search
top

Institutionalized Incompetence

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 Dr. Bernd Craseman (editor Phys.Rev. A), Dr. Peter Mohr (member Editorial Board Phys.Rev. A), Dr. Martin Blume (Editor in Chief Physical Review)

Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:16:04 UT  Subject:  To_author AX9012 van der togt

Re: AX9012

Hydrogen atom: An electromagnetic free rotator
by C. van der Togt

Dr. C. van der Togt
Louis Couperusstraat 38
2274 XR Voorburg
NETHERLANDS

Dear Dr. van der Togt,

Thank you for submitting the manuscript referenced above for consideration for possible publication in this Journal. You write that “… withholding the article from publication cannot be in the good of science in general.” However, for the good of science in general we must apply strict acceptance criteria to the over 3000 manuscripts that are submitted to this Journal every year. These criteria are summarized in the enclosed “Notice to Referees” and spelled out in more detail in the Editorial “Policies and Practices” included in the front matter of the first issue of each volume, as well as in the APS web site.

Consequently, we regret to inform you that your paper does not meet these requirements. We therefore recommend that you submit it elsewhere.

Yours sincerely,

Bernd Crasemann
Editor
Physical Review A
Email: pra@aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://pra.aps.org/

 Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:15:41 +0200  Subject: RE: To_author AX9012 van der togt

Dear Dr. Bernd Crasemann,

Thank you for your reply concerning manuscript: AX9012
Hydrogen atom: An electromagnetic free rotator
by C. van der Togt

The reason why the editorial board rejects this manuscript is that the requirements in the Editorial “Polices and Practices” are not met.

It is clear that Physical Review A rejects the manuscript, but after studying the Editorial “Policies and Practices” I still have no idea on what basis the manuscript is rejected.

I would appreciate it when you can be more specific so that I can correct the omission before I submit the paper elsewhere and it therefore will not be rejected for the same reason.

Yours Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt
cvandertogt@12move.nl

Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:30:07 +0200  Subject: Formal Appeal concerning AX9012 van der togt

Dear Sir,

Herewith I want to register a formal appeal against the rejection by Dr. Bernd Crasemann, the editor of Physical Review A, of manuscript AX9012.

The reasons why I ask for a formal appeal are:

-On October 23 2004 I receive an email from Jo-Anne Izzo, Editorial Assistant, that the manuscript AX9012 “Hydrogen atom: An electromagnetic free rotator” is considered for publication as a regular article in Physical Review A.

  • On October 26 2004 I receive an email from the editor Dr. Bernd Crasemann in which he rejects the article on basis of the acceptance criteria in the Editorial “Policies and Practices”. The rejection is without any indication to which criteria the manuscript does not satisfy.
  • On Wednesday October 27 I send an email to Dr. Bernd Crasemann in which I ask him to be more specific so I can correct the omission. Until now I did not receive any reply and I do not expect an answer anymore.

  • Not being satisfied that the manuscript was rejected without specific arguments and that a referee did not review the article I wondered whether the editor could have been biased towards the manuscript.

  • Research concerning Dr. Bernd Crasemann expertise and publications showed that the theoretical manuscript AX9012 “Hydrogen atom: An electromagnetic free rotator” contradicts substantial parts of Dr. Bernd Crasemann published work.

Considering the above it is possible that Dr. Bernd Crasemann rejected the manuscript based on subjective arguments and I therefore request in this appeal that the manuscript will be reviewed by an expert referee in Atomic Theory on basis of objective scientific arguments.

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt

Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:17:13 +0100  Subject: Formal Appeal concerning AX9012 van der togt

Dear Sir,

Please inform me about the timetable of my formal appeal concerning the rejection of the manuscript AX9012 by the editor of Physical Review A; Dr. Bernd Crasemann.

The rejection by Dr. Bernd Crasemann of the manuscript was solely based on his subjective interpretation, without consulting the opinion of a referee, and without any motivation why he considered the manuscript was to his opinion too speculative for Physical Review A.

I expect that the journal Physical Review A will handle this appeal according to the high scientific standards of the journal.

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt

Mon, 6 Dec 2004 15:27:13 UT  Subject: To_author AX9012 van der togt

Re: AX9012

Hydrogen atom: An electromagnetic free rotator
by C. van der Togt

Dr. C. van der Togt
Louis Couperusstraat 38
2274 XR Voorburg
NETHERLANDS

Dear Dr. van der Togt,

In response to your query of November 30, the above manuscript is currently out on formal appeal and, due to the need for our Board Member to review the complete file, we cannot give you a specific timetable. We will be in touch when we have received the decision of the Editorial Board.

Yours sincerely,

Bernd Crasemann
Editor
Physical Review A
Email: pra@aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://pra.aps.org/

Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:55:23 UT  Subject: Your_manuscript AX9012 van der togt

Re: AX9012

Hydrogen atom: An electromagnetic free rotator
by C. van der Togt

Dr. C. van der Togt
Louis Couperusstraat 38
2274 XR Voorburg
NETHERLANDS

Dear Dr. van der Togt,

The above-referenced manuscript has been reviewed by a member of our Editorial Board. Comments from the report are enclosed.

The relentless growth of the Physical Review forces us to apply acceptance standards very strictly. In particular, every paper must contribute to significant advances in physics. Proposed modifications of quantum mechanics can be considered only in exceptional cases, if they are demonstrably superior to accepted theory and lead to new conclusions that can be verified by experiment, at least in principle.

The enclosed referee report indicates that your manuscript does not satisfy these criteria. We regret that for this reason we cannot accept the paper for publication in Physical Review A. Another journal, dedicated to studies of the foundations of quantum mechanics, might be able to consider it.

We are sorry not to have better news.  With best wishes,

Bernd Crasemann
Editor
Physical Review A
Email: pra@ridge.aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://pra.aps.org/


Report of the Editorial Board Member — AX9012/van der Togt

I have received your request for a formal appeal concerning the above mentioned paper. As you know, the paper was not accepted for publication in Physical Review A, because it does not meet the acceptance criteria.

To address your request for an independent review of your manuscript, I have read it and have the following comments. The manuscript should not be published in Physical Review A. With reference to the acceptance criteria, there are two which are not met.

The first concerns “new results in physics that significantly advance the field.” Unfortunately, the manuscript does not contain sufficiently new results in physics to be considered for publication in Physical Review A. The discussion in your
manuscript is essentially a variant of the Bohr model which is well known. The introduction of spheres in space as a way to explain quantization is not convincing and does not provide a better result than the simple Bohr model. The various ratios that you have observed to be equal to 12^3 are essentially equal to 4 pi/alpha, where alpha is the fine-structure constant where 1/alpha = 137.036… This string of ratios is not significantly different from the well-known series of ratios r_e = alphalambda-bar = alpha^2a_0 = alpha^3/(4piRyd), where r_e is the classical radius of the electron, lambda-bar is the reduced Compton wavelength, a_0 is the Bohr radius and Ryd is the Rydberg constant. These results are all well known and follow from standard quantum mechanics and even from classical electron theory.

The problem is twofold. First, the classical model for the electron is already known, and a more serious problem is that it is not correct, except as a crude approximation. Quantum mechanics was invented in part because the classical model of the atom does not work at all for more than one electron. Further, there is a very complete and accurate theory for the hydrogen atom that is in complete agreement with experiment. Unless you can show that your model can improve on the existing theory, there is not sufficient reason to publish it.

The second acceptance criterion that is not met is the clarity of presentation. The presentation in the manuscript is not done in a way that forms a sound basis for the conclusions. In some cases, assumptions are stated as fact and the logical development of the arguments is difficult to follow. It should be possible for each step to be seen to follow as a logical consequence of clearly stated assumptions and previous steps, which is not always the case in the manuscript. Unfortunately, giving every place where the discussion is not clear and stating how to clarify it would be tantamount to rewriting the paper, which is not an option for an editor.

In summary, there are two problems. The classical model of the hydrogen atom does not approach the current quantum theory in the precise comparison to experiment, and the paper is difficult to follow.

Unfortunately, I have to conclude that either of these problems prevents the paper from meeting the criteria for publication in Physical Review A.

Sincerely yours,

Peter Mohr
Editorial Board of Physical Review A

Thu, 6 Jan 2005

Dear Dr. Bernd Craseman and Dr. Peter Mohr,

Thank you very much for reviewing manuscript AX9012 Hydrogen atom: An electromagnetic free rotator.

I expected the article to be denied, but still I am disappointed that the world most prestigious physics organization is not willing to correct the omissions of the past.

Why not let the science society decide whether ether is good science or not?
Is the paternalism of APS/Physical Review necessary? Is science in general not capable to determine herself what is good or bad? The only argument I hear, even from you, is that the mathematical solutions of QM are so good the only argument for publication seems to be a higher significance of formulas; QM is infallible and anything not 100% in accordance with QM is not interesting!

Skepticism concerning new ideas is necessary and understandable. What I do not understand is that an organization and scientists of your stature are purposely ignoring severe omissions in the past. At the same time you demand “significant advances”, “demonstrably superior” and “new conclusions that can be verified”, while your QM-math is based on false assumptions!

Scientists argue that it is of no significance whether there is ether or not. That is like proclaiming that it is of no consequence whether there is air or not that propagates sound waves!
If scientists really believe that, than it is not a mistake anymore; it becomes pathetic. The ether is completely compatible with QM. Any particle/process of QM can take place in the ether. Do even APS/Physical Review scientists have the opinion that it is scientifically not interesting to know whether there is ether? Exploring the opportunities ether provides is not interesting
to physical science?

An even bigger mistake is the earlier omission of QM; the violation of the energy conservation law while calculating the electromagnetic mass (R.P. Feynman, Lectures on Physics Volume II chapter 28-2 and 28-3). Out of respect I would normally say: “A mistake is human”. Actually the violation of the energy conservation law is a stupidity of unprecedented magnitude. The science of QM is based on a classic mistake for which every first year student is warned!!!

In “R.P. Feynman, Lectures on Physics Volume II 28-3” Feynman even states: “And there is the thrilling possibility that the piece is not there at all-that the mass is all electromagnetic.” The impact this mistake has on the perspectives of QM is enormous and it is incompetence of the first order to ignore errors after they are discovered.
Do you really think QM can hide this enormous blunder for ever?

In the past 6 years I showed respect to science and scientists. When scientists however refuse to show respect for legitimate arguments the incompetence should be exposed. Scientists of Theoretical Physics wants us to believe that the physical reality is even more fantastic than any known fairytale, while it is obvious the omissions introduce all the known contradictions and paradoxes!

Do scientists like you really believe in parallel worlds, relativity of time and space, unbelievable paradoxes to be true and more unbelievable things just because of the math of QM and RT?

Do members of APS really believe that ignoring obvious mistakes will hold QM ‘s position in the long term? The paternalism of APS/Physical Review has to be exposed so I will add the correspondence with APS to the chapter “Incompetent Science” (www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Incompetent%20Science.htm) on the website www.paradox-paradigm.nl

Although I strongly prefer to respect others sometimes this is not possible. As long as the responsible scientists do not address the omissions I have to expose the incompetence. Please reconsider because if society discovers the real “professionalism” of theoretical physics the way back to respect will be closed. I am, at all times, willing to delete this incompetence chapter, but when it becomes commonly known I cannot undo the damage.

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt

Wed, 12 Jan 2005

Re: AX9012

Hydrogen atom: An electromagnetic free rotator
by C. van der Togt

Dr. C. van der Togt
Louis Couperusstraat 38
2274 XR Voorburg
NETHERLANDS

Dear Dr. van der Togt,

We have your message dated 6 January regarding your manuscript referenced above, which we had to reject on 26 October last; you formally appealed the rejection to the Editorial Board (see your mesage of 30 November) and the Board issued its adjudication through a report by Dr. Peter Mohr, denying your appeal, on 03 January.

As you can see from the enclosed Editorial Policies, denial of an appeal to the Board completes the scientific review of a
manusript. A further step is possible in the form of an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, but only on issues of fairness and
procedure, not on scientific issues.

Yours sincerely,

Bernd Crasemann
Editor
Physical Review A
Email: pra@ridge.aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://pra.aps.org/

Wed, 19 Jan 2005

Dear Editor in Chief,

Dr. Bernd Crasemann, the editor of Physical Review A, tells me that my formal appeal is denied and therefore I cannot appeal anymore on scientific issues.

However in the below displayed email of January 12 2005, Dr. Bernd Crasemann notifies me there is a further possibility in the form of an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief on issues of fairness and procedure.

Email from Dr. Bernd Crasemann Januari 12 2005:


Re: AX9012
Hydrogen atom: An electromagnetic free rotator
by C. van der Togt

Dr. C. van der Togt
Louis Couperusstraat 38
2274 XR Voorburg
NETHERLANDS

Dear Dr. van der Togt,

We have your message dated 6 January regarding your manuscript referenced above, which we had to reject on 26 October last; you formally appealed the rejection to the Editorial Board (see your mesage of 30 November) and the Board issued its adjudication through a report by Dr. Peter Mohr, denying your appeal, on 03 January.

As you can see from the enclosed Editorial Policies, denial of an appeal to the Board completes the scientific review of a
manusript. A further step is possible in the form of an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, but only on issues of fairness and
procedure, not on scientific issues.

Yours sincerely,

Bernd Crasemann
Editor
Physical Review A
Email: pra@ridge.aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://pra.aps.org/


Dr. Bernd Crasemann sent me this email as a reply on the email I have sent
to Dr. Bernd Crasemann and Dr. Peter Mohr. I forward you this email now.

I appeal on issues of fairness and procedure and expect to hear from you about the procedure/time span.

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt

Mon, 31 Jan 2005

Re: AX9012
Hydrogen atom: An electromagnetic free rotator
by C. van der Togt

Dr. C. van der Togt
Louis Couperusstraat 38
2274 XR Voorburg
NETHERLANDS

Dear Dr. van der Togt,

I have reviewed the file of your paper “Hydrogen atom…” AX9012 which was submitted to Physical Review A. The scientific review of your paper is the responsibility of the editor of Physical Review A which resulted in the decision to reject your paper. The Editor-in-Chief must assure that the procedures of our journals have been followed responsibly and fairly in arriving at that decision.

On considering all aspects of this file I have concluded that our procedures have in fact been appropriately followed and that your paper received a fair review. Accordingly, I must uphold the decision of the Editors.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Blume
Editor-in-Chief

28 Feb 2005 

Dear Dr. Bernd Craseman (editor Phys.Rev. A), Dr. Peter Mohr (member Editorial

Board Phys.Rev. A) and Dr. Martin Blume (Editor in Chief Physical Review)

On February 1 2005 I received from Dr. Martin Blume, Editor in Chief of Physical Review, the rejection on my appeal concerning the procedure and fair review of the manuscript AX 9012.

I waited a month so Phys. Rev. respectively the American Psychical Association (APS) had the opportunity to correct their editorial omission concerning the unjustified rejection of the manuscript AX 9012.

From March 20th the correspondence with APS/Phys. Rev. will be accessible for everyone on the website www.paradox-paradigm.nl under the chapter Incompetent Science. The title will be: American Physical Society (APS)/Physical Review
and Institutionalized Incompetence.

The motivation to add the correspondence to the Incompetence Chapter is the following:

1) The editor Dr. Bernd Craseman rejected the article to be published without any justification other than the speculative nature of the paper. This very subjective and time dependant opinion bears no scientific merits.
Less then 100 years ago ether was not speculative but SRT and QM were.

2) The formal appeal against the rejection was handled by Dr. Peter Mohr (member Editorial Board Phys.Rev. A).

Dr. Mohr claims he had two reasons to reject the manuscript: a) the very subjective argument that the clarity of presentation is not scientific and b) the argument that the sequence of the ratio 12^3 are essentially equal to 4 pi/alpha, where alpha is the fine-structure constant where 1/alpha=137.036… bla bla bla.

Maybe for Dr. Mohr, obvious a mathematician and not a physicist, the sequence of 12^3 has no other meaning than any mathematical factor. The assumption of ether is scientifically justified and eliminates the Constant of Planck, explains QM, synchrotron radiation etc. etc. and still is qualified by Dr. Mohr as: “The manuscript does not contain sufficiently new results in physics to be considered for publication in Physical Review A.”

One of the reasons why the Bohr-model doesn?t satisfy completely is that the electrostatic field at the sub-atomic level produces a force that is un-equal to the Coulomb force. The reason for this is that the calculated Coulomb-force between nucleus and electron differs at the sub-atomic level because of electrostatic interference.

3) The unjustified rejection and un-scientific valuation of the paper by the editors is then justified by the Editor in Chief proclaiming: “The Editor-in-Chief must assure that the procedures of our journals have been followed responsibly and fairly in arriving at that decision. On considering all aspects of this file I have concluded that our procedures have in fact been appropriately followed and that your paper received a fair review. Accordingly, I must uphold the decision of the Editors.”

With this decision APS/Phys.Rev. institutionalizes the incompetence and declines any responsibility.

It is my intention to send to science journalists the motivation of the rejection. Furthermore I will inform the Editorial Board Members of APS because I think they should be informed about their implicit responsibility concerning the rejection. They represent APS/Phys.Rev. and therefore bear responsibility.

I also want to make it clear who and what institutions should be held responsible.
Is it really the intention of APS to ridicule Theoretical Physics and the achievements of their scientists over the last century?

When I am just another crackpot no harm will be done while otherwise my actions are justified. Maybe APS should consider that the article “Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether” will be published in July 2005.

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt

Thu, 10 Mar 2005

Re: AX9012

Hydrogen atom: An electromagnetic free rotator
by C. van der Togt

Dr. C. van der Togt
Louis Couperusstraat 38
2274 XR Voorburg
NETHERLANDS

Dear Dr. van der Togt,

We have your message of 28 February in which you reassert your belief that editors, referees and Board members of this Journal are incompetent. The editorial process is concluded with the negative adjudication of your appeal by the Editor-in-Chief. We do not comment on your accusations because they fall outside the scientific scope in which we operate. But we do want to call to your attention that the Society which you have been addressing is not the “American Psychical Association” as you state, but the American Physical Society. Perhaps, in the future, you should submit your work to the former.

Yours sincerely,

Bernd Crasemann
Editor
Physical Review A
Email: pra@ridge.aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://pra.aps.org/

top