### Variation of the fine structure constant

Dec. 11th, 2016 07:34 pm**anton_lipovka**

Dear colleagues and friends,

I regret to inform you that some scientific journals do not correspond to real needs of scientific community and humanity in general. Actually the system does not work properly. This situation is not acceptable in our complicate epoch because the cost of such unprofessional “work” will be very high for all of us.

I suggest to your kind attention the referee’s and editor response on my submission and my letters. Right now I do not mention the real names, but if all move the same manner, I will.

Brief history.

25 October of 2016 I submit my paper to journal XXX .

The paper can be downloaded from ArXiv here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.04593

Six weeks later, I got a response from the journal, supplied with reviewer comments.

__________Letter from Editor in chief received by 11-Dec-2016_________

XXX - Our decision on your Manuscript ID XXX-16-10-099

XXX <XXX>

Today, 1:32Anton Lipovka Kostko

11-Dec-2016

XXX

Editor in chief

Prof. XXX

Dear Prof. Lipovka:

The manuscript ID XXX-16-10-099 entitled "Variation of the fine structure constant" which you have submitted to the XXX, has been reviewed. The referee report is enclosed. In view of this report, we very much regret that we cannot publish your paper in "XXX".

Thank you for considering the XXX for the publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts.

Sincerely,

Prof. XXX

Editor in Chief, XXX

Note: If you wish to appeal against this decision, this can be done via your Corresponding Author Dashboard in Manuscript Central. Please note that the appeal procedure is not encouraged and an overturn of the original editorial decision happen very rarely. In their appeal the authors must give detailed reasons for why they believe the original editorial decision was unjustified, addressing explicitly the points raised by the referee(s) and/or the editor(s) in the rejection letter.

Associate Editor

Comments to the Author:

(There are no comments.)

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author (if there no comments below, please check the attachments):

Referee: 1

Comments to the Author

In this paper, the authors consider the variation of the fine structure constant due to the expansion of the universe. In particular, they argue that the bound estimated here is only a few times smaller than the actual observational bound.

Unfortunately, I do not think this paper is based upon correct arguments. Firstly, to incorporate the effect of a non-zero spacetime curvature or the Hubble expansion within a length scale of an atom of a few Angstrom, one must first take into account the other strong interaction forces. Secondly, on a laboratory on the earth or the Solar system, the Schwarzschild metric should be relevant instead of an FRW one. Thirdly in Eq. 1, which leads to the later numerical estimation, the authors take into account of the variation of the volume due to the universe's expansion, but they do not consider any variation of the energy density confined within that volume.

Putting these all in together, I do not think this manuscript should be recommended for publication in XXX.

Dear Prof. XXX

Editor in Chief, XXX

First of all, please accept my sincere assurances of deep respect to you and my best esteem. I would hope that the lapse with the reviewer will not affect our future relations.

I want to be understood correctly: I do not want scandals or problems; I am looking for the truth, the same scientific truth, which we all are looking for. In fact, to solve the problem announced in my submitted manuscripts I have spent my entire life. Moreover, this success was prepared also by my teachers. So I have no other way but to go to the end and I intend to get to the end that I would at any cost.

The correctness of the obtained results I can be sure, because I have calculated the Planck constant in three different ways (two of which are in my manuscripts XXX-16-10-099 and XXX-16-10-100 and one was published in JAMP by 2014). In addition, my colleague from the United States (Ryan Rankin) sent me this November the manuscript of his article (which will soon be announced) in which he suggests the fourth independent method to calculate the Planck constant from the geometry. I refer also to the recently announced an article in which, while not obtained the estimates made by me, but is planned the right way to obtain my result.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308078170_On_the_Fundamental_Origins_of_the_Dirac_Equation#publicationAddFeedbackContainer

All this allows me to say with confidence that there was a revolution in physics, and it is already impossible to stop it. Now we are talking about the priority and the timing of the recognition of the results. I have already done on this topic a number of seminars to colleagues and met a favorable understanding and approval of my results.

You can publish a work that (I'm sure) will get a huge impact. It is difficult to suppose that you do not understand what is at stake. Therefore, I kindly ask you to give an adequate consideration to the reviewer’s comments on both manuscripts, and to take urgent steps to repair the unfortunate misunderstanding.

I am looking forward to a long-term and fruitful cooperation with your journal.

Now consider the reviewer’s comments on the manuscript XXX-16-10-099. First of all, let me say a few general words about this opus.

Tell to truth I was disappointed with the quality reviewer's work. In my opinion the level of response of the reviewer does not corresponds to the level of the journal and harms its reputation as well as reputation of the XXX Publishing group. Moreover I do not understand why there were the only one reviewer’s comments available.

Within the 6 weeks the referee has write just 6 lines of baseless, unjustified text which actually contains only 3 observations, every of which is incorrect and clearly show misunderstanding of the manuscript by the referee. Again: only three arrogations (one per two weeks) were suggested to reject my paper.

Let’s consider all them step by step.

***********************************************************************************

My response to the referee’s comments.

1)

>>> Referee >>>Unfortunately, I do not think this paper is based upon correct arguments. Firstly, to incorporate the effect of a non-zero spacetime curvature or the Hubble expansion within a length scale of an atom of a few Angstrom, one must first take into account the other strong interaction forces.

__________My answer__________

On the one hand, other strong interaction forces are significant only at distances less than 10^(-13) cm. Remember that we speak in our paper about Angstroms = 10^(-8) cm, i.e. the difference is more than 5 orders of magnitude.

On the other hand the referee should take it in mind that all measurements of the variation of fine structure constant were made with electromagnetic field, without paying attention to any “strong interaction forces” (see references in my paper). The reason is the same I have mentioned before: weak and strong interactions manifest themselves within the scales which are 5 orders of magnitude smaller and disappear exponentially at the large scales. So it would be a little bit strange to consider them. Let me make here the work of the referee (realize his strange idea) and roughly evaluate this “strong interaction forces”. These forces are decaying exponentially on the distance, and their relative contribution should be estimated as proportional to exp(-100000). By taking into account the value we are interesting in consist da/a=10(-18) , it became clear absurdness of this referee’s comment. Besides that the correct value of the Planck constant calculated in our paper, directly argue on the correctness of our approach.

2)

>>> Referee >>>Secondly, on a laboratory on the earth or the Solar system, the Schwarzschild metric should be relevant instead of an FRW one.

__________My answer__________

If the reviewer read the manuscript more carefully, he would have seen that variation of the fine structure constant and existence of non-zero Planck constant is possible only in the case when the metric tensor is _changed_ (adiabatically) on time (see equations 3, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16). In the case of the Earth, the Schwarzschild metric is static and do not produce any significant effects.

Beside this the honored referee should remember first Solvay conference. At the conference, the pendulum problem with _adiabatically_ _changed_ thread has been considered and exact solution was obtained that an adiabatic invariant in this case is the product of ET (energy and period). In our case (when we consider variation of the electromagnetic field resonator due to variation of metric), this invariant becomes ET=h , that we successfully have shown in our paper.

3)

>>> Referee >>>Thirdly in Eq. 1, which leads to the later numerical estimation, the authors take into account of the variation of the volume due to the universe's expansion, but they do not consider any variation of the energy density confined within that volume.

__________My answer__________

It looks as if the reviewer did not read the article at all. Let me quote my manuscript to show this.

>>> Referee >>>Putting these all in together, I do not think this manuscript should be recommended for publication in XXX.

__________My answer__________

It is difficult to agree with the decision of the reviewer if he not only did not understand the manuscript, but even did not read it.

*********************************************************************************************

To conclude, I would like to stress that the scientific journals (by definition) established to conduct discussions, to discuss the results (often incorrect). The fact that the reviewers were unable to understand the article, argue for not only that the article should be urgently published for public discussion by the scientific community, but also point the fact that the manuscripts under discussion are at the crossroads of several branches of sciences, which hinders their understanding by narrow specialists and there needs a wide discussion. It should be emphasized as well that the unjustified censorship is unacceptable in science, because the censorship will have the direst consequences for science and for society as a whole.

I appreciate the XXX, so I do not doubt that you will find the professionals able to evaluate my work quickly and professionally. In any case, I am ready to discuss the manuscripts with them and explain the details by e-mail or Skype.

Sincerely yours,

Prof. Anton Lipovka

I regret to inform you that some scientific journals do not correspond to real needs of scientific community and humanity in general. Actually the system does not work properly. This situation is not acceptable in our complicate epoch because the cost of such unprofessional “work” will be very high for all of us.

I suggest to your kind attention the referee’s and editor response on my submission and my letters. Right now I do not mention the real names, but if all move the same manner, I will.

Brief history.

25 October of 2016 I submit my paper to journal XXX .

The paper can be downloaded from ArXiv here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.04593

Six weeks later, I got a response from the journal, supplied with reviewer comments.

__________Letter from Editor in chief received by 11-Dec-2016_________

XXX - Our decision on your Manuscript ID XXX-16-10-099

XXX <XXX>

Today, 1:32Anton Lipovka Kostko

11-Dec-2016

XXX

Editor in chief

Prof. XXX

Dear Prof. Lipovka:

The manuscript ID XXX-16-10-099 entitled "Variation of the fine structure constant" which you have submitted to the XXX, has been reviewed. The referee report is enclosed. In view of this report, we very much regret that we cannot publish your paper in "XXX".

Thank you for considering the XXX for the publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts.

Sincerely,

Prof. XXX

Editor in Chief, XXX

Note: If you wish to appeal against this decision, this can be done via your Corresponding Author Dashboard in Manuscript Central. Please note that the appeal procedure is not encouraged and an overturn of the original editorial decision happen very rarely. In their appeal the authors must give detailed reasons for why they believe the original editorial decision was unjustified, addressing explicitly the points raised by the referee(s) and/or the editor(s) in the rejection letter.

If you submit an appeal you have also the option to submit at the same time a revised version of your paper via your Corresponding Author Dashboard in Manuscript Central. If no appeal is received by the Editorial Office within two months after this letter has been issued, this file will be closed.

Associate Editor's Comments to Author:Associate Editor

Comments to the Author:

(There are no comments.)

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author (if there no comments below, please check the attachments):

Referee: 1

Comments to the Author

In this paper, the authors consider the variation of the fine structure constant due to the expansion of the universe. In particular, they argue that the bound estimated here is only a few times smaller than the actual observational bound.

Unfortunately, I do not think this paper is based upon correct arguments. Firstly, to incorporate the effect of a non-zero spacetime curvature or the Hubble expansion within a length scale of an atom of a few Angstrom, one must first take into account the other strong interaction forces. Secondly, on a laboratory on the earth or the Solar system, the Schwarzschild metric should be relevant instead of an FRW one. Thirdly in Eq. 1, which leads to the later numerical estimation, the authors take into account of the variation of the volume due to the universe's expansion, but they do not consider any variation of the energy density confined within that volume.

Putting these all in together, I do not think this manuscript should be recommended for publication in XXX.

__>>>>>>>>>>>>____My response dated by 11 December 2016<<<<<<<<<<<<<<__Dear Prof. XXX

Editor in Chief, XXX

First of all, please accept my sincere assurances of deep respect to you and my best esteem. I would hope that the lapse with the reviewer will not affect our future relations.

I want to be understood correctly: I do not want scandals or problems; I am looking for the truth, the same scientific truth, which we all are looking for. In fact, to solve the problem announced in my submitted manuscripts I have spent my entire life. Moreover, this success was prepared also by my teachers. So I have no other way but to go to the end and I intend to get to the end that I would at any cost.

The correctness of the obtained results I can be sure, because I have calculated the Planck constant in three different ways (two of which are in my manuscripts XXX-16-10-099 and XXX-16-10-100 and one was published in JAMP by 2014). In addition, my colleague from the United States (Ryan Rankin) sent me this November the manuscript of his article (which will soon be announced) in which he suggests the fourth independent method to calculate the Planck constant from the geometry. I refer also to the recently announced an article in which, while not obtained the estimates made by me, but is planned the right way to obtain my result.

https://www.researchgate.net/

All this allows me to say with confidence that there was a revolution in physics, and it is already impossible to stop it. Now we are talking about the priority and the timing of the recognition of the results. I have already done on this topic a number of seminars to colleagues and met a favorable understanding and approval of my results.

You can publish a work that (I'm sure) will get a huge impact. It is difficult to suppose that you do not understand what is at stake. Therefore, I kindly ask you to give an adequate consideration to the reviewer’s comments on both manuscripts, and to take urgent steps to repair the unfortunate misunderstanding.

I am looking forward to a long-term and fruitful cooperation with your journal.

Now consider the reviewer’s comments on the manuscript XXX-16-10-099. First of all, let me say a few general words about this opus.

Tell to truth I was disappointed with the quality reviewer's work. In my opinion the level of response of the reviewer does not corresponds to the level of the journal and harms its reputation as well as reputation of the XXX Publishing group. Moreover I do not understand why there were the only one reviewer’s comments available.

Within the 6 weeks the referee has write just 6 lines of baseless, unjustified text which actually contains only 3 observations, every of which is incorrect and clearly show misunderstanding of the manuscript by the referee. Again: only three arrogations (one per two weeks) were suggested to reject my paper.

Let’s consider all them step by step.

****************************************

My response to the referee’s comments.

1)

>>> Referee >>>Unfortunately, I do not think this paper is based upon correct arguments. Firstly, to incorporate the effect of a non-zero spacetime curvature or the Hubble expansion within a length scale of an atom of a few Angstrom, one must first take into account the other strong interaction forces.

__________My answer__________

On the one hand, other strong interaction forces are significant only at distances less than 10^(-13) cm. Remember that we speak in our paper about Angstroms = 10^(-8) cm, i.e. the difference is more than 5 orders of magnitude.

On the other hand the referee should take it in mind that all measurements of the variation of fine structure constant were made with electromagnetic field, without paying attention to any “strong interaction forces” (see references in my paper). The reason is the same I have mentioned before: weak and strong interactions manifest themselves within the scales which are 5 orders of magnitude smaller and disappear exponentially at the large scales. So it would be a little bit strange to consider them. Let me make here the work of the referee (realize his strange idea) and roughly evaluate this “strong interaction forces”. These forces are decaying exponentially on the distance, and their relative contribution should be estimated as proportional to exp(-100000). By taking into account the value we are interesting in consist da/a=10(-18) , it became clear absurdness of this referee’s comment. Besides that the correct value of the Planck constant calculated in our paper, directly argue on the correctness of our approach.

2)

>>> Referee >>>Secondly, on a laboratory on the earth or the Solar system, the Schwarzschild metric should be relevant instead of an FRW one.

__________My answer__________

If the reviewer read the manuscript more carefully, he would have seen that variation of the fine structure constant and existence of non-zero Planck constant is possible only in the case when the metric tensor is _changed_ (adiabatically) on time (see equations 3, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16). In the case of the Earth, the Schwarzschild metric is static and do not produce any significant effects.

Beside this the honored referee should remember first Solvay conference. At the conference, the pendulum problem with _adiabatically_ _changed_ thread has been considered and exact solution was obtained that an adiabatic invariant in this case is the product of ET (energy and period). In our case (when we consider variation of the electromagnetic field resonator due to variation of metric), this invariant becomes ET=h , that we successfully have shown in our paper.

3)

>>> Referee >>>Thirdly in Eq. 1, which leads to the later numerical estimation, the authors take into account of the variation of the volume due to the universe's expansion, but they do not consider any variation of the energy density confined within that volume.

__________My answer__________

It looks as if the reviewer did not read the article at all. Let me quote my manuscript to show this.

- Three lines before the equation (1) one can read clearly in our manuscript:

*“**of the classical ﬁeld and characterized by energy E distributed over volume V (we can put V = 1cm^3)**”*- The fact that we consider exactly the variation of energy _density_ is follow directly from the dimension of the equation (18). But beside this we note this fact clearly right before equation (18). One can read: “…by substituting δP obtained before into this expression we can write ﬁnally for energy in 1 cm^3 : (eqn.18)”

>>> Referee >>>Putting these all in together, I do not think this manuscript should be recommended for publication in XXX.

__________My answer__________

It is difficult to agree with the decision of the reviewer if he not only did not understand the manuscript, but even did not read it.

****************************************

To conclude, I would like to stress that the scientific journals (by definition) established to conduct discussions, to discuss the results (often incorrect). The fact that the reviewers were unable to understand the article, argue for not only that the article should be urgently published for public discussion by the scientific community, but also point the fact that the manuscripts under discussion are at the crossroads of several branches of sciences, which hinders their understanding by narrow specialists and there needs a wide discussion. It should be emphasized as well that the unjustified censorship is unacceptable in science, because the censorship will have the direst consequences for science and for society as a whole.

I appreciate the XXX, so I do not doubt that you will find the professionals able to evaluate my work quickly and professionally. In any case, I am ready to discuss the manuscripts with them and explain the details by e-mail or Skype.

Sincerely yours,

Prof. Anton Lipovka