Early Particles

Steinberger, J.

doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.47.1.0

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That a “postdoc” like Freeman Dyson had succeeded in understanding and further developing the different approaches to quantum electrodynamics by Schwinger and Feynman put forward in 1948, seemingly left no mark on Einstein. Instead, he could win the interest and help of another Princeton postdoc at the time, Bruria Kaufman, for his continued work in UFT [587]. We may interpret a remark of Pauli as justifying Einstein’s course:

“The quantization of fields turns out more and more to be a problem with thorns and horns, and by and by I get used to think that I will not live to see substantial progress for all these problems.” ([493], p. 519)6

…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the History of Unified Field Theories. Part II. (ca. 1930–ca. 1965)

Goenner

2014

Living Rev. Relativ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present review intends to provide an overall picture of the research concerning classical unified field theory, worldwide, in the decades between the mid-1930 and mid-1960. Main themes are the conceptual and methodical development of the field, the interaction among the scientists working in it, their opinions and interpretations. Next to the most prominent players, A. Einstein and E. Schrödinger, V. Hlavatý and the French groups around A. Lichnerowicz, M.-A. Tonnelat, and Y. Thiry are presented. It is shown that they have given contributions of comparable importance. The review also includes a few sections on the fringes of the central topic like Born-Infeld electromagnetic theory or scalar-tensor theory. Some comments on the structure and organization of research-groups are also made.

show abstract

…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the History of Unified Field Theories. Part II. (ca. 1930–ca. 1965)

Goenner

2014

Living Rev. Relativ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other instances, authors of very innovative papers are criticized and often face stonewalling from their peers. As Nobel Laureate J. Steinberger rightfully observed, "new ideas are not completely easy to accept, sometimes even by the brightest and most open of people" [STEINBERGER, 1997]. A worse scenario can also play out: scientific contributions are sometimes effectively silenced [SOMMER, 2001] and prevented from being Method I collected instances of resistance to scientific discovery in which Nobel Prize winners were involved.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates

Campanario

2009

Scientometrics

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1 Nobel laureate Jack Steinberger comments that 'new ideas are not completely easy to accept, sometimes even by the brightest and most open of people'. 2 Although scientific rejection is a normal part of the publishing process, it is rarely discussed and there is little advice on how to manage such a decision. This article focuses on the reasons for rejection and provides some advice on how to deal with it.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An author’s guide to submission, revision and rejection

Shah¹,

Smart

2015

annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘Continuous effort, not strength or intelligence, is the key to understanding our potential.’ Winston Churchill The sting of rejection is nasty. However, when you get that letter (which you will), remember you will be in esteemed company. Many of us would like to publish in Science or Nature but what better revenge when they reject you than a Nobel Prize! This is exactly what happened to Hans Krebs, the biochemist who won the Nobel Prize in 1953 for discovering the citric acid cycle, commonly known as the Krebs cycle. Krebs submitted his findings to Nature but was faced with rejection. Never has Frank Sinatra’s famous quote been truer: ‘The best revenge is massive success.’ Nature has admitted to many other such faux pas in its publishing history and it is not unique in its misjudgements. Publishing is a game of risk-taking behaviour and strategy. Authors must convince editors and referees that their work is worthy of publishing. When journals do not publish this work, authors must remember the value of their manuscript and persist in finding it another home. JYOTI SHAH Commissioning Editor

show abstract

Early Particles

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

On the History of Unified Field Theories. Part II. (ca. 1930–ca. 1965)

On the History of Unified Field Theories. Part II. (ca. 1930–ca. 1965)

Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates

An author’s guide to submission, revision and rejection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About