Royal Society Rejection
We submitted two papers to the Royal Society for consideration. One paper detailed the calculations of the Unified Force Theory, the other paper presented our recently discovered Electron Binding Energy equation. Both papers were rejected by the Royal Society, not because of the theories presented, but because they did not present other theories and concepts the referees wanted to see.
In the first paper, the referee began, “This paper shows fundamental misunderstandings of the Standard Model.” The Aether Physics Model is a completely different paradigm from the Standard Model, and we clearly explained this in the cover letter with the paper. Yet, the referee immediately took a defensive stance for the Standard Model, rather than investigate the predictions of this newly presented alternative physics theory.
Although the first paper was about calculating a Unified Force Theory, the referee made absolutely no comment concerning the validity of the theory, whether apparent, actual, or otherwise.
The referee of the second paper at least looked over the equations, although it was clear that no time was spent trying to understand the underlying theory. Once again, the referee chose to rely on his or her understanding of the Standard Model. The referee clearly implies this by emphasizing “aether theory” and further implying he or she did not read the underlying paper, A New Foundation for Physics. It was rather disingenuous of the referee to state that the foundational paper had to be included in the Electron Binding Energy paper when it would have exceeded the allowable space, and the paper was available online per the references.
The correspondence from the Royal Society and our responses are reprinted below, in full, and unedited.
Dear Mr. Thomson
Paper title |
Calculations of the Unified Force Theory as Explained in the Aether Physics Model |
Authors |
Mr. David Thomson and Mr. Jim Bourassa |
New paper no |
06PA0446 |
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Proceedings A.
All manuscripts are assessed by a member of the Editorial Board, who advises the Editor on the suitability of the manuscript for Proceedings A. Based on this, the Editor decides whether the paper should be rejected or sent for full peer-review.
Unfortunately, your manuscript has been rejected at this stage. Competition for space is currently severe, and we receive many more papers than we are able to publish. On this occasion the Editor felt that your manuscript was unlikely to be able to compete successfully for a space in the journal.
If you have any queries concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Fiona Pring
Board member’s comments:
If one wishes to overturn modern physics, one should first understand the theories one is trying to overturn. This paper shows fundamental misunderstandings of the Standard Model. For example (these are two of many similar errors):
1. The definition of the fine structure constant has nothing to do with the relative strength of the electromagnetic and strong interactions. It is a purely electromagnetic constant; it was first studied in detail, as the name suggests, in the analysis of the fine structure of atomic spectra.
2. The actual strength of any interaction is not a number, but a function that depends at least on distance, and typically on many other details of what is interacting. The authors have apparently been confused by popular science oversimplifications that discuss “relative strengths” by taking typical distances and typical interacting particles.
More profoundly, though, the authors misunderstand the basic nature of physics. Physics is a quantitative science. This does not mean merely writing down a few numbers and calling them “strengths” or “charges.” It means — to pick a random example — computing the differential scattering cross section for the production of fermion-antifermion pairs from electron-positron scattering as a function of angle, beam polarization, center of mass energy, and left-right coupling constant asymmetry. The Standard Model can predict such results with exquisite accuracy; the authors’ model does not suggest how to even start to think about such problems.
I would suggest that the authors read — and learn enough to understand — for example, Matchev’s TASI Lectures on Precision Electroweak Physics (https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0402031). When their model is able to compete with the Standard Model results described there, they may be ready to have it taken seriously.
Our reply:
Dear Fiona,
Please forward this reply to the referee and record our objection along with our paper.
Referee:
If one wishes to overturn modern physics, one should first understand the theories one is trying to overturn.
Reply:
Our wish is not to overturn modern physics, but merely to discover the truth of existence. If we present a simpler and more useful view of the empirical data, then it is up to the “old school” to learn the new method. We have no obligation to apologize for the inadequacies of alternative views.
Referee:
- The definition of the fine structure constant has nothing to do with the relative strength of the electromagnetic and strong interactions. It is a purely electromagnetic constant; it was first studied in detail, as the name suggests, in the analysis of the fine structure of atomic spectra.
Reply:
The referee reflects an “old school” bias and illogical point of view regarding constants. The referee states the fine structure “is a purely electromagnetic constant,” as though it has no basis in physical reality and magically jumps out of the data. Logic would tell any reasonable scientist that atomic spectra did not cause the fine structure constant, rather the physical explanation of the fine structure constant must have created the physical observation of atomic spectra. Our papers correctly quantify the physical origin of the electron fine structure constant and predict the fine structures for the proton and neutron.
Further, the referee mischaracterized the presence of the fine structure constant as presented in our paper on the Unified Force Theory. We do not state the fine structure has anything to do with the relative strengths of the electromagnetic and strong interactions. In fact, it is the Standard Model, which makes this erroneous claim, as we clearly point out in the paper. If the referee would examine the tables of relative strengths, the referee would notice that Standard Model theorists give the fine structure as the relative strength of the electromagnetic and strong force interaction, not the authors of the Aether Physics Model.
Referee:
- The actual strength of any interaction is not a number, but a function that depends at least on distance, and typically on many other details of what is interacting. The authors have apparently been confused by popular science oversimplifications that discuss “relative strengths” by taking typical distances and typical interacting particles.
Reply:
The authors question whether the referee even read our paper. The authors provide force laws for the relative strengths of the forces, dependent upon distance. Further, the “relative strength” “numbers” is an invention of the Standard Model, which correctly bases upon the ratios of the forces. It is surprising the referee is not aware of such a simple fact.
Referee:
More profoundly, though, the authors misunderstand the basic nature of physics. Physics is a quantitative science. This does not mean merely writing down a few numbers and calling them “strengths” or “charges.” It means — to pick a random example — computing the differential scattering cross section for the production of fermion-antifermion pairs from electron- positron scattering as a function of angle, beam polarization, center of mass energy, and left-right coupling constant asymmetry. The Standard Model can predict such results with exquisite accuracy; the authors’ model does not suggest how to even start to think about such problems.
Reply:
It is grossly apparent this referee was not even interested in the contents of our paper. We did not present a theory about “differential scattering cross sections for the production of fermion-antifermion pairs from electron- positron scattering as a function of angle, beam polarization, center of mass energy, and left-right coupling constant asymmetry.” We presented a simple theory of unified forces, which completely negates the need for the unnecessarily complicated version of modern physics. Our theory bases upon the empirically derived force constants, which directly reveal the non-material structure of the Aether, which scientifically reveals as the true source of the forces. The referee is among the present majority of scientists who have incorrectly assumed that matter causes forces. Our theory shows it is the opposite; a primary force is the cause of matter. We have no obligation to prove, disprove, or understand an incorrect view regarding the epistemology of forces and matter contained within the Standard Model. Our only obligation is to provide a simple, quantifiable, physical model of quantum structure and mechanics, which induces from the empirical data.
Referee:
I would suggest that the authors read — and learn enough to understand — for example, Matchev’s TASI Lectures on Precision Electroweak Physics (https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0402031). When their model is able to compete with the Standard Model results described there, they may be ready to have it taken seriously.
Reply:
We thank the referee for his or her advice. Our advice to the referee, and to anybody seeking to critically analyze the Aether Physics Model is to actually study the Aether Physics Model, first. Trying to apply Standard Model concepts to a new paradigm based upon a different foundation is a critical error in judgment. It is like having an English language teacher grade a Chinese language test. The purpose of this paper was not to overthrow modern physics or completely explain every possible solution for the physical Universe. We provide this paper as a Unified Force Theory, properly unifying the forces through classical-physics-compatible and Newtonian-type force laws.
The referee is clearly incompetent and unwilling to understand the Aether Physics Model’s simple Unified Force Theory, as he or she demonstrates both a lack of understanding of the Standard Model and a lack of interest in the Aether Physics Model. We will highlight this incompetence on behalf of the Royal Society in our presentation of the Aether Physics Model, as we demonstrate the overall lack of interest and incompetence of the present scientific community in analyzing it.
The above referee then responded:
Dear Professor Thompson,
As requested I forwarded your comments to the assessor of your paper who wrote the following response. I am afriad we are unable to enter in to any further correspondence on this matters as our Board members are very busy assessing the new papers that come in each week.
Many thanks.
With best wishes,
Louise
A brief reply to what I take to be the central point:
The authors write:
> We did not present a theory about “differential scattering cross sections for the production of fermion-antifermion pairs from electron- positron scattering as a function of angle, beam polarization, center of mass energy, and left-right coupling constant asymmetry.” We presented a simple theory of unified forces, which completely negates the need for the unnecessarily complicated version of modern physics.
If one wishes to “negate” an existing theory that agrees with all known experiments and observations, one is obliged to show that one’s alternative does at least as good a job. The Standard Model of particle physics has correctly predicted the outcomes of tens of thousands of experiments, ranging from the (observed!) differential cross sections I mentioned to the lifetimes of elementary particles to the decay products, and their relative abundances, of unstable particles to the exact frequencies of light emitted during atomic transitions. An “alternative” that can do none of this — and does not, apparently, even attempt to — has not shown itself to be worth consideration.
Board member’s comments with regard to the Electon Binding Energy Equation:
This paper claims to derive the ground state binding energies of 1s electrons for all elements through Uranium, using an “aether physics” model that is not very clearly explained in the text. The empirical formula obtained by the authors fails rather badly for light elements, but gives a fairly good fit for heavy elements.
For heavy elements, however, a simple Taylor expansion in 1/Z shows that the authors’ equation (6.7) for electron energy reduces to (alpha Z)^2 m_ec^2/2, the Bohr formula for hydrogenic atoms, up to corrections of order 1/Z. It is therefore not surprising that an extra linear correction to account for the effects of the remaining electrons can be fitted to give a somewhat accurate match to observation. There is nothing very profound here — the authors have dressed up a standard expression in a complicated way, and then added terms that are very nearly equal to one for large values of Z.
The authors also seem too willing to settle for rather inaccurate results. For hydrogen, for example, equation (5.2) is an approximation that neglects both the mass of the nucleus and a series of fine structure corrections from quantum mechanics. Moreover, quantum mechanics can do much more than giving the 1s binding energies: it can be used to determine the excited states (with their fine and hyperfine structure), the response of binding energies to external electromagnetic fields, the lifetimes of excited states, the energies of electrons in materials (e.g., the band structures of metals), the pattern of electromagnetic radiation when an electron moves from one state to another, etc. It is true that the computations can be difficult for complex systems, but this is what one expects. Indeed, the results described in the present paper neglect any interaction among electrons in the atoms being considered, and cannot possibly be a complete description.
This paper should not be published.
My reply:
Dear Fiona,
Please return my comments to the referee and place them on record with this rejection.
Referee:
This paper claims to derive the ground state binding energies of 1s electrons for all elements through Uranium, using an “aether physics” model that is not very clearly explained in the text
Reply:
The referee admits he or she did not take the time to study the Aether Physics Model, which was referenced in the text to other published articles and a book. The Aether Physics Model is a completely new paradigm for physics, which is substantially different from the Standard Model. The purpose of this paper was to show that the Aether Physics Model can produce tangible results through a discrete quantum paradigm. The concept of a new quantum physics paradigm went completely over the referees head.
Referee:
For heavy elements, however, a simple Taylor expansion in 1/Z shows that the authors’ equation (6.7) for electron energy reduces to (alpha Z)^2 m_ec^2/2, the Bohr formula for hydrogenic atoms, up to corrections of order 1/Z. It is therefore not surprising that an extra linear correction to account for the effects of the remaining electrons can be fitted to give a somewhat accurate match to observation. There is nothing very profound here — the authors have dressed up a standard expression in a complicated way, and then added terms that are very nearly equal to one for large values of Z.
Reply:
The profundity of the paper presented was that it shows electron binding energies predict from a physical model of quantum structure, without the use of calculus. The so-called “complicated way” referred by the referee reflects his or her admitted ignorance in not studying the Aether Physics Model. The euphemistic “’simple’ Taylor expansion” referenced is not simple to children and young adults trying to comprehend the nature of quantum structure and mechanics. Sure, one can adapt the simple equations of the Aether Physics Model to the complex math of calculus, which has no connection to physical structures. The equation presented in this paper did not need to be viewed through the superfluous mathematical construct of the Taylor series. The purpose of this paper, again, is to reveal the practical use of a completely different and simpler quantum structural paradigm, which the referee chose to ignore.
Referee:
The authors also seem too willing to settle for rather inaccurate results. For hydrogen, for example, equation (5.2) is an approximation that neglects both the mass of the nucleus and a series of fine structure corrections from quantum mechanics.
Reply:
Again, the referee demonstrates his or her negligence in studying the underlying paradigm of this equation, which is essential to evaluating the overall usefulness of the equation and paradigm. If the referee had taken the time to study the new paradigm, he or she would have understood the logic for why equation 5.2 transformed to equation 5.3, which quantifies the hydrogen 1s binding energy in terms of the electron’s strong force. However, since the referee did not study the Aether Physics Model, the referee will have no comprehension of the electron strong force because it is not a concept accepted in the Standard Model.
Furthermore, the referee’s comment about the authors settling for “rather inaccurate results” is unfounded. The established value for the hydrogen 1s orbital binding energy presents to only one decimal point at 13.6eV. The calculated value given in the paper is 13.606eV. The calculated value according to the electron binding energy equation in the Aether Physics Model is spot on.
Referee:
Moreover, quantum mechanics can do much more than giving the 1s binding energies:
Reply:
The authors are well aware the Standard Model is presently capable of doing much more than the one equation presented in this paper. The purpose of this paper is not to solve all of the problems of modern physics, but to present a solid example for how this new paradigm can provide practical solutions based upon a physical interpretation of quantum structure and without having to resort to complicated math. Such an important discovery of an electron binding energy equation from a simpler, physical paradigm, involving far less complex math, indicates the imminent discovery of other simple solutions to quantum mechanics.
It is rather hypocritical of the Royal Society to publish an article on October 11, 2006 extolling its commitment to recruiting more children in the sciences, and then on October 12, 2006 reject the very theory that would make quantum science easier for children to comprehend. Although the referee clearly did not want to learn this new paradigm after years of learning a more complicated paradigm, many children would remain involved in the sciences if it based upon common sense, logic, and simple math. The fact that the Aether Physics Model is discrete, and therefore geometrically modeled, makes it far easier to teach than physics based upon abstract concepts of force particles, wave/particle duality, mass/energy conversion, probability functions, and other paradoxes and incomprehensible paradigms. It is not the children’s fault that they cannot understand science, it is the adult scientists fault for not being willing to investigate simpler paradigms.
It is a shame that such a prominent scientific body rejected the most important advancement in quantum physics, which greatly simplifies it to be compatible with classical physics. This can only provide a stain upon such a great reputation, since the authors will certainly highlight this rejection as the Aether Physics Model gains ground in the popular science communities.
Dave