JREF : Fraudulent peer-review process of the journal Foundations of Physics

Published by Springer,
the journal
Foundations of Physics – FOOP
has a fraudulent peer-review process of publication,
as easily one infers from the sequence
of facts exposed ahead.

After the submission of “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”, the paper was sent to two reviewers. Both they have rejected it, and the Editorial Board sent an email to me, with the two Reports.

But with another paper, “Standard l=h/p in Schrödinger’s equation replaced by l=h/(p-Dp)”, the Editorial Board has adopted a different procedure. It was submitted to FOOP in 15 Sep 2020, and in 17 Nov 2020 the status was “Reviews Completed”, as seen in the Figure 1. Therefore, the paper was sent to two reviewers, and both them approved the publication. After all, the review is completed when the two reviewers send back their Report to the journal. However, the Editorial Board did not send any email to me, showing any Report.

The missing in sendig any Report to the author has seemed very strange. And while the time was running, more strange has seemed the missing of any communication by the Editorial Board. As consequence, I started to suspect that the members of the Editorial Board were trying some sort of strategy, with the aim to reject the paper. Perhaps they were trying to convince the two reviewers to change their Reports. That suspicion inspired me to write more three papers, with the aim to reinforce the math results of the paper with status “Reviews Completed”.

In those three new papers – which were submitted to FOOP – was applied a new math procedure, different of the math used in “Standard l=h/p in Schrödinger’s equation replaced by l=h/(p-Dp)”. In the new procedure, the energy levels – in hydrogen, helium, and lithium atoms – were calculated through the de Broglie-Einstein equation E = h²/2ml², applied together with the equation of the potential energy due to the density of the anisotropic space inside those three atoms. The values achieved are very close to the experimental. Therefore, such successful result – from which is connected the equation E = h²/2ml² to the density of the space inside hydrogen, helium, and lithium – is an inquestionable math result that proves to be correct my new interpretation of quantum mechanics. And by consequence that triple irrefutable math confirmation would have to convince the Editorial Board of FOOP, as also the reviewers.

The three papers, with their Abstratcs, are:

1- Energy levels of hydrogen atom calculated through the potential energy of space’s density.

Abstract

Here are calculated the levels of the hydrogen atom with a new math procedure, from the model of electron’s motion through helical trajectory (Zitterbewegung). From this new procedure of calculation one easily perceives how the electron’s wavelength in the hydrogen atom is connected to the equation E = h²/2ml², derived from postulates proposed by de Broglie and Einstein. Matter exhibits wave-like behavior as consequence of such connection, manifested in all particles, and induced the quantum theorists to develop the quantum mechanics in the way they did.

2- Calculation of energy levels in Zitterbewegung model of helium atom

Abstract

In paper [1] are calculated the energy levels of hydrogen atom, by considering the density of the anisotropic space around the proton. The same procedure is successfully applied here to the helium atom.In the end of the paper are analyzed two unsolved puzzles in the realm of quantum mechanics, because according to empirical data, the radii of hydrogen and helium atoms are totally at odds with those calculated through quantum mechanics. The empirical radius of hydrogen atom is half of that calculated through quantum mechanics, and helium’s radius is 4,6 times larger than calculated through the theory.

3- Calculation of energy levels in Zitterbewegung model of lithium atom

Abstract

Through de Broglie-Einstein equation E= h²/2ml², applied to the Zitterbewegung model of hydrogen atom, in paper [1] are calculated the energy levels of hydrogen atom, by considering the density of the anisotropic space around the proton. The same procedure issuccessfully appliedto the helium atom in [2]. Here the procedure is applied successfully for the calculation of the energy levels of lithium atom.

Surprisingly, in a decision – completely disagree
to what anybody may expect of the respect of a physicist to math,
when he faces math calculations – the Editorial Board rejected
the first paper, with the Report ahead,
by the Mannaging Editor Fedde Benedictus.

=======O=======O=======O=REPORT=O=======O=======O= ======

Dear Dr. Guglinski,

We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript FOOP-D-20-00735 "Energy levels of hydrogen atom calculated through the potential energy of space’s density".

With regret, I must inform you that, based on the advice received, the Editors have decided that your manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in Foundations of Physics.

Below, please find the comments for your perusal.

********

I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration.

With kind regards,

Fedde Benedictus

Managing Editor

Foundations of Physics

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:

__

********

**Our flexible approach during the COVID-19 pandemic**

If you need more time at any stage of the peer-review process, please do let us know. While our systems will continue to remind you of the original timelines, we aim to be as flexible as possible during the current pandemic.

=======O=======O=======O==END==O=======O=======O== =====

The other two papers were rejected by Fedde Benedictus with the same sort of Report: without any comment, despite he says “Below, please find the comments for your perusal”, which cannot have any other meaning than an intention to mock the author's attempt to publish the article in the Foundations of Physics.

The third paper was submitted in 03 Jan 2021, and rejected by Fedde Benedictus two days after, in 05 Jan 2021. Making clear that the Editorial Board even did not read the paper. This shows the respect that the Editorial Board of the journal Foundations of Physics devotes to the mathematics.

Then the question is: Why, along three months, the Editorial Board did not send to the author any comment about the result of the peer-review process, whose status Reviews Completed was completed in 17 Nov 2020?

There are two alternatives to be considered:

1- Alternative one - Would the Editorial Board be trying to convince the reviewers to change their Reports, and reject the paper?

2- Alternative two - Or would the Editorial Board be sending the paper to several other reviewers, with the aim to find one who would reject the paper?

The alternative two was chosen by the Editorial Board. They sent the paper to a “third” reviewer, which means that they mocked the peer-review process, because instead to write “Reviewer #3”, they wrote “Reviewer #2”, although the real Reviewer #2 already had sent his Report three months ago, suggesting the publication of the paper. So, finally, in 10 Feb 2021, the Editorial Board sent the Report of the Third Reviewer, whose most important argument is the following:

======O=======O=======O==REPORT==O=======O=======O ======

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #2: Review of Manuscript Number: FOOP-D-20-00574

Full Title: Standard l=h/p in Schrödinger's equation replaced by l=h/(p-Dp)

by Wladimir Guglinski

In the present paper, the author aims at demonstrating that the de Broglie postulate should be modified by a linear term in the variation of the momentum which he gives in the equation (3) in the case of the electron in the hydrogen atom.

The author's main argument is that due to the Zitterbewegung, the electron gains an extra amount of momentum which he calls it $\pm \delta p$ according to its movement away or towards the nucleus and that amount should be added to the denominator of the right hand side of the de Broglie relation $\lambda = \frac{h}{p}$.

I have the following objections to the statements from the paper that lead to the equation (3).

1) First of all, the whole treatement of the hydrogen atom is in the framework of the "old quantum theory" (or close to it). The author gives heuristic classical constructs of the hydrogen atom in terms of trajectories and point-like particles and even that in the formalism of Newtonian Mechanics. Since many formulations and results fromt the old quantum theory are wrong and since we now have the precise description of the hydrogen atom in the Quantum Mechanics, I suggest the treatment of any topic related to the hydrogen atom, and for that matter, all atoms, in the framework of the modern Quantum Mechanics as given in the classical textbooks, e. g.

C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu and F. Laloë, Quantum Mechanics, Wiley (1991).

=======O=======O=======O==END==O=======O=======O== =====

Let us analyze the argument of the Reviewer.

1- He claims that “…many formulations and results fromt the old quantum theory are wrong”.

2- Then, obviously, Quantum Mechanics was developed with the aim to improve the old wrong quantum theory.

3- And he claims that “…since we now have the precise description of the hydrogen atom in the Quantum Mechanics, I suggest the treatment of any topic related to the hydrogen atom, and for that matter, all atoms, in the framework of the modern Quantum Mechanics as given in the classical textbooks...”.

However, modern Quantum Mechanics has an heritage from the old quantum theory: in both them the space is considered isotropic inside the hydrogen atom (and also all atoms). But suppose that the space inside the atoms existing in nature is anisotropic (non-Euclidian). Is there a chance for Quantum Mechanics be correct?

Of course the answer is NO. Undoubtle there is no chance that Quantum Mechanics – “as given in the classical textbooks” – can be correct if the space inside the atoms is anisotropic.

Then what is the meaning of the treatment of any topic related to the hydrogen atom, in the framework of the modern Quantum Mechanics as given in the classical textbooks?

The meaning is that:

i) Being ANISOTROPIC the space inside the atoms existing in nature...

ii) ...the unique way to conciliate the old quantum theory with the behavior of the atoms existing in nature – by KEEPING THE OLD IDEA that the space inside atoms is ISOTROPIC – would be via mathematical treatment, as is made in modern Quantum Mechanics.

Therefore:

1- Instead to incorporate in the modern Quantum Mechanics the PHYSICAL cause responsible for the incompatibility – between the old quantum theory and the structure of the atom existing in nature – being the incompatibility caused by the anisotropy of the space inside atoms...

2- ...in modern Quantum Mechanics the cause of the incompatibility was solved via mathematical treatment.

Well, the three papers submitted to Foundations of Physics (where the equation of potential energy of the anisotropic space works in partnership with the de Broglie-Einstein equation E= h²/2ml²) promote the conciliation between the old quantum theory and the behavior of the atoms existing in nature, through a PHYSICAL mechanism – the anisotropic space. And the successful calculation of the energy levels in hydrogen, helium, and lithium atoms, proves mathematically that such a model is correct.

But Fedde Benedictus, together with the Editorial Board of FOOP, instead to send the three papers to the Third Reviewer, in order to show him the alternative new treatment given for the improvement of the old quantum theory – by the adoption of the physical mechanism due to the anisotripic space inside the atoms, different of the treatment used currently in modern Quantum Mechanics – they rascally hid from the Third Reviewer this new proposal – a proposal that makes the old quantum theory compatible with the structure of existing atoms in nature, without the need for the mathematical juggling introduced in modern quantum mechanics, as we see in classical textbooks. The nature operates by physical mechanisms. She does not operates through math. If a physical mechanism existing in nature is missing in a theory, there is need to create some special math tools, with the aim to adapt the theory to the reality, as the quantum theorists did in the modern quantum mechanics.

And finally, the question that deserves an answer: what is the aim of the peer-review process? Is to hide informations from the reviewers, so that to induce them to reject papers strongly supported by math?

If this is the aim of the peer-review process, then the members of the Editorial Board of the journal Foundations of Physics are religiously following the peer-review criterium.

And it’s easy to understand why this fraudulent criterion is adopted in FOOP. After all, Springer publishes and solds classical texbooks. And the Editor-in-Chief, Carlo Rovelli, cannot spit in the dish he eats, by approving papers that demonstrate mathematically that some textbooks published by Springer are wrong.

Fig 1. Status “Reviews Completed” in 17 Nov 2020, of the paper “Standard l=h/p in Schrödinger’s equation replaced by l=h/(p-Dp)”.

Attached Images