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