search
top

24 HOUR Service European Physical Journal D

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

Correspondence concerning the rejection of the manuscript “The derivation of Planck’s constant”” with Prof. Dr. Jean-Michel Raimond Editor in Chief of EPJD.

Received: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:52 PM

Author(s) : C. van der Togt

Title : The derivation of Planck’s constant
Submitted for publication in The European Physical Journal D
section Atomic Physics

Re. : D06130, please quote when replying

Dear  van der Togt,

Thank you for sending us the above manuscript and for your interest in our journal.

We understand that your manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not presently submitted for publication in another journal. We also assume that the publication of this manuscript has been approved by all co-authors. We shall let you know of our decision regarding the publication as soon as possible.

You may follow the status of your article on the Inquiry System at: https://articlestatus.edpsciences.org/is/epjd/
using your author ID: 37846 and article reference number: D06130

Yours sincerely,

Solange Guehot

Editorial Office EPJB, D & E
Universite Paris Sud, Batiment 510
F-91405 Orsay Cedex FRANCE
epjd@edpsciences.org
Tel: 33 1 69 15 59 76
Fax: 33 1 69 15 59 75

Received:  Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:26 PM

Our Ref. : D06130

Dear Dr van der Togt,

Your work entitled :

The derivation of Planck’s constant
submitted for publication in The European Physical Journal D has been considered by our Editorial Board.

As you can verify, our review is dedicated to the publication of recent and conceptually novel results of research in fundamental physics and it appears that your manuscript is very far from what is usually published in our review.

Therefore, we will not further consider your paper in EPJ.

Yours sincerely,

Jean-Michel Raimond
Editor in Chief for EPJ D

Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:01 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Jean-Michel Raimond,

Today I received your rejection concerning the manuscript Ms D06130 “The derivation of Planck’s constant”. Your argumentation is “our review is dedicated to the publication of recent and conceptually novel results of research in fundamental physics and it appears that your manuscript is very far from what is usually published in our review. Therefore, we will not further consider your paper in EPJ.”

Your editorial office received the manuscript and 2 supporting articles in the afternoon of March 22 2006. In less then 24 hours your editorial office concluded, despite the manuscript is far from usual, that it is not suitable for publication because it is not “of recent and conceptually novel results of research in fundamental physics”.

A scientific journal should at least pretend it has spent enough time on a manuscript to be able to reject it. It is impossible EPJD spent enough time studying the manuscript to be able to conclude on sound scientific arguments there is no recent and/or conceptually novel results.

It is my strong opinion your argumentation is not based on legitimate scientific arguments but only on subjective nonscientific arguments. Your only reason to reject appears to be that the manuscript is far from what is usually published in your review! This is no legitimate scientific argument at all. You state that publication in your review is dependent on conceptually novel results. How can you conclude in less than 24 hours that this is not the case?

Regarding the rejection I have to object because you did not provide any legitimate scientific argument to support the rejection. Therefore I formally object and demand the manuscript is proper reviewed according to an objective scientific procedure. Please inform me about the procedure I have to follow to formally object. One should expect from a scientific journal at least some valid argumentation.

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt

Received: Thursday, March 23, 2006 8:57 PM

Our Ref. : D06130

Author(s) : C. van der Togt
Title : The derivation of Planck’s constant

Dear  van der Togt,

I maintain my rejection. Suffice it to say that a proper scientific article should quote the existing physics literature. I do not see any reference in your paper to modern physics. It only includes references to historical works and to your own publications. I do not see how a paper claiming to refound quantum mechanics could get rid of a precise comparison with the enormous wealth of high precision experiments of today’s physics.

Best regards

J.M. Raimond
Editor in Chief

Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:51 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Raimond,

Your argumentation to reject the article is now: “Suffice it to say that a proper scientific article should quote the existing physics literature. I do not see any reference in your paper to modern physics. It only includes references to historical works and to your own publications.”

Yes it is unfortunate I only can make references to historical publications. The reason for this is that since the very early 20th century theoretical physics incorporates two major omissions:

1) In the 19th and early 20th century scientists were searching for ether (Lorentz, Stokes, etc) through which light could propagate. Science considered two possible ethers. One possibility, the ether at absolute rest, is disqualified by the famous experiment of Michelson and Morley in 1887. The second possibility, dragged ether, was disqualified by science only because scientists were not able to explain the phenomena of stellar aberration in conjunction with dragged ether. Therefore the only “scientific” argument that disqualifies dragged ether is the inability of scientists to imagine how dragged ether could explain stellar aberration.

After both forms of ether were denied by science Einstein’s SRT, where initially no ether existed, became inevitable. Time and space became relative only because both kind of ether were denied by science. Vacuum was considered to be absolutely empty space. The supporting article “Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether” proves without any doubt that dragged ether is completely consistent with stellar aberration. The exact stellar aberration of any star any time during the year is predicted with dragged ether. Scientifically dragged ether is therefore much more preferable than the absolute empty space of SRT. SRT, besides the overwhelming number of philosophical contradictions (nowadays by definition called paradoxes), gives after more than 100 years not more than a very poor explanation for stellar aberration (now it is not the moment to go in to this).

The omission of rejecting the all-prevailing dragged ether resulted that theoretical physics embraced SRT. However theoretical physicists cannot explain phenomena without “ether”. The widely accepted field theory introduced a vacuum where electrostatic-, magnetic- and gravity fields could exist despite the original premise of an absolute empty space (SRT). Implicitly the field theory assumes that in absolute empty vacuum some kind of “ether” exists in which these fields can propagate. This assumption is at least philosophically contradicting the absolute empty space of SRT. Because science has yet no alternative for RT the “ether” the field theory implies is artificially kept “consistent” with RT. I only can stipulate that scientists keep ignoring obvious inconsistencies and by all costs want to hold on to existing theories.

2) Even before Einstein discovered relativity QM concluded that the mass of an electron could not be explained by the electromagnetic properties of the electron. I refer to “Lectures on Physics” part II chapter 28 “The Electromagnetic Mass” by Feynman. In this article Feynman “proves” that the mass of an electron cannot be explained by the electromagnetic properties of the electron. Unfortunately Feynman brutally violates the energy conservation law. This is proven without doubt in the supporting article “The Equivalence of magnetic and Kinetic Energy”. When you read this simple article you will realize QM is actually based on a (repeated) violation of the energy conservation law. A mistake every first year student in physics is warned never to make.

Because of this mistake numerous contradictions are introduced in QM/QED. Again, like RT, science elevated QM to the absolute scientific truth and all these contradictions became just “paradoxes”.

You want me to give references to modern physic articles? Please tell me how? I could not find a single modern paper to quote. I am willing to put 10 to 20 or more references. If you know articles I can refer to please let me know.

Further you argue: “I do not see how a paper claiming to refound quantum mechanics could get rid of a precise comparison with the enormous wealth of high precision experiments of today’s physics.”

I do not deny that the mathematical solutions QM provides are stunning. However scientists should realize that the relentless search every day for many years by many scientists for mathematical formulas describing experimental data statistically now and then “stunning” mathematical solutions have to be found. In other words QM’s success over the years is mostly based on the derivation of mathematical solutions for experimental data. This however means that QM’s solutions are the result of the almost pure experimental science.

In their search to an overall explaining theory theoretical physicists concocted the Standard Model. Not realizing RT and QM are based on omissions science unjustly concludes that the mathematical solutions of the Standard Model must imply relativity of time and space, 12 dimensions, parallel worlds, numerous unacceptable contradictions to be true and much more. This unbelievable fairytale has become the undisputable scientific truth! When scientists would address the omissions all this fictional science will disappear.

It is unfortunately these omissions occurred but despite of that it is a fact. The omissions are addressed in the mentioned relative simple articles. The mistakes are so obvious and elementary you do not have to be a genius by far to understand and comprehend the consequences. At the moment it is not “If” but “When” theoretical physicists will have to explain to the public why these omissions have not been addressed when discovered.

When science is willing to discuss the omissions the scientific debate will see to it that theoretical physicists keep respect. Omissions in science are a fact of life. Ignoring them on purpose when discovered is a totally different matter. When science is not willing to address these omissions sooner or later this will be forced upon them. When that happens theoretical physicists and all they achieved will be ridiculed to the bone. No one in the world will accept that the numerous brilliant scientists of theoretical physics are not capable to address such simple omissions. There must be alternative motives!

After 7 years trying to get answers on legitimate questions time is running out. Please realize I do not seek to ridicule theoretical physics. At the end however, when adjustments are forced upon science, no respect at all will be left for your profession. You and your colleagues will be the laughing stock of everyone. Please realize that this is not what I’m seeking. Respect is always preferable. Do realize that I understand that what QM achieved is extraordinary especially when you know that QM was crippled when it went in the wrong direction.

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt

top