PHYSICS TODAY AND NATURE OBLIGE THE NOBLE

For context and background of the following correspondence, please visit:

LETTER TO PHYSICS TODAY

Subj: De
Date: 10/28/99
To: ptletter@aip.org

28 October 1999

The Editor,
PHYSICS TODAY

SUBJECT: THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF A SCIENTIFIC IDEA

Dear Madam:

For many years I have been attempting to develop certain unexplored areas of the Electromagnetic Theory. This effort, stemming from my trying to understand the roots of ideation underlying the discoveries of my teacher Hannes Alfven [1] - has led to a series of papers in a logical sequence, each reporting a new result [2-6]. However, the publication of these papers has been strongly resisted - the level of difficulty increasing with each successive paper. Strangely though, upon publication, each paper has remained unrefuted in the open literature.

Of particular interest here is the last paper [6] - showing that a static magnetic field in empty space even far away from its source has (or is) a colocated gravitational mass. This result could have been taken into consideration in many ongoing areas of research (e.g. in astrophysics, cosmology, string theory). I am not aware of a single mention of this paper anywhere. The review comments seeking to reject this paper ranged from the comment that the result is wrong to that the result is well known.

This brings me to the final paper (manuscript) in the series. It shows that Maxwell's time-independent equations admit of a closed solution representing sourceless static magnetic field structures in empty space. (A thoughtful pause may show that this is not as ridiculous as it sounds). I derived this structure, and presented the analytical expressions. I then combined this result with that of the previous paragraph to propose a new conceptual particle: One made of empty space (i.e. magnetic field) but having a mass.

The paper has been solidly rejected by journals of the APS (Ms. nos. LF6760, DRR632, DRR632ER), the IOP (A/91725/PAP), IOP/Deutsche Physikalische Geselschaft (NJP/102440/PAP), the Royal Society (99PA110), the IEEE (IM-98-46), the Astrophysical Journal (36832), Astrophysics & Space Science (ASTR314), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (970710.1), the Journal of Mathematical Physics (8-474), Nuclear Physics B (NUCPHB 7923) and Modern Physics Letters A (no ms. no.). One can conclude by induction that the result has been rejected by the scientific community as a whole. In many cases, the entire appeal procedure was used. I begged the editors to simply let the matter be debated in the open literature. All to no avail. The more generous comments said that the reviewer was not convinced or was skeptical. The technical review comments were mostly authoritative assertions. In a couple of instances, the paper was dismissed as not "appropriate".

They simply will not let me publish this result. Yet, it is clear from the astounding variety of contradictory review opinions (on exactly the same subject) that had the paper been published, no one would come forward to refute it. Stated differently, if all the expert comments were published together, they would dumbfound a student of EM Theory.

Is someone out there that can assure me that I have not somehow entered the Twilight Zone or crossed the Rashomon Gate?

Sincerely yours,

Bibhas R. De

References
[1] B. R. De, in Plasma and the Universe, C.-G. Falthammar et al, editors (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht-Holland, 1988), p.99.
[2] B. R. De, Phys. Fluids 22(1) (1979), 189.
[3] B. R. De, J. Phys. A 26 (1994), 7583.
[4] B. R. De, J. Phys. A 27 (1994), L431.
[5] B. R. De, J. Phys. D 27 (1994), 2448.
[6] B. R. De, Astrophys. Space Sci. 239 (1996),

PHYSICS TODAY Editor Gloria Lubkin

RESPONSE FROM PHYSICS TODAY

Subj: Re: De
Date: 12/8/99 5:17:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: pelliot@aip.org (Paul Elliott (Paul Elliot))
To: BibhasDe@aol.com

Dear Dr. De:

We have reviewed your letter carefully, but have finally decided that we should not accept it for publication. As is our custom in such cases, I am not in a position to provide you with details on how we reached our decision.

Thank you for your interest in "Physics Today."

Sincerely,

Paul Elliott

LETTER TO NATURE

Subj: THE EXCOMMIUNICATION OF AN IDEA
Date: 12/9/99
To: Corres@Nature.com
CC: pelliott@aip.org

CORRESPONDENCE

9 December 1999

The Correspondence Editor,
NATURE
Corres@Nature.com

SUBJECT: THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF AN IDEA

Dear Sir:

Electromagnetic (EM) Theory is one area of physics where certain fundamental issues have not yet been settled [1]. For many years I am exploring a few such issues as I am trying to trace the roots of ideation beneath the discoveries of my teacher Hannes Alfven [2]. This effort has led to a series of papers, each reporting a new result, and guiding logically on to the next result [3-8]. The publication of these papers has been opposed - the level of resistance increasing with each successive paper. Strangely though, upon publication, each paper stands unquestioned in the open literature. This opposing-in-private/keeping-silent-in-public type of vigilance is curious. The last published paper [8] shows that a static magnetic field in empty space has (or is) a colocated gravitational mass. I explained there how the result goes beyond the definition of Einstein's mass-energy relation, without contravening the latter. This result could have been taken under consideration in many active areas of research (gravitation, astrophysics, cosmology, unified field theory, the ultimate nature of mass and matter, etc). The publication of this paper was opposed variously on grounds that (i) the result is incorrect, and (ii) the result is already well established.

The preceding result suggested to me that Maxwell's equations must somehow admit of a solution representing static magnetic field structures of finite extent in empty space without any sources. Such "sourceless" structures have so far been considered forbidden. In the latest paper, I derived this structure, and explained why it is not forbidden. I described it as the static counterpart of EM waves - the structure and the wave being the twin, coequal consequences of Maxwell's equations. This ascribes to magnetic field a far broader meaning than it has at present. If correct, the structure may have unforeseen consequences for future science and technology. In the later versions of the manuscript, I combined this structure with the result of the previous paragraph to propose a new conceptual particle: One made entirely of empty space (i.e., static magnetic field) but having a mass.

The manuscript has been rejected by journals of the American Physical Society, the Institute of Physics, IOP/Deutsche Physikalische Geselschaft, the Royal Society, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers; and by Astrophysical Journal, Astrophysics & Space Science, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Journal of Mathematical Physics, Nuclear Physics B, and Modern Physics Letters A. By inductive logic, the idea has been rejected by the entire EM Theory community (today, largely, the plasma theory community). I begged the editors to simply let this paper be debated in the literature. In many cases, the entire appeal procedure was invoked. Thus, there has been no lack of due diligence on my part. The rejections have been made upon due deliberation - representing full deployment of the journals' scientific capacity and/or editorial acumen.

The review responses can be classed as follows: (a) ones that avoid saying that the paper is incorrect, (b) ones that say that the paper is incorrect, and (c) ones that say nothing. The category (a) reviews say that the reviewer is not convinced, or is skeptical, or that the derivation is "not a priori justified." The category (b) reviews contradict one another on fundamentals of physics. Thus, if a proposition X = A is countered variously by propositions X = B, X = C, X = D etc., one of two conclusions can be reached: (1) X = A is wrong because X = B, and the remainder of the "authoritative" reviews are not competent; and (2) X = A has not been disproved. In either case, the matter would be of interest to the scientific community at large. In category (c) where the submissions were well within the journals' coverage definition, the paper was returned without scientific evaluation. In desperation, I sent emails to a number of key physicists, hoping to enlist their good offices towards a knowledgeable evaluation. No one responded. I finally submitted the whole story as a Letter (similar to this one) to PHYSICS TODAY. The journals named needed only to provide publicly the same response (e.g., "We stand by our decision.") that they gave me private. This would have comported fully with the principles of scientific honesty, openness, and accountability. The matter could then be heard by the physics community who would find in favor of the truth. What is wrong with this? You (Nature) have published wrong papers and regretted in print; you have rejected correct papers, and repented in print. However, PT has considered the matter carefully, and then rejected the Letter without giving any reason [9]. The editors of PT therefore have affixed their imprimatur on the excommunication, making it very complete. Having thus perseveringly exhausted all possibilities of a hearing within the physics community, I have brought this story of one man's desperation to Nature.

Sincerely yours,

Bibhas R. De

COURTESY COPY:
Dr. Paul Elliott, Letters Editor, PHYSICS TODAY

References
[1] I. Brevik, Phys. Reports 52 (1976), 133.
[2] B. R. De, in Plasma and the Universe, C.-G. Falthammar et al. editors (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht-Holland, 1988), p. 99.
[3] B. R., De, Phys. Fluids 22(1) (1979), 189.
[4] B. R., De, Phys. Fluids 23(2) (1980), 408.
[5] B. R., De, J. Phys. A 26 (1994), 7583.
[6] B. R., De, J. Phys. A 27 (1994), L 431.
[7] B. R., De, J. Phys. D 27 (1994), 2448.
[8] B. R., De, Astrophys. Space Sci. 239 (1996), 25.
[9] P. Elliott, personal communication (1999).

Leslie Sage

RESPONSE FROM NATURE

Subj: your inquiry to Nature
Date: 12/13/1999 11:21:24 AM EST
From: l.sage@naturedc.com (Sage, Leslie)
To: BibhasDe@aol.com ('BibhasDe@aol.com')
CC: pelliot@aip.org ('pelliot@aip.org')

Dear Mr De,

I am afraid that you will have to add Nature to your category "c", as we do not find the correspondence suitable for publication in Nature. I regret we can enter into no further correspondence on this matter.

Sincerely,

Dr Leslie J Sage
Senior Editor
Nature