Frank, In regards to the rejection letter:
... > If Znidarsic were able to derive Planck's constant for real, > he would have a major fundamental result. However, no physicist > is going to agree with Znidarsic's argument for the connection > between the energy and frequency of a photon. A physicist wants > to see a physical argument that can be understood. Znidarsic has > not given an understandable physical argument. There are words > written down, and there are also some formulas. However, the > words written are not helpful in making a physical argument. > The formulas seem vaguely connected to the words. > > Based on what has been written, one wonders whether Znidarsic > understands the physical principles behind Maxwell's equations, > or the Schrodinger equation. Is Znidarsic familiar with Dirac's > quantization of Maxwell's equations, which derives the connection > between the photon energy and photon frequency using very good > physical arguments. Moreover, there are a great many experiments > that have been done which seem to strongly support Dirac's theory > for the quantized electromagnetic field. > > I cannot recommend for the publication of this paper. The author > seems not to understand how to motivate or present a physical > argument, he does not seem to be familiar with basic ideas that > appear in classic works on the problems he addresses, and the > ideas that he does put forth don't seem to make any sense. The first paragraphs strikes me as quite revealing. No wonder the physics establishment doesn't want to deal with your theory. To be honest I'm not in a position to judge the merits of your controversial theories. Nevertheless, I often tend to sympathize with the "minority report" POV, and as such, would like to see your views at least get equal time. It seems to me that your critics have potentially sowed the actual seeds of their eventual downfall. By that I mean you might want to focus on clarifying in subsequent papers what it is that your critics are "missing" in their review of your theories. Many of your critics seem to be insinuating the assumption you don't really understand certain fundamental laws of physics. At least that is what they are attempting to paint you as: Someone who is basically ignorant, eccentric, deluded, and as such, why should they give you and your zany ideas the time of day. At this point it is now up to you to state as clearly as you can that yes you DO clearly understand their concerns, that you DO understand the laws of physics as clearly they have stated them to be, and how the established theories differ from your theories AND WHY. Give your readers reasons as to why they might want to reconsider the rigidity of certain "fundamental" assumptions in physics in favor of pursuing your theories. Finally, are there experiments that can be performed to falsify the validity of your theories. Are there experiments that can be performed that clearly show why your theories might more accurately predict what Nature is doing as compared to what the prevailing theories predict Nature ought to be doing? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
