My Response to Reviewer #1

I received a rejection letter from Foundations of Physics (FOOP) on 3 October 2017, of my paper, "Composite Photon Energy-Frequency Relation."  The paper essentially as submitted is posted on researchgate. I have put a slightly revised version (narrative changes only) on arxiv (it's version 8 because the larger paper it was excerpted from is versions 1 through 7) here.

I initially thought there were comments from two reviewers, but the other comments are clearly about a different paper than mine, as the spelling errors called out are not in my paper (nor are the words that were mispelled).  On closer inspection however I now think the other comments are from the same reviewer but about two other papers under review, one for FOOP and another for Annals of Physics.  

I will reply in detail to Reviewer 1 comments that are clearly about my paper.  At the bottom I will post the other comments but not reply.

Referee’s Report
Title: Composite Photon Energy-Frequency Relation
Author: David C. Lush
Manuscript Number: FOOP-D-17-00320

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1: Within a purely semiclassical approach the paper deals with the hypothesis that the photon be massive and composed by two circulating particles endowed with opposite charges. No exact evaluation for mass and charge of such circulating particles is given. In the manuscript it is also argued that this composite photon is not the quantum of the free electromagnetic field; nevertheless, a pair of such photons constitutes a single quantum of the black body radiation. One of the physical consequences of that theory is a modified Heisenberg-Schrödinger equation with a reduced Planck constant h/2.

As a matter of fact, all the previous assumptions do not agree with the experimental evidence and also undergo severe theoretical troubles and inconsistencies. Moreover the paper, which also needs a lot of editing with respect to style, syntax and scientific notation, is not sufficiently clear but is often obscure and meaningless, with lack of formal and algebraic accuracy. 

Consequently, in my opinion, this paper is not suitable for publication in Foundations of Physics.

(End of Reviewer 1 comments on my paper.)  My response:  

I have no issue with the statement of the first sentence of the Reviewer 1 comment.  The second sentence,

 "No exact evaluation for mass and charge of such circulating particles is given."

is also strictly correct.  That is, I didn't attempt to evaluate the mass or charge of the constituent particles (although the charge magnitude is defined in the preon/rishon model I cited as 1/3 the electron charge, as needed to build up the observed charge magnitudes of electrons and quarks). The masses of the preons are indeterminate in the preon/rishon model. But, as my paper shows, there is no need to know the photon constituents' masses in order to determine the composite photon energy frequency relationship.  For the model of my paper, the energy-to-frequency relationship is also independent the photon rest mass. Thus, although experiments have set a very small upper limit for a photon rest mass, provided it is nonzero, the composite photon with charged constituents and a fixed rest frame charge circulation frequency will have the energy-frequency relation as developed in the paper.        

Reviewer 1 continues:

"In the manuscript it is also argued that this composite photon is not the quantum of the free electromagnetic field; nevertheless, a pair of such photons constitutes a single quantum of the black body radiation."

I do not argue that a pair of photons constitute a single quantum of blackbody radiation.  Rather, a pair of photons correspond to a single energy quantum of the standing-wave electromagnetic cavity oscillator modes that were analyzed by Planck, and Rayleigh and Jeans earlier. If energy is exchanged by atoms through exchange of photons that travel at speed at or near c, then standing wave modes of a specific frequency must be constituted of an equal number of photons of the same frequency traveling in opposite directions across the cavity.  An equal number of oppositely-traveling photons is necessary to create a standing wave, because a standing wave carries no momentum, while a traveling wave necessarily carries nonzero momentum.  Of course, if a small opening is created in the cavity, then single photons can escape the cavity.  These photons are the quanta of energy and momentum exchange between atoms, but will have half the energy of the quanta of the standing wave of the photon frequency.  Thus, a single photon can continue to be considered a quantum of blackbody radiation.  However, at the same time electromagnetic fields must have a separate existence from photons, as the electromagnetic field associated with the photon constituent charges' motions is needed as the basis for describing and understanding the photon characteristic frequency.    

Reviewer 1 continues:

"One of the physical consequences of that theory is a modified Heisenberg-Schrödinger equation with a reduced Planck constant h/2.

As a matter of fact, all the previous assumptions do not agree with the experimental evidence and also undergo severe theoretical troubles and inconsistencies."

Reviewer 1 appears to have overlooked that the modified Schroedinger equation I propose is not simply the standard version with the Planck constant h replaced by h/2.  Such an equation would indeed be obviously inconsistent with observation, as the de Broglie wavelength would be halved, resulting in, for example, atoms that are reduced in size accordingly compared to atoms as described by the solutions of the standard SE.  Also, the angular momentum of the energy eigenstates of the modified SE would be quantized as multiples of h-bar/2 rather than h-bar as according to the SE.  It is essential to any theory of atoms and photons that the angular momentum of a single photon be equatable to the angular momentum quantum of the eigenstates of atomic electron motion.  The modification of the SE as proposed in my paper is consistent with this requirement while simultaneously preserving the photon intrinsic angular momentum of h-bar.  As I argue in the paper, the resulting halving of the energy separation between eigenstates is consistent with the Dirac electron theory and provides a semiclassical resolution of the spin-orbit coupling anomaly that does not involve the kinematic effect Thomas precession.     

Reviewer 1 continues:

" Moreover the paper, which also needs a lot of editing with respect to style, syntax and scientific notation, is not sufficiently clear but is often obscure and meaningless, with lack of formal and algebraic accuracy."

I won't try to argue that the paper as submitted didn't have some unclear or obscure bits.  After not looking at it much for several months, I've found some parts hard to understand.  I'm getting an improved version ready to post on arxiv as a replacement.  The paper was originally excerpted from my spin-spin interaction paper that is underneath it on the arxiv page (versions 1 through 7 are the larger paper as it evolved) and so there were a few sentences that I should have removed prior to submission as they were related to bits that aren't in the excerpt.  I haven't found any parts of it that are meaningless or wrong though, algebraically or otherwise.  I still have not received any reply from Foundations of Physics to my request for specifics regarding the algebraic inaccuracies alleged by Reviewer 1.     

Following are the additional Reviewer 1 comments.  As I mentioned, I thought initially they were from a second reviewer, but on closer inspection I'm convinced they are comments  from the same reviewer about two other papers, at least one of which is by multiple authors.  As they are plainly about other papers than mine, I won't reply further.

Also the English is
t I recommend a lot of editing with respect to style, syntax, and scientific notation.

Apart from some typos and misprints (see e.g. “boost of which gives” in line 39 in the abstract and in line 10 in the Conclusions) to be carefully corrected,the paper is well organized and sufficiently understandable, with formal and algebraic accuracy. The analysis and the results are meaningful and globally correct. Consequently, in my opinion, this paper is suitable for publication in Foundations of Physics.

molto confuse, ripetitivo, oscuro modificazioni dell’equazione di Scro

The work is sufficiently readable, but I recommend a lot of editing with respect to style, syntax, and scientific notation. Actually, there are some technical-editing misprints and typos (in particular “angel” is used in the place of “angle” throughout the paper). As abovesaid some points, as 1), 2) and 3), need to be carefully considered in order that the paper be acceptable for publication with some revisions and further explications and completions. Consequently, I think that the work can be positively considered for publication in Annalen der Physik only after the Authors have taken into reasonable account remarks and suggestions.