Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 15:37:02 -0500
To: njp@...
From: "Dr. Randell L. Mills" <rmills@...>
Subject: Re: Final decision on your article from New J. Phys. -     NJP/202424/PAP/15989
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

Ref: NJP/202424/PAP/15989

Dear Dr Mills

TITLE:    Physical solutions of the nature of the atom, photon, and their
interactions to form excited and predicted hydrino states
AUTHORS:  Dr R L Mills

Your paper submitted to New Journal of Physics has now been considered by
the Editorial Board and the Board Member's report is attached.

I am sorry to tell you that the Board Member has recommended that your
paper should not be published in New Journal of Physics, for the reasons
given in the enclosed report. Your paper has therefore been withdrawn from
consideration.

I would like to thank you for your interest in New Journal of Physics.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Towell
Senior Publishing Administrator
New Journal of Physics
E-mail: njp@...
Fax:  +44 (0) 117 9200673


Article under review for New Journal of Physics
Physical solutions of the nature of the atom, photon, and their
interactions to form excited and predicted hydrino states - Dr R L Mills
ID: NJP/202424/PAP
BOARD MEMBER'S REPORT
============================
This submission is not a research paper in the usual form but rather a
monograph presenting a systematic disposition and a very large number of
results of the author's (controversial) theory of atomic physics. It is
clear
that the present manuscript is not appropriate for the New Journal of
Physics.
I quote the journal guidelines
" NJP Editors do encourage authors to be concise, and short, high-quality
articles are welcome. Articles should not normally be longer than 18000
words
(an A4 size journal page contains an average of 900 words)"

I understand the desire of the author to respond to the article ref 1. If
he
can prepare a succinct comment on it, this would be considered. I should
warn
the author that I would still require considerable persuasion that this
response would be publishable, but I would be prepared to send this to
specialist referees in the usual fashion and to be guided by their
comments.

        It is in the best interest of your journal to at the very least correct Rathke's obvious mathematical mistake of having the wrong sign in the classical wave equation at his Eq. (9).  He wrongly attributes this wave equation to me.  This is not the case as shown in reference 24 of Rathke which has the wave equation correct.  You should check this your self.  The classical wave equation is found in any general physics textbook.  It is an embarrassment that this was published with the understanding that the article was "peer reviewed".  This article has been the subject of three news articles to date and more are in progress.  The disinformation based on Rathke's mistake needs to be fixed.  It is unfairly damaging my reputation and that of my company.  I have information that indicates that this was intentional.

        The Rathke article also references a hack piece by Nature that falsely accuses us of suing scientists that disagree with us.  This is absolutely false.  We have never sued anyone.  In the past, we have only asked four scientists to stop falsely accusing us of a criminal act, namely defrauding investors of large sums of money.  We welcome professional criticism of our work.  We question the appropriateness of including the Nature reference to false criminal accusations.

        I also question your labeling my theory "controversial".  Is Maxwell's equations, Newton's laws, and special relativity "controversial?  Applying classical laws to atomic problems is only controversial to quantum theoreticians.  Moreover, it is only so to recent quantum theoreticians as the founders of quantum mechanics attempted to solve the atom physically and felt that ultimately it would be shown that the atom obeys physical laws.

        Classical physicists are recognizing my theory as a break through, that for the first time atomic problems can be broadly solved by directly testable physical laws, that classical physics is superior in its predictability to quantum mechanics, and many find the concepts of quantum mechanics hard to accept since they are in disagreement with physical laws and observations.  To be fair, I request that you send the revised paper that I will write to classical physicists who have the ability to understand physical laws and at least know the correct form of the classical wave equation and its solutions.

        We recognize that articles critical of new theories are a part of the scientific process, but only if they are correct.  It is the duty of the editors and their selected reviewers to insure such articles are at least mathematically sound.  As the Rathke article contains easily demonstrable errors of interpretation and BASIC MATHEMATICS, we can only assume that the standard review process failed in this case, leading to the publication of an article, that superficially appears to invalidate my theory, hence damaging my reputation and that of my company.  Are we exaggerating the potential damage?  No! Indeed, companies and the European Space Agency has disengaged with us as a consequence and reporters for various publications are coming to BLP, having read the paper in question, asking us to respond!  Under these circumstances, can we not agree that the editors should act quickly to undo the damage?  Specifically, we ask that i) the author of said paper, A. Rathke, be asked to publish a retraction, and ii.) that the review of my paper be FAIR.  I feel that the NJP should take a fair and professional approach.

Best Regards

Randy Mills

--