Objective evidence of defect of the QED's standard interpretation
Date: Wednesday, July 01, 2020 @ 15:39:13 MST
Topic: Science


Dear Prof. Hiromichi Nakazato
Editor, European Physical Journal Plus

I am submitting for publication in the journal Physics Essays my paper entitled “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s law, and fine-structure constant”.

The paper was rejected for publication in the European Physical Journal Plus with the following Report, written by you:

The main idea of the paper is based on such classical notions like particle's motion and electric current and magnetic field seem to have been given fundamental roles.  This is evident from the figures presented in the paper.  These notions are untenable in microscopic world where the wave-particle duality is essential even if the author feels "strange" and the gauge field plays an essential role.  They have been supported by experiments for many years.  The paper will not be understood and never be accepted by any other physicists unless the author provides, not a subjective (like the one the author thinks "strange"), but an objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation, which is missing in the present paper.
I think that the paper does not fulfill the scientific standards required by EPJPlus and thus reject it.
Yours sincerely
Hiromichi Nakazato
Editor,  The European Physical Journal Plus


From your words:
The paper will not be understood and never be accepted by any other physicists unless the author provides, not a subjective (like the one the author thinks "strange"), but an objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation, which is missing in the present paper
one realizes that the paper was not rejected due to errors in math, neither to any unacceptable speculation.

According to your argument, the reason of rejection was because it is missing in the paper “an objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation”.

However, the “objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation” is provided in the paper entitled “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”. But you you did not read it, because the Manager Editor of EPJ Plus sent the paper for the Editor-in-Chief Kumar S. Gupta, who rejected the paper with the following Report:

Ref.: Ms. No. EPJP-D-20-00751
Title: "Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum
The European Physical Journal Plus
Dear Dr. Guglinski,
I have read this paper. Unfortunately this paper does not meet the scientific standards of EPJ Plus and hence cannot be published in EPJ Plus.
Yours sincerely
Kumar S. Gupta
Editor
The European Physical Journal Plus



Therefore, from the Report one realizes that Dr. Gupta did not find any mathematical error in the paper “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”. And so we reach to the following conclusions:

1-    As Dr. Gupta did not find any error in the paper “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”, this means that in that paper is definitively proven the “objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation”, which does not exist in the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s law, and fine-structure constant”.

2-    Thereby, from the Report by Dr. Gupta, since he did not detect any error in the paper “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”, is invalidated your argument, dear Prof. Nakazato, and so the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s law, and fine-structure constant” deserves to be published, because the “objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation”, is proven to exist in the paper rejected by Dr. Gupta.



The Editor-in-Chief of Physics Essays, Dr. Emilio Panarella, has interest to publish the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s law, and fine-structure constant”. But he would like to eliminate any controversy about the question risen by you, according to which the publication of the paper requires an “objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation”.

As the objective evidence is proven to exist, as shown in the paper “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”, I would like you read it, so that to verify if there is any mathematical error in the paper. And so I am sending it attached here.

If you do not reply to this my solicitation, then Dr. Panarella and me  will conclude that you did not find any math error in the paper “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”, and therefore:

1)    It is supplied for the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s law, and fine-structure constant” the objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation.
2)    And so Dr. Panarella will be sure that the paper deserves to be published in Physics Essays.

Regards
W Guglinski





This article comes from ZPEnergy.com
http://www.zpenergy.com

The URL for this story is:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3898