search
top

Incompetent Science Physics Letters A

When you are interested in physics you must read “Unbelievable“!

Correspondence concerning the rejection of the article “The hydrogen atom: an electromagnetic free rotator” with Prof. Dr. B. Fricke editor of Physics Letters A; a Reed Elsevier plc publication.

Received: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:26:27 GMT

Dear Mr van der Togt,

On 31-Oct-2004 you submitted a new paper
number PLA_cvandertogt.AT.12move.nl_20041028.1/1 to Physics Letters A entitled:

‘The hydrogen atom: an electromagnetic free rotator’

The Editorial reference number for this paper is: Fr-1096

We regret to inform you that your paper has not been accepted for publication. Comments from the editor are:

Dear Dr. van der Togt,

enclosed please find a referee report on your above paper.

Unfortunately the referee cannot recommend your paper for publication in Physics Letters A. According to him the work presented in your paper is not topical and therefore is not suitable for publication in an urgent letter journal.

Due to the strong arguments of the referee I am unable to accept your paper for publication in Physics Letters A. I am very sorry.

Thank you very much for submitting your work to our journal.

Best regards,
yours sincerely

Prof. Dr. Burkhard Fricke
Editor Physics Letters A
e-mail: pla@physik.uni-kassel.de
——————————————

Referee Report

Title: “The hydrogen atom: an electromagnetic free rotator”
Author: Carel van der Togt
Ref.-No. Fr-1096

If this paper would have been written between 1911 and 1924 it might have been an interesting contribution to science. But now that we have the Quantum Theory which is very successful to describe and predict phenomena in the microscopic world this paper is more than a step backwards.

I fully understand that people try to “understand” quantum mechanics with the help of classical physics. However, from the phenomena in quantum physics we definitely know that this is not possible. The concept of identical particles and its consequences, the tunneling effect, the quantum numbers etc. are examples which cannot be explained by classical physics. And the fact that the physical “vacuum” is “full” is known since Dirac and allows to understand the QED effects or the antiparticles.

This paper does not contribute to the understanding of the physical phenomena and should therefore be rejected.

Sent: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:55:31 +0000

Dear Prof. Dr. Burkhard Fricke,

Thank you very much for your email. I however was not able to locate the “strong arguments of the referee” in the email.

Actually I could not find one valid argument except for the usual “argument” that present science is absolute and that is not even an argument!

I do not really expect the “high priests” of the religion of theoretical physics to be open minded, but they have to disqualify themselves first before they lose their right to speak and eventually make themselves ridiculous.

A waste because respect is much more favorable than contempt.

I try to keep positive, but it seems more and more that many theoretical physicists are pathetic and have no idea what science really is. Sorry.

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt

Received:  Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:18:17 +0100

Dear Dr. van der Togt,

thank you very much for your answer to the referee report.

I do understand your argument why your paper contributes to the understanding of science. The referee sees it differently. The so-called “strong argument”, as far as I understood it from the report, is that in your paper you explain quantitatively the observed things and present hypotheses. This is okay, but  not enough. The referee argues that quantum mechanics and electrodynamics on the other hand are able to explain details of an experiment and to make reliable predictions. This I cannot see in your paper and thus I am more convinced by the arguments of the referee.

Sincerely,

Burkhard Fricke
Editor Physics Letters A
——————————–

Sent: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:27:23 +0100

Dear Prof. Dr. Burkhard Fricke,

Thank you for your email where you explain the motivation to reject the paper. I want to apologize for my impulsive answer to the rejection.

I’m a physics engineer and not so familiar with the “pure” science of theoretical physics. In the article I state that ether is completely consistent with QM and electrodynamics. So I do not understand the argument: “The referee argues that quantum mechanics and electrodynamics on the other hand are able to explain details of an experiment and to make reliable predictions. This I cannot see in your paper and thus I am more convinced by the arguments of the referee.”, because I do not attack QM or QED in any way.

With ether, point-volumes, any (sub-) atomic particle or process of QM and QED etc. are possible, so the article is principle only supportive to QM and QED. So I really do not understand this argument.

What I tried to show is that ether is completely consistent with QM and that physical science doesn’t need all the present paradoxes and parallel worlds to be consistent anymore. I show in the book “From Paradox to Paradigm” that when you use a very simple concept for ether many (unexplained) phenomena can be answered for in a very simple way, like: stellar aberration, the synchrotron radiation, the constant of Planck, gravity, the arise of particles like electron, proton, neutron etc. and also the energy quantization of atoms.

I can understand that science is not anxious to embrace a “new” theory, while ”everything” is explained and under control. I would act the same I think when I was a theoretical physicist. My real concern is that according to the “picture” with ether it is possible that the nuclear fusion process might be “different” than the present perception of science. I think that it might
be possible, with limited funds (less 10 million Euro), to build with present technology a fusion reactor that can work. The approach according to the ether concept is a fusion process that is opposite to actual approach of science by thermal nuclear fusion. Society needs soon an alternative for fossil energy sources. That is the, I think, the very topical issue here.

Requests for funding of a fusion reactor on basis of the ether concept are rejected on the basis that ether is not scientific accepted. I only try toget attention to the perspective of ether and the possibilities it offers. I do not seek to destroy careers or make science ridiculous.

I tried to get attention with the article “Stellar aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether” but that article is put aside and denied by science with the argument it is an old issue; not topical.

My second attempt was the article “The Equivalence of kinetic and Magnetic Energy” that handles an omission of QM that had and has serious impact onthe physical perspective of QM. Rejection is again based on the argument that the article is not topical.

Now my third attempt to get some recognition of science is again not rejected on the basis of flawed ideas, but again on basis that it is not topical. Again I emphasize that my only goal is to be able to construct a nuclear fusion reactor; that is my wish and that is also the very topical issue of the article.

Professor Fricke I would appreciate it very much if you can give me some advises what to do next. I think that the possibility that the nuclear fusion process might differ from present perspectives is topical enough. Unless scientists have valid arguments against ether I have to proceed to get some scientific recognition so I will be able to persuade the NWO-institution in the Netherlands to subsidize the development of a fusion reactor.

That is the only purpose why I want to get my article published.

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt

Received: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:23:25 +0100

Dear Dr. van der Togt,

thank you very much for your answer. I fully understand your arguments, but you should be aware of the fact that science is “cruel”. Every idea is welcome, but only if a new idea leads to improved or even better new results it has a chance to be accepted. But even then this often needs some time. I cannot really judge the importance of your ideas, but I do not see this kind of new and important results which you claim. So my advice would be to specify in more detail what you mean, but you should try to use the scientific terms which are usually used. I thank you for your letter, but I am sorry to say that under the given circumstances I am still unable to accept your paper for publication in Physics Letters A.

I wish you all the best for your future.

Sincerely

Prof. Dr. Burkhard Fricke
Editor Physics Letters A

Back to Contents

top