest and if a convincing solution is given, it will be of great importance. Reply: I agrees with the referee A that the non-perturbative lattice formulation of (anomaly-free) chiral gauge theories is of broad theoretical interest and of great importance. Referee A: However, what one finds in this letter are a very general description of the problem in more than 2 pages and a very brief sketch of the idea in almost half page. I myself cannot believe this naive idea does solve the problem of, for example, the breaking of the gauge symmetry with finite lattice spacings. Reply: In the 2 pages of the paper, I reviewed 1) a recent break through in condensed matter physics -- a classification of SPT states 2) a realization that the SPT phases classify the gauge anomalies in one lower dimension. This two results do solve the problem of the breaking of the gauge symmetry with finite lattice spacings. To see this, we note that the anomaly-free condition imply that the SPT state in the bulk is trivial, and trivial SPT state can have a gapped boundary that do not break the symmetry. Once we understand the above two results and once we believe that the right-hand Weyl fermions coupled to SO(10) gauge theory is free of all gauge anomalies, then it is almost trivial to put right-hand Weyl fermions coupled to SO(10) gauge theory on a lattice, which I spend one page of the paper to explain. So the key progress is the above two mentioned results, which were explained in several recent (very) long papers (refs in the new vertion). This short paper is a direct and natural application of those recent results. Referee A: In any case, one cannot even judge whether this idea works or not from the description in this letter, because no precise form of the idea (for example, what is the precise form of the underlying 4-dimensional lattice hamiltonian, how to introduce the gauge interaction, or how the anomalous cases are distinguished from the anomaly-free cases etc.) is not given. From these reasons, I think this letter is not suitable for publication in Physical Review Letters. Reply: In the new version, I added a section in supplemental material to give a more detailed description of the lattice model in 4D space. Such a construction is well known, so I did not include it in the main text. I also explained how to introduce the gauge interaction (by simply gauging the SO(10) global symmetry). how the anomalous cases are distinguished from the anomaly-free cases is a very good question. To stress this issue, I added a generalization of the SO(10) result as conjecture in the new version (in a box on page 2). I also added a few examples on page 4, which demonstrate that our approach does not apply for the known anomalous chiral theories. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Report of Referee B and my reply ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Referee B: I regret having to say this, but the manuscript fails to satisfy the most minimal requirements for a scientific publication. All the author can offer is, literally, wishful thinking. The manuscript contains no study of any kind -- neither analytic nor numerical --to support the author's proposal. That proposal is not even well defined (see below). I hate to say this but this is a rare case of not even wrong -- the manuscript does not even contain any attempt to do scientific work of any kind that would support the claims, or hopes, of the author. Reply: According to Referee A, the non-perturbative lattice formulation of (anomaly-free) chiral gauge theories is of broad theoretical and of great importance. In this paper, I claim that right-hand Weyl fermions in 16-dimensional representation of SO(10) coupled to SO(10) gauge field can be put on a lattice of the same dimension (without breaking the SO(10) gauge symmetry on lattice), if we just allow lattice fermion to directly interact. Such a claim can be wrong (and the referee B try to argue that the claim is indeed wrong). So this paper is not not even wrong. In the new version, the key claims of the paper are put into three boxes. It is also not fair to say the manuscript does not even containany attempt to do scientific work of any kind that would support the claims, or hopes, of the author. In this paper, I showed that 1) There is a (SO(10) symmetry breaking) Higgs field that give all 16 Weyl fermions a mass 2) The target space of the Higgs field generated by the SO(10) rotation is a 9D sphere, S_9, which have a trivial homotopy group pi_d(S_9) for d9. The above two results allow me to argue that the Higgs field can be in a disordered phase (that do not break the SO(10) symmetry) while still give the fermions (the doublers) a mass. (See the discussion on the first half of page 4 in the new version.) These two simple arguments lead to the result (the claim) of this paper. Referee B: The problem of constructing lattice chiral gauge theories is a long-standing one. The proposal put forward by the author is basically a variant of the Eichten-Preskill model . Reply: Indeed, the proposal put forward is basically a variant of the Eichten-Preskill model. The new features of this paper are the two simple arguments mentioned above. This leads to a new way to design the fermion interaction, which, in turn, leads to the result of this paper. (added later: The mirror fermion approach of Eichten-Preskill some times works and some times does not work. This paper provides a sufficient condition for the mirror fermion approach to work, ie for interaction to gap out the mirror sector without breaking the symmetry.) Referee B: This model was studied in detail by Golterman, Petcher and Rivas , where the main questions were identified, and extensive evidence pointed to the failure of the model. Other models were proposed that were found to fail for similar reasons later on, whereas completely different approaches lead to at least partial success. Reply: In the paper by Golterman, Petcher and Rivas, it was stated that because of the presence of a symmetry breaking phase transition, the scenario envisioned by Eichten and Preskill will most likely not be realized. The claim of Golterman, Petcher and Rivas, most likely not be realized, does not logically contradict with the claim of this paper, be realized. Golterman, Petcher and Rivas studied a particular fermion interaction. They showed that, for such an interaction, to make all the doublers massive, one has to break the symmetry. Based on the new ideas of SPT phases and their relation to gauge anomalies, this paper propose a new way to design a fermion interaction. Such a fermion interaction should give all the doublers a mass without break the symmetry. The new way to design the fermion interaction is the new result of this paper. In other words, Golterman, Petcher and Rivas considered one particular interaction, and show that it does not works. In this paper, we argue that there is another interaction that should work. There is no contradition. Referee B: As far as I can tell from this manuscript, the author is not even aware of what are the main issues. Just like Eichten and Preskill, the author wishes to find a symmetric phase with a chiral spectrum. This cannot possibly be the weak-coupling symmetric (PMW) phase, so the hope is for a strong-coupling symmetric (PMS) phase in which the scalar field will have zero vacuum expectation value, while the spectrum will remain chiral in the continuum limit. The mechanism that can, and does, leads to a failure is the formation of bound states of the lattice fields that become additional elementary fermions in the continuum limit. In particular, ref provided conclusive evidence that this is what happens in the PMS phase of the Eichten-Preskill model: because of the bound-states formation, the continuum-limit spectrum consists of Dirac fermions; it is not chiral. As I said, the author does not even seem to be aware that this is the main question. That this is the question he should be addressing would have been clear to anyone who really studied the literature --the original papers and/or review articles. References to all this literature can be found for example in the recent series of papers by Poppitz et al . Reply: It is indeed clear to every one that weak-coupling symmetric (PMW) phase does not work. Golterman-Petcher-Rivas and other papers provided conclusive evidence that a strong-coupling symmetric (PMS) phase also does notwork, for a particular form of fermion interaction. This paper suggests a new way to design fermion interaction which I believe should work (ie to give all doublers an energy gap without breaking the symmetry), based on the insights from the SPT states and their relation to gauge anomalies. I showed that 1) There is a (SO(10) symmetry breaking) Higgs field that give all16 Weyl fermions a mass 2) The target space of the Higgs field generated by the SO(10)rotation is a 9D sphere, S^9, which have a trivial homotopy group pi_d(S^9) ford9. The above two results allow me to argue that the Higgs field can bein a disordered phase (that do not break the SO(10) symmetry) while still give the fermions (the doublers) a mass. (See the discussion on the first half of page 4 in the new version.) These two simple arguments lead to the result (the claim) of this paper. (Added later: The weak interaction limit (PMS) does not work. The infinite interaction limit (PMS) does not work. But the proper interaction proposed in this paper is between the two limits. The proper interaction strength is of the lattice cut-off energy scale.) Referee B: The author talks about a hamiltonian approach instead of the common euclidean path integral. However, the physics issues are the same, and as I noted, the author did not do any work what so ever, let alone any work that would suggest that a hamiltonian approach would help in any way. Reply: I agree with the referee B that hamiltonian lattice approach and space-time lattice approach are similar. I stressed the hamiltonian lattice approach in order to state the result (the claim) of this paper clearly. As I mention above, I did do some new work in this paper: the two simple arguments listed above. I like to add that I am surprised that such simple arguments can lead to a solution of the long standing problem of putting some anomaly-free chiral gauge theories on lattice. I guess the insights from SPT states and the new understanding of anomalies help a lot. I try to explain those insights in the first two pages of the paper. Referee B: The author adds a fourth space dimension so that there are chiral fields on the three dimensional spatial boundaries in the free theory case. This putting together of domain-wall fermions and the Eichten-Preskill proposal had been tried in the past, and once again it was found to fail for similar reasons. Because of the extra space dimension, the author has to make up his mind whether or not the gauge field depends on this extra dimension. There is no word on this, so that the proposal is not even well defined. In the literature, both approaches had been tried, and the existing evidence points to a failure in both cases. Reply: I have stressed in the paper that the extra dimension is finite. The 4+1D lattice theory is really a 3+1D lattice theory. In this case, I do not have to make up my mind whether or not the gauge field depends on this extra dimension, since both assumptions lead to local 3+1D lattice gauge theory. I like to repeat that this paper suggests a new way to design fermion interaction which I believe should work (ie to give all doublers anenergy gap without breaking the symmetry), based on the insights from the SPT states and their relation to gauge anomalies. Referee B: It is the author's burden to prove by scientifically sound calculations that he can do better. Reply: The two arguments listed above are scientifically sound calculations, although they are very simple. There is indeed a logical gap between the two arguments and the claim of this paper. I myself is convinced that the two arguments lead to the claim of this paper. The approach in this paper lead to a design of fermion interaction. One can confirm or disapprove my judgement by future numerical calculations. I myself plan do some numerical calculations in the future, motivated by the approach of this paper. I am a condensed matter physicist, and I am sorry that I cannot write a paper from an angle of lattice gauge physicists. But I feel that a new angle to look at the long standing chiral-fermion problem should be useful, that may lead to a breakthrough as I try to argue in this paper. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Report of the Divisional Associate Editor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This paper claims to have solved the important, long-standingproblem of formulating a chiral gauge theory non-perturbatively onthe lattice. It has been reviewed by two referees, who both recommend rejection. I have then been contacted, because the author has appealed the rejection. I have hesitated for a long time about what to recommend, and I apologize for this delay. In the end, I agree with the previous referees: it seems to me that, in spite of its novelty, the paper should not be published in Phys. Rev. Letters. A publication in PRL would mislead the readers by conveying the notion that this paper presents a solution to the formulation of a chiral lattice gauge theory. In my opinion, the paper presents a proposal to be tested, rather than a solution. The reason for skepticism is the long history of past failures.The proposal put forward by the author belongs to the family of mirror fermions, with the new ingredient of symmetry-protected topological order. It is not at all clear to me that this new ingredient guarantees success. In particular, the most recent attempt,Ref.22 (arXiv:1211.6947v3), shows failure of the mirror fermions to decouple, for no obvious reason. This finding should motivate all of us, including the author, to consider new claims with caution.
PRL.110.208701.pdf Controllability Transition and Nonlocality in Network Control Jie Sun and Adilson E. Motter Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA (Received 18 February 2013; revised manuscript received 4 April 2013; published 14 May 2013) 刚才科学网附件附不上去，请大家去看原文： PRL:110,208701(2013),17,May 2013 1小时后可以附件了，科学网运行还是不稳定。
总结一下我知道的20篇PRL(Phys. Rev. Lett, 物理类最有声望杂志)成员。我知道有很多老师可能PRL没有20篇，但是他们在nature, science发了一些文章。这些文章的影响因子都比PRL要高。但是我这里只统计PRL的数量，这样简单一些。 Guang-can Guo, University of Science and Technology of China, 20篇 Jian-wei Pan, University of Science and Technology of China, 46篇 Yu-ao Chen, University of Science and Technology of China, 20篇 Xianhui Chen, University of Science and Technology of China, 24篇 Qikun Xue, Tsinghua University, 28篇 (Xue老师很猛，今年已经6篇了). Dong-Lai Feng, Fudan University,21篇 Tao Xiang, I nstitute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences , 24篇 X. J. zhou, I nstitute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences , 20篇 Hong Ding. I nstitute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences , 32篇 (也许更多，不好查) Junren Shi, International Center for Quantum Materials, Peking University, 19篇， 加油 Weiping Zhang, East China Normal University,19篇， 加油 这个名单不全，我以后慢慢补充。如果您知道谁超过了20篇，但是没有在这个list中，请提醒我一下，我立刻加上。我觉得这个list对中国有很重要的价值。 20篇PRL，就算是美国也是很不错的成绩了。在这个list中，有很多教授的工作基本都是在国内完成的。对于中国来说，这是一个巨大的进步，因为10年之前，能在PRL上发表一篇文章都很难，现在很多组一年都有3-4篇。比如Qi-kun Xue今年就有5篇发表了。Guang-can Guo组今年有3篇发表了。 这里不包括10篇以上PRL的。现在10篇以上PRL的人大有人在，用不了几年这些人都加入了20篇PRL俱乐部。我相信这种进步会给中国科研实力带来本质上的飞跃。 关于这些RPL的质量，我这里再罗嗦几句。 在这些PRL中，有一些很有影响的文章，比如Qi-Kun Xue的工作绝对是世界一流的，他也因此被很多大会邀请做特邀报告。Guang-Can Guo组的很多文章引用超过200次，甚至远远超过200次，这些文章是领域内的经典论文。 Jian-wei Pan的文章就更加不用吹了。有了量，慢慢地质量也会上去，影响力也会逐渐增大。
一篇文章的最终形成大致经过下面几个过程：（ a ）头脑中有个思路或点子；（ b ）开始做实验；（ c ）进行实验数据分析和讨论；（ d ）文章初稿形成；（ e ）反复修改文章至完美；（ f ）投稿相关过程；（ g ）文章接受及校正；（ h ）文章最后在刊物发表。投稿相关方面在整个过程中占有至关重要的一环。本文记述自己遇到的最艰难的一次投稿经历，以醒自己并给以后的成长道路上留下些经验。若能给一些朋友些许启发，则荣幸之至。 初试 PRL 文章写好后，根据实验的结果，我们觉得保底的期刊是 APL 。由于之前发过几篇 APL ，所以想尝试下更高档次的杂志，于是我们决定试试物理领域的牛刊 PRL 。文章投出去后，当时的心情是既有点兴奋又有点忐忑；兴奋的是文章投到了牛刊，而忐忑的是生怕在 2 ～ 3 天内收到编辑的直接拒稿信。 投出去后的第二天（美国那边还是同一天），我赶紧上网检查稿件状态，发现编辑已经把稿件送到了 3 个审稿人手中。太好了，毕竟第一个重要的关口通过了，剩下的就是等待审稿意见啦。大概过了两个星期后，还没有收到审稿意见（ PRL 的审稿周期好像是 14 天），我开始上网查状态：来了一个审稿人的意见，另外两个审稿人也回应了（ not a report ） , 然后编辑又开始找了一个审稿人。不幸的是，那两个回应的审稿人都是在最后的截至一天来的回复（ not a report ）。这种情况一般是因为：（ 1 ）审稿人开始接受了审稿，后来发现审不了，索性告诉编辑不审了；（ 2 ）审稿人可能和作者的关系较好，但发现文章质量确实和 PRL 还有一点距离，不好意思拒绝，索性就说审不了；（ 3 ）不排除审稿人和作者做的非常接近，是直接竞争者，他们故意拖延时间到最后一天拒绝，以便能给他们充分时间来重复作者的相关实验。 两个星期后，我又去检查稿件状态：新找的那个审稿人已经回复，这回又是 not a report 。没办法，编辑找了 4 个审稿人，其中 3 个的意见是不审稿，且清一色的都是在最后一天告诉不能审稿。无奈之中，编辑 2 天后就给我们发来了决定信，其中只有一个审稿人的意见。大意是：文章的实验结果很新颖，但没有提供很有说服力的解释，所以不建议在 PRL 上发表。由于 PR 系列好多成功发表的文章也是通过申诉成功的，所以我们决定申诉，并提供我们的一些证据。 申诉信送出后，编辑又送给了 2 个审稿人。这次还比较快，大概 2 个星期后，就收到了编辑的来信，并附带了 2 位审稿人的意见。从反馈的意见来看，编辑是把第一个人的审稿意见以及我们的申诉信都转发给了这 2 个审稿人。这 2 个审稿人基本上同意第一个审稿人的决定。所以，最后的结局可想而知：初试 PRL 伤痕垒垒。 转道 APL 上面提到过，我们保底的是送到 APL 。自然而然的， PRL 拒了后，我们就把稿件送到了 APL 。非常吃惊的是，我们都没有想到的是，稿件送到编辑手中 30 多秒钟后，状态马上变为 decision letter being prepared 。也太快了吧，其实我们都知道，肯定是悲剧。果不其然， 3 天后的决定信就是常见的场景：你的文章不适合该杂志，建议投到更专业的期刊。真是戏剧啊，我们认为最可能成功的期刊，反而在最短的时间内拒绝。 尝试 Scripta 如此，我们的心都凉了。没办法，还得鼓足勇气，继续战斗，越挫越勇嘛。我们的实验结果是和应用物理相关的，下一个目标自然就想到了 JAP 。说实话，自己当时还是受到了期刊分区及影响银子的影响，建议先尝试下 Scripta 。文章送出去后，也是在同一天编辑就找审稿人来审。在其后的 20 多天中，状态一度转为 with editors ，然后随后又是 review 状态。最后审稿人意见到我们手中的时候，已经是 40 多天了，所以我们感觉第一个审稿人可能到截至的时候又告诉编辑不能审。不可思议的是，返回来的意见和 PRL 中某个审稿人的意见非常雷同，结局也是可想而知。到这里，我们可以得到如下经验教训：（ i ）我们认为 PRL 和 Scripta 关注的方面不太一样，审稿人数据库也可能不太一样，所以审稿人也可能是不一样的。然而事实不是这样，编辑认识的人可多了，不要抱有侥幸的幻想；（ ii ）不是说文章离高档次杂志差那么一点，送到低一些影响银子的杂志，就一定能成功；（ iii ）如果能知道那些审稿人有故意挑刺的嫌疑，不过错过用“排除可能的审稿人”这样一个机会。 成功 JAP 最后把文章投到了 JAP ，很顺利，编辑也是在第一天就找审稿人来审。后来文章小修后马上就接受了。 最深刻的教训 回顾上述的曲折艰难过程，从其他好几种期刊在收到的第一天就找审稿人来审，到我们认为最可能的 APL 却马上被拒，不能不说其中的涵义耐人寻味。当然，我们从这次投稿过程获得了很多深刻的教训，其中我们认为最深刻的两点是： （1） 往往认为最可能成功的某件事，却莫掉以轻心，因为有可能是最不能成的。 （2） 不要抱有侥幸的心理。杂志一般都有“排除可能的审稿人”这样一个选项，有机会的化，还是要用
推荐和简评PRL( 105,198701,2010,5 Nev.)新论文： 世界贸易网络中的结构和响应 Structure and Response in the World Trade Network PRL新文章:世界贸易网络中的结构和响应 我认为这篇文章值得一读.特于推荐! 这篇PRL上刚发表的网络文章： Structure and response in the world trade network（PRL 105,198701,2010)，从世界贸易网络分析了40年来国际上七次经济recession，其恢复比较慢的主要原因之一就是贸易保护主义,这使我们联想到 目前国际贸易主要的问题是贸易保护主义，美国是表现最为突出的国家，如何反对和消除贸易保护主义是各国政府当务之急，像美国这样只顾自己国家的私利、乱印美元等一些很不负责任的做法，希望参加G20会议大多数国家应该联合起来必须坚决反对和抵制美国的做法。国际不要重演过去的历史教训,而应该吸取过去的经验教训。 从这篇文章可以看到网络科学在分析国际经济危机及其解决途径中发挥应有的作用.这 是一个很具挑战性的问题,既有实证又有理论问题,值得有兴趣者继续深入探讨,具有现实意义。 ACS-FangJQtec 另附： 方锦清小组中国科学文章
Noise bridges dynamical correlation and topology in complex oscillator networks By Jie Ren, Wen-Xu Wang, Baowen Li, and Ying-Cheng Lai We study the relationship between dynamical properties and interaction patterns in complex oscillator networks in the presence of noise. A striking finding is that noise leads to a general, one-to-one correspondence between the dynamical correlation and the connections among oscillators for a variety of node dynamics and network structures. The universal finding enables an accurate prediction of the full network topology based solely on measuring the dynamical correlation. The power of the method for network inference is demonstrated by the high success rate in identifying links for distinct dynamics on both model and real-life networks. The method can have potential applications in various fields due to its generality, high accuracy and efficiency. 话说wenxu为这篇文章赞了不少人品。anyway,恭喜一个。 给一个链接地址http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.3966 PRL
标签: PRL
