"Local causality in a Friedmann–Robertson–Walker spacetime"

Comments (10):

Display By:

Unregistered Submission:

( August 4th, 2016 1:23pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

What happened to the paper? It appears to have been removed from Annals.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491616300975

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491616300975

Unregistered Submission:

( August 9th, 2016 4:11am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

this is a great question; i too wonder what happened here, as the publishers surely cannot say it was "erroneously included" when the first page of the (previously downloadable) PDF states:

"Accepted Manuscript

Local causality in a Friedmann–Robertson–Walker spacetime

Joy Christian

PII:

S0003-4916(16)30097-5

DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2016.06.021

Reference:

YAPHY 67143

To appear in:

Annals of Physics

Received date: 9 December 2015

Accepted date: 26 June 2016

Please cite this article as: J. Christian, Local causality in a Friedmann–Robertson–Walker

spacetime,

Annals of Physics

(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2016.06.021

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a

service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript

will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in

its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which

could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain."

"Accepted Manuscript

Local causality in a Friedmann–Robertson–Walker spacetime

Joy Christian

PII:

S0003-4916(16)30097-5

DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2016.06.021

Reference:

YAPHY 67143

To appear in:

Annals of Physics

Received date: 9 December 2015

Accepted date: 26 June 2016

Please cite this article as: J. Christian, Local causality in a Friedmann–Robertson–Walker

spacetime,

Annals of Physics

(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2016.06.021

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a

service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript

will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in

its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which

could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain."

Peer 4:

( August 31st, 2016 10:31am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

So that was the error: Accepting the manuscript for publication.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Peer 4:

( September 26th, 2016 11:48am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Wonder if AoP is actually going to print 12 blank pages?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00034916/373

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00034916/373

Richard Gill:

( September 30th, 2016 4:31pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/physicist-threatens-legal-action-after-journal-mysteriously-removed-study/

PS and here is the link to the pubpeer thread on the arXiv version of the same paper, which does not work in the original posting through a formatting error:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/06814F3D1ACB675517256B37BB4EF1

PS and here is the link to the pubpeer thread on the arXiv version of the same paper, which does not work in the original posting through a formatting error:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/06814F3D1ACB675517256B37BB4EF1

Richard Gill:

( October 10th, 2016 1:26pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Now arXiv version 5 of this paper has appeared: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355v5.pdf

I have posted a comment on the new material in that paper at https://pubpeer.com/publications/06814F3D1ACB675517256B37BB4EF1

I have posted a comment on the new material in that paper at https://pubpeer.com/publications/06814F3D1ACB675517256B37BB4EF1

Enter new comment below (Please read the **How To**)

Here are just a few comments on arXiv version 4:

According to (55) and (56), A(a, lambda) = lambda and B(b, lambda) = - lambda where lambda = +/-1. This should lead to E(a, b), computed in (60)-(68), equal to -1. But instead the author gets the result - a . b. How is it done?

Notice formula (58) where s_1 and s_2 are argued to be equal, leading in (59) to L(s_1, lambda)L(s_2, lambda) = -1. This result is then substituted inside a double limit as s_1 converges to a and s_2 converges to b in the transition from equation (62) to (63).

So s_1 and s_2 are equal yet converge to different limits a and b.

But that is not enough. A second trick is put into play a few lines later. According to (57) we should have L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda) = D(a)D(b) independent of lambda, which means that the step from (65) to (66) can't be correct.

Permalink

L(a, lambda) L(b, lambda) = D(a) D(b) if lambda = +1

and

L(a, lambda) L(b, lambda) = D(b) D(a) if lambda = -1.

Given the definitions in (55) to (59), the derivation of the correlation in (68) seems to follow easily from (60) to (67), provided one uses some basic Geometric Algebra concepts.

I recommend the book by Doran and Lasenby (ref. 7 of the paper). It is very good.

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

Unfortunately, (51) and (52) imply that L(a, lambda) L(b, lambda) = lambda I a lambda I b = - ab, independent of lambda. Thanks for highlighting the inconsistency which I pointed out.

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

How To)## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?