Journal of Mathematical Physics must change referee
khrap...@hotmail.com
the Electrodynamics' Spin Tensor" (www.sciprin.org
Inevitability_spin_khrapko_mar07.pdf) owing to a referee report (I can
send a pdf-copy of the report).
My reply is:
"Dear Bruno Nachtergaele:
The only objection of the referee is a presence of the magnetic vector
potential A in my result. However, I gave notice this paper conveys
new physics. The paper presents a series of theoretical and
experimental evidences that the magnetic vector potential A, as well
as the electric vector potential \Pi is really required for
consideration in classical electrodynamics. The referee can't face
these evidences. He shuts his eyes.
For that matter, the standard energy-momentum tensor, as well as the
canonical energy-momentum tensor and all energy momentum tensors in
Table 2, are obviously invalid if currents are present. Therefore they
are of no interest. And the Lagrange formalism, as well as the
Belinfante-Rosenfeld procedure, is incapable of deriving a true
electrodynamics energy-momentum tensor. Such a tensor, i.e. the
Maxwell tensor, cannot be obtained by the Lagrange formalism. The
coincidence of the standard energy-momentum tensor and the Maxwell
tensor in free space is of no importance.
However, the Belinfante-Rosenfeld procedure is not simply useless, it
is extremely harmful because it deprives electrodynamics of spin. We
modify the Belinfante-Rosenfeld procedure. Our procedure gives the
Maxwell tensor and the electrodynamics spin tensor, which are valid if
currents are present.
Some details
1. The referee claims that Y.N. Obukhov shows the Minkowski energy-
momentum tensor is exactly the canonical one if one takes the covector
A as basic variable and not its components. But it is a lie. There is
no word "canonical" in Y.N Obukhov et al. "Electrodynamics of moving
magnetoelectric media:variational approach," Phys.Lett.A371
(2007)11-19, arXiv:0708.1153, and in Y.N Obukhov "Electromagnetic
energy and momentum in moving media," arXiv:0808.1967.
And the referee's claim is a stupidity because a covector A is the
same thing as the totality of its components. Any covector is an
exterior differential 1-form and is a geometrical quantity. Any
covector is depicted by a double plane element or by a multi-plane
element (see J. A. Schouten, Tensor Analysis for Physicists
(Clarendon, Oxford, 1951), J. Napolitano and R. Lichtenstein “Answer
to Question #55 Are the pictorial examples that distinguish covariant
and contravariant vectors?” American J. Physics 65 1037 (1997)). One
can specify a covector only by giving its components. The replacement
of components by one character changes nothing. The statement that the
Minkowski tensor is the canonical one is pathology.
2. The referee wrote,
"The author’s claim that the symmetry of the Minkowski energy-momentum
tensor contradicts experiment is invalid."
I can only exclaim, "Horsefeathers!" I show in detail that the
canonical energy-momentum tensor, which is NONSYMMETRIC, contradicts
experiment. I show that only the symmetric Maxwell-Minkowski tensor is
true electrodynamics energy-momentum tensor, but it cannot be obtained
by the Lagrange formalism. And I show that the Belinfante-Rosenfeld
procedure is not simply useless, but is extremely harmful because it
deprives electrodynamics of spin. I modify the Belinfante-Rosenfeld
procedure. My procedure gives the Maxwell tensor and an
electrodynamics spin tensor, which are valid if currents are present.
3. An idea about a spin tensor of massive matter is well known (see
F.W. Hehl "On the energy tensor of spinning massive matter in
classical field theory and general relativity" Reports on Mathematical
Physics 9 55 (1975), F.W.Hehl, P. Heyde, and G.D. Kerlick "General
relativity with spin and torsion: foundation and prospects" Rev. Mod.
Phys. 48 393(1976)). However, there were no announcements about an
electrodynamics spin tensor. And this fact is very strange because
electromagnetic waves obviously have spin.
By the way, the referee referred to the Hehl’s paper. But he omitted
the word "massive." His reference is: "F.W. Hehl, On the energy tensor
of spinning matter …, Reports on Math. Phys. 9 (1976) 55-82."
This is not honest.
Suggestion to the Editor
I think you must change the referee.
Radi Khrapko
khrap...@hotmail.com
Unfortunately, Bruno Nachtergaele, Editor JMP is on the referee side.
He answer to me:
"Dear Professor Khrapko, We regret to inform you that your request to
appeal the decision on the manuscript #08-578 has been declined. The
new physics claims in the paper would be better suited for a journal
focused on the foundations of physics."
I sent a letter to JMP:
Dear Bruno Nachtergaele,
As is well known, according to the policy of the American Physical
Society, a strict criterion for acceptance in Physical Review is that
manuscripts must convey new physics. To demonstrate this fact,
existing work on the subject must be briefly reviewed, and the
author(s) must indicate in what way existing theory is insufficient to
solve certain specific problems, then it must be shown how the
proposed new theory resolves the difficulty.
My paper does satisfy these requirements.
As I write in Conclusions, Notes and Acknowledgements, this paper
conveys new physics. We review existing works concerning
electrodynamics spin and indicate that existing theory is insufficient
to solve spin problems because spin tensor of the modern
electrodynamics is zero. Then we show how to resolve the difficulty by
introducing a true electrodynamics spin tensor.
Are you sure the AIP policy is differ from the APS policy?
Please let me know, do you really avoid new physics?
Radi Khrapko