Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have prepared a paper that relies on work of Joe Rosen on symmetry (e.g. "Symmetry Rules: How Science and Nature Are Founded on Symmetry"). I am wondering about his influence. For example, when I once asked on Math.SE about status of Curie symmetry principle, the question was closed, being also repelled by physics.SE. So the topic seems to be perceived as unscientific.

Then I found the Rosen book and papers, where he put much effort on giving Curie principle scientific rigor. Yet, the book seems to be unknown. Rosen proofs that dirrectly correlate symmetry and entropy seem to be ignored (the proof is given in The Symmetry Principle).

But, the fact that Rosen's book is in Springer's Frontiers Collection seem to support his reputation? I have used Rosen's work in my paper and I am wondering e.g. if receiveing review only from Rosen-related group will not be too hermetic. I myself am a big fan of Rosen's work and of his determination on bringing symmetry-level reasoning to mainstream science (e.g. his first book on the topic was published in 1995).

share|cite|improve this question
FYI: asking whether a certain body of work is accepted by the scientific community seems fine to me (though I can't speak for others). The problem is when people take some invalid theory as a given and then ask about the conclusions that can be drawn from it. – David Z May 4 '12 at 3:06
@DavidZaslavsky are you referring to my question that was closed? I accepted the fact. The Curie principle was indeed very vague (although I was aking if someone rigorously proved it, but the proof of Rosen is not well known, so it's fine). – Jupan May 4 '12 at 7:19
oh, no, actually I was just leaving a note here for people who may come across this question and argue that it should be closed simply because it talks about non-mainstream physics. I actually didn't go back and look at your other question again. – David Z May 4 '12 at 7:48
I am curious to know the answer to this question. I liked Joe Rosen's book and learnt a lot from it. I did not know that it was considered non-mainstream physics. – Vijay Murthy May 4 '12 at 9:16
I would be interested in a substantive answer, so +1. My impression from the 6 page PDF you linked to is that there isn't enough mathematical substance to the claim as it stands there. A first response is that the definition of a "causal relation" that he gives is dangerously under-referenced (zero!), given the considerable variety of concepts of causality that there are. I don't like the look of the over-brief way in which he introduces his assumption/definition that correlations determine causes (section 2). Not absolutely killing, but "correlation" appears once, and there's no "quantum". – Peter Morgan May 4 '12 at 11:56

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.