## Monkey Business (“Solid State Communications” a Reed Elsevier publication)

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

**The correspondence with “Solid State Communications” concerning the rejection of the manuscript.**

If you want to read the manuscript The Theoretical Derivation of Planck’s constant.

Subject: Your Submission

Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 04:34:46 -0000

Ms. Ref. No.: SSC-D-05-00513

Title: The Theoretical Derivation of Planck’s constant

Solid State Communications

Dear Carel van der Togt,

Reviewers’ comments on your work have now been received. You will see that publication of your work is not recommended. Therefore I must reject it.

For your guidance, I append the reviewers’ comments below.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Yours sincerely,

Executive Editor

Solid State Communications

Reviewers’ comments:

This manuscript is quite unusual, so I keep reminding myself of being open-minded about it. The author’s derivation of Planck’s constant is based on this numerical observation: 4*pi /alpha ~ 4*3.1416* 137.03 ~

12*12*12. Here pi is the area of the unit disk, and alpha = 2*pi*e*e/(h*c) is a dimensionless constant — the Sommerfeld fine-structure constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. By

insisting that 4*pi /alpha = 12*12*12 and assuming that e, c are given , the author arrives at his derived value for the Planck constant: h =6.648982 *10^-34 Js. (The measured value is h = 6.62618 *10^-34 Js)

As far as I can see there is no sound argument to insist that 4*pi /alpha =12*12*12. Moreover, a purely logic stand, what the author “derived” is just alpha, not h.

*Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:22:38 +0000*

Dear Editor,

I’m confused after reading the motivation concerning the rejection of the manuscript.

The referee says at the end: “As far as I can see there is no sound argument to insist that 4*pi /alpha = 12*12*12. Moreover, a purely logic stand, what the author “derived” is just alpha, not h.”

h and alpha are directly related. Alpha, the fine structure constant, is an empirical derived constant like h. When the referee states that the author just derived alpha=4Pi/12^3 then the consequence is that h is also derived!

This argumentation does not make any sense because the derivation of alpha=4Pi/12^3 implies the derivation of h.

The only legitimate argument the referee can make, and actually makes, is that the theoretical value of alpha or h deviates a factor 1.003458 from the empirical value. This very small deviation between empirical and theoretical value is, considering that physics accepted in the past deviations of 10%, an invalid argument in the perspective in history of science.

The real reason for rejection must be that the approach differs from the view of mainstream science. Rejection for that reason is unscientific. The rejection or acceptation for publication should only depend on scientific merits. I repeat: “the only argument of the referee to reject is that there is a deviation factor 1.003568”

Only a deviation of 0.003458 is the reason for the referee to reject an article that explains the mysteries of molecular QM! An open mind in life is preferred but in science an open mind is essential. The pursuit of the

“truth” is the utmost objective in science and should not be obstructed prejudice.

Are there possibilities to appeal against this unmotivated rejection? Please let me know.

From: “Solid State Communications” <sscom@elsevier.com>

Subject: Submission Confirmation for SSC-D-05-00513R1

*Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:44:36 -0000*

Ms. Ref. No.: SSC-D-05-00513R1

Title: The Theoretical Derivation of Planck’s constant

Solid State Communications

Dear Carel van der Togt,

Your revised * manuscript was received for reconsideration for publication in Solid State Communications.

You may check the status of your manuscript logging onto the Elsevier Editorial System as an Author at http://ees.elsevier.com/ssc/.

Kind regards,

Elsevier Editorial System

Solid State Communications

**Remark: Nothing was revised!*

*Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 13:33:27 +0100*

Dear Editor,

First I wish you the best for the year 2006.

I realize the manuscript “The Theoretical Derivation of Planck’s constant” is not a standard article. Although the article gives an explanation for some physical processes of molecular QM the impact on this science will be very limited. The article only provides a better “understanding” of physics behind the QM-math.

The reason why I’m so persistent to have an article published is that with the ether approach the physical process of nuclear fusion is possible very different than the perspective of that same process according to mainstream science. When the understanding of mainstream science, concerning nuclear fusion, is flawed false premises it is certainly not impossible that the thermal nuclear fusion approach mainstream science is, considering the possibility of ether, not the best or most efficient way to achieve nuclear fusion.

The expected shortage in due time of fossil and alternative energy sources make it relevant for society to develop as soon as possible alternative approaches for nuclear fusion. Developing a fusion reactor based on the ether perspectives is only possible when mainstream science acknowledges ether is unjustifiable denied. When mainstream science has not published an article concerning the possibility of ether it is impossible to acquire research money to develop a fusion reactor based on ether physics.

What physics and in particular molecular QM achieved is remarkable but that achievement does not exclude the possibility that omissions have occurred that obscure the physical interpretation of the nuclear fusion processes.

The manuscript “The Theoretical Derivation of Planck’s constant” was rejected again and again physics and science journals. On December 9th 2005 I received a rejection from your journal. I replied and since then the article’s Current Status is “With Editor”.

Maybe you understand that it is important for me to get an article published. I cannot send the manuscript to an other journal as long as it is under review with Solid State Communications. Therefore I ask you to make a decision as soon as possible. I prefer the publication to appear in your journal.

I understand it will be very difficult to publish a manuscript that contradicts findings of mainstream science. I wonder whether publication in the form of some kind of “special publication” is possible. In which case Solid State Communications does not acknowledge the article to be correct, but signals that science should address the possibilities the manuscript suggests.

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt

*Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:44:36 -0000*

Ms. Ref. No.: SSC-D-05-00513R1

Title: The Theoretical Derivation of Planck’s constant

Solid State Communications

Dear Carel van der Togt,

Reviewers’ comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it.

For your guidance, I append the reviewers’ comments below.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Yours sincerely,

Executive Editor

Solid State Communications

Reviewers’ comments:

It is possible to rewrite the principal result of this paper as

1/alpha = 12³ / (4* pi) = 137.5095

which puts the author in the same league as hosts of others (starting from Eddington) who tried to derive the value of alpha.

It would at least be more sensible to call it an attempt to derive alpha (which is in principle possible one day, but it will involve field theory) than an attempt to derive Planck’s constant.

There is no justification, no physics. It does not deserve publication in Solid State Communications.

Subject: Submission:SSC-D-05-00513R1

*Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:16:01 +0100*

Dear Editor,

Regarding the argumentation concerning the rejection of the referee (your email of January 6th 2006) I have the following comments:

1) Because the derivation of Planck’s constant h, and therefore alpha, deviates factor 1.003458 from the experimental derived values the referee argues that the manuscript is just numerology; “in the same league as Eddington”. He argues, “there is no justification, no physics. It does not deserve publication in Solid State Communications”. Apparently the referee does not know the difference between a theoretical derived formula and numerology.

2) This probably is so because Theoretical Physics is nowadays only applied math without any theoretical justification. It is really annoying that theoretical physicists themselves just apply mathology (=brainless use of math) and think they have found all the answers.

3) When an omission is discovered, where Theoretical Physics brutally violates the Energy Conservation Law, this violation is completely ignored. A correction is apparently not necessary because the math is “so good”. Every first year student in physics is reminded that the worst they can do is violate this most important physics law: the Energy Conservation Law. But Theoretical Physicists think they are allowed to brake this law when it suites them. They place themselves above the laws of science! Theoretical conclusions based on false premises stay therefore valid!

4) A scientist should have an open mind. A referee must have an open mind. This referee states “the derivation of alpha is in principle possible one day, but it will involve field theory”. Although the referee himself has no idea how to derive this value he already knows that it only will be possible when it involves field theory! So any derivation not involving the field theory must be invalid according to the referee! It is amazing that brainless mathematicians become referees and now determine what Physics is and what is not, and that editors allow them to reject articles only based on crap.

Do the editors and the editorial office realize that publication in their “scientific” journal nowadays is only subjective to the religion of referees. The influence of the editor has become absolutely minimal. Is that how nowadays science works? If so the editorial activities of science journals is nothing more than Monkey Business.

Your argumentation to reject the manuscript reflects complete incompetence regarding your responsibility and social function to guard the values of science. I shall put the correspondence with you on my website in the sub-chapter”Monkey Business” of the chapter Incompetent Science (www.paradox-paradigm.nl).

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt