I sent the text "Electrodynamics' spin tensor is a test of
professionalism and honesty" and my paper "Inevitability of the
electrodynamics' spin tensor" to 19 journals. But I have received only
one response:
Dear Dr Khrapko, Thank you for your recent email regarding
"Inevitability of the electrodynamics", however we believe this work
to be highly specialised and not of sufficiently broad interest to be
appeal to NJP's wide reader****p.We therefore recommend that you
continue to publish work on this topic with J. Mod. Phys. Yours
sincerely Jack Yuille Publi****ng Administrator New Journal of Physics
My answer is:
Oh, dear Jack Yuille Publi****ng Administrator:
Many thanks. Now it is clear NJP's wide reader****p did not read
textbooks by W. Heitler, F. Rohrlich, D. E. Soper, J. D. Jackson, L.
H. Ryder, etc. So, they are not interested to know that the standard
Lagrange formalism does not give the Maxwell energy-momentum tensor,
but gives, instead, the false impression that an electrodynamics' spin
tensor equals zero! They do not want to know that a series of
theoretical and experimental works by Loudon, Bishop, Nieminen,
Heckenberg, Rubinsztein-Dunlop, Simpson, Dholakia, Allen, Padgett,
Parkin, Knoner, Garces-Chavez, McGloin, Dultz, Schmitzer, O'Neil, and
MacVicar confirms reality of the spin tensor and proves, in
particular, that a circularly polarized light beam with plane phase
front carries an angular momentum flux, which equals two power of the
beam divided by the frequency. However, this fact contradicts the
standard electrodynamics, which predicts the beam's angular momentum
flux equals power of the beam divided by frequency, and means the
electrodynamics is incomplete.
You did not read even the abstract
Radi Khrapko
|
