Science, speculation and open letter to PRL

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

From: Robert Oldershaw
Sent: Thu 7/23/2009 12:10 PM
To: p...@aps.org
Cc: p...@ridge.aps.org
Subject: LG12414 Oldershaw vs Bauswein et al "Strangelets"

Re: LG12414
Discrete Scale Relativity and SX Phoenicis Variable Stars
by Robert L. Oldershaw

Stanley G. Brown
Editor, Physical Review Letters
Email: p...@ridge.aps.org

Greetings Dr. Brown,

I have received your email of 7/21/09 informing me that my paper on
SX
Phoenicis stars/excited Boron atoms was not suitable for publication
in Physics Review Letters.

In order to clarify for me the criteria by which PRL decides that a
paper is/is not suitable for publication, I would like you to comment
on the comparative suitability of my paper [ http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.3525.pdf
] and that of a recently published paper [ http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0812/0812.4248v2.pdf
], PRL, 103, 011101 (2009), entitled "Mass Ejection by Strange Star
Mergers..." by Bauswein et al.

I am going to request similar comments from the members of the PRL
Editorial Board, so as to explore possibly different views on the
criteria for acceptance at PRL and, more generally, on the
definitions
of science and untestable speculation.

The Strange Stars/Strangelets paper [ http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0812/0812.4248v2.pdf
]

It appears to me that this paper discusses hypothetical "strange
stars" composed of hypothetical "strange quark matter", and
hypothesizes that the "strange stars" are sufficiently abundant such
that there are hypothetical "collision events" between them, which
hypothetically lead to the "ejection of strangelets". The paper goes
on to argue that the hypothetical "pollution" of the Galaxy with
"strangelets" might hypothetically convert neutron stars into
"strange
stars", and therefore the unambiguous observation of a neutron star
would hypothetically refute the "strange star" tower of hypotheses.
However, the paper then goes on to argue that this putative "test" of
the "strange star" tower of hypotheses is invalid, and thus one
cannot
apparently test the tower of hypotheses in any definitive way. In
fact, virtually the entire paper exists outside of the bounds of
testable science; it appears to be pure speculation without much in
the way of motivation.

Discrete Scale Relativity/SX Phoenicis Stars paper [
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.3525.pdf ]

In my paper I discuss two very well-known and well-observed classes
of
actual physical objects: SX Phoenicis stars and excited Boron atoms.
The physical characteristics of these actual systems have been
observed and experimentally quantified. In my paper I show that
these
two classes of systems appear to be related by a discrete self-
similar
scaling of their masses, pulsation modes and pulsation frequencies.
The predicted discrete self-similar scaling laws were published
repeatedly in the 1980s in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The
fundamental theory tested empirically in this paper, Discrete Scale
Relativity, has been under development for over 3 decades and is the
subject of many peer-reviewed publications between 1978 and the
present. In my paper, five empirical tests of the predicted discrete
self-similar scaling laws are vindicated at the <~99%> level. The
obvious definitive prediction of the paper, which is self-evident but
can be pointed out for those needing assistance, is that the same
methods can be applied to any high-amplitude SX Phoenicis stars whose
mass is known to beter than 5%. The frequency spectra for SX
Phoenicis stars with masses of 1.45 (+/- 0.07) solar masses and the
frequency spectra for excited Boron atoms undergoing radial Rydberg
transitions in the n=6 to n=2 range are predicted to match up
uniquely
and quantitatively. The implications are highly motivational.

Can you please explain to me, in terms of science in general, and the
scientific method in particular, why the pure speculation of the
"Strange Stars" paper is publishable in PRL, but my quantitative
scientific testing of Discrete Scale Relativity's published discrete
self-similar scaling laws is not?

Looking forward to your thoughtful and perceptive comments,

Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw