Moment of the Poynting vector is not spin once more

Radi Khrapko · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 142

A common opinion that a moment of the Poynting vector is spin is a
common delusion due to a serious defect of the general field theory. We
present a circularly polarized Laguerre-Gaussian beam without an
azimuth phase structure as an evidence of this. It is shown that the
moment of the Poynting vector in this beam is an orbital angular
momentum, not spin. Meanwhile, this beam, as well as a circularly
polarized plane wave, clearly carries spin. But the standard
electrodynamics does not sight it. Spin tensor of the standard
electrodynamics is zero. So, this delusion causes many conflicts,
vagueness, and paradoxes concerning electromagnetic angular momentum.
The only way to resolve the paradoxes is to use an electrodynamics spin
tensor, which we introduced into the electrodynamics and demonstrate in
this paper.

This paper is published at www.sciprint.org and
www.mai.ru/projects/mai_works/articles/num22/article7/auther.htm

Unfortunately this paper was rejected by J. Opt. A and by JOSAB three
times. The last rejection was:

"Dear Dr. Khrapko:
I have received the reviewers' comments on your paper, appended below.
In view of the comments, I cannot accept your paper for publication in
the Journal of the Optical Society of America B.
A paper is acceptable for publication in JOSA B only if the reviewers
are convinced that, in addition to being correct technically, it also
adds a new and important result to the field.- The reviewers did not
find that your paper meets this criterion.-
Thank you for submitting your paper to JOSA B.- I regret that it is not
possible to send you a more favorable report on this manuscript, and I
hope that you will continue to consider JOSA B for future submissions.
Sincerely, Allan Boardman Topical Editor, JOSA B
Reviewer comments are provided here:
Reviewer 1
I have already recently rejected the paper by Khrapko from another
journal .
Reviewer 2
Please see my review of manuscript no. 66941. I see no reason to repeat
my comments for that manuscript here, as this manuscrip (no. 68611) is
trivially different from its predecessor."

My answer is:

"Dear Allan Boardman,
L. Allen et al., M. J. Padgett, R. Loudon, R. Zambrini, S. M. Barnett,
J D Jackson, J. W. Simmons, M. J. Guttmann, A. M. Stewart, H. C.
Ohanian, J. H. Crichton, P. L. Marston, W. Heitler, and others assert
that moment of the Poynting vector is spin. For example, H. C. Ohanian
wrote, "This angular momentum is the spin of the wave". However, I
prove that moment of the Poynting vector is NOT spin. I prove that spin
must be added to the moment of the Poynting vector. Against this
background your decision seems to be a disgrace to JOSAB. Your decision
encourages poverty of your reviewers. They could not write a new word
since March 1 to April 23. However, possibly, they gave the false
comments knowingly for the sake of defending of the corporate
interests. I ask for changing the decision and publishing my paper. It
would be a good thing to include a figure into the page 2 (see the
attachment 75-5JOSAB. Note, this is not a resubmission).
Sincerely,
Radi Khrapko"

Timo Nieminen · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 12 May 2005 Posts: 244

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 khrapko_ri@hotmail.com wrote:

Radi Khrapko · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 142

Dear Timo,
I did not hear you much time. I am glad you replied my post. Your
replies permit me to hope that our world is not so awful. I concluded
that the editors and the referees are rascals. But your questions prove
that they, probably, are fools.
Your questions forced me to rewrite this paper. I have posted at
www.sciprint.org "Moment of the Poynting vector is not spin. V. 2".
I explain that the azimuthal component of the Poynting vector consists
of two terms. The first term is proportional to the azimuthal index l
and is independent on polarization. This term holds for a linearly
polarized beam, but vanishes if the beam has no azimuthal phase
variation. Moment of this term is identified as the orbital angular
momentum. The second term of the Poynting vector is independent on l.
This term is known very well. In the case of the simple Jackson's
beam, or a Gaussian beam, i.e. the Laguerre-Gaussian beam with l=p=0,
it is the Poynting vector located on the surface of a circularly
polarized beam.
Unfortunately, moment of the second term of the Poynting vector,
according to the common opinion, unlike the moment of the first term,
is called a spin of the beam. Ohanian wrote: "This angular momentum is
the spin of the wave." Allen and Padgett wrote: "The second term
relates to the spin contribution". Zambrini and Barnett wrote: "The
spin angular momentum density depends on the radial gradient of the
intensity".
I raised objections against this delusion many times. Now I consider
the second term for the Laguerre-Gaussian beam with l=0, p=1. Such a
beam has two virtues: this beam contains only the second term; the
negative radial gradient of the intensity is placed inside the beam,
and a region with a positive radial gradient of the intensity exists.
These virtues help to prove more convincingly that moment of the
Poynting vector is an orbital angular momentum.

Unfortunately, Dr. Boardman, Topical Editor, JOSA B, rejected this
paper again on May 2, 2006
He wrote:
"Dr. Khrapko: The negative responses that I have received concerning
you paper compel me to stand by my decision to reject your paper. I am
not able to find a reason to reverse my decision which is now final."

My answer is:
"Dr. Boardman is not able to indicate a reason to reject my paper as
well as his reviewers are. Nevertheless he rejects it. So he breaks
principles of science to defend the authorities from the criticism.
Now I continue my research of Elsevier. I have sent this paper to
Annals of Physics. I wonder, do all Elsevier editors not hesitate to
dissemble facts that are contrary to physics authorities position as
well as APS editors do (see my posts "Editors of Phys. Rev. A evade
problems")?"

Cordially, Radi Khrapko

Josef Matz · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 255

Radi

A plane circular or elliptic polarised wave also transports spin and not
only on gradients of intensity.

<khrapko_ri@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1146831827.380776.268310@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Radi Khrapko · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 142

Dear Josef,
You do not read my posts!
I wrote: >Meanwhile, this beam, as well as a circularly polarized plane
wave, clearly carries spin.
Radi

Radi Khrapko · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 142

Dear Timo,
Please help me to diagnose F. Wilczek, Editor-in-Chief, Annals of
Physics. He rejected my paper "Moment of the Poynting vector is not
spin". He wrote:

"Dear Dr. Khrapko, I regret to inform you that I have made a decision
against publication, as I find the paper to be argumentative over what
are basically matters of terminology."

My answer was:
"Dear F. Wilczek, Editor-in-Chief, Annals of Physics,
You must not be guided by titles of submissions. You must, at the
minimum, read Abstracts. If you read the abstract of my paper, you will
see that a circularly polarized beam, as well as a circularly polarized
plane wave, carries spin. But the standard electrodynamics denies it
because the spin tensor of the standard electrodynamics is zero. So,
the common delusion causes many mistakes, conflicts, vagueness, and
paradoxes concerning electromagnetic angular momentum. The only way to
resolve the problems is to use an electrodynamics spin tensor, which we
introduced into the electrodynamics and demonstrate in this paper.
I would be grateful if this paper enters the peer-review process. Can I
hope? "

Radi Khrapko

Herman Family · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 14 Jun 2005 Posts: 173

<khrapko_ri@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148812531.532031.77160@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Radi Khrapko · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 142

Herman Family wrote:

Timo Nieminen · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 12 May 2005 Posts: 244

On Sun, 28 May 2006, khrapko_ri@hotmail.com wrote:

Radi Khrapko · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 142

Timo A. Nieminen wrote:

FrediFizzx · science forum Guru Joined: 01 May 2005 Posts: 774

<khrapko_ri@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149342327.717263.92960@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Radi Khrapko · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 142

FrediFizzx wrote:

Radi Khrapko · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 142

In a paper "Moment of the Poynting vector is not spin" submitted to
Physical Review A, I show a common opinion that a moment of the
Poynting vector is spin is a common delusion due to a serious defect of
the general field theory. I present a circularly polarized
Laguerre-Gaussian beam without an azimuth phase structure as an
evidence of this. It is shown that the moment of the Poynting vector in
this beam is an orbital angular momentum, not spin. Meanwhile, this
beam, as well as a circularly polarized plane wave, clearly carries
spin. But the standard electrodynamics does not sight it. Spin tensor
of the standard electrodynamics is zero. So, this delusion causes many
mistakes, vagueness, and paradoxes concerning electromagnetic angular
momentum. The only way to resolve the problems is to use an
electrodynamics spin tensor, which we introduced into the
electrodynamics and demonstrate in this paper.

Unfortunately, Gordon W.F. Drake, Editor of PRA cannot accept new
physics, or he defends the corporate interests. So he rejected this
paper. He wrote on June 14, 2006:

"A strict criterion for acceptance in this journal is that manuscripts
must convey new physics. To demonstrate this fact, existing work on
the subject must be briefly reviewed and the author(s) must indicate in
what way existing theory is insufficient to solve certain specific
problems, then it must be shown how the proposed new theory resolves
the difficulty. Your paper does not satisfy these requirements, hence
we regret that we cannot accept it for publication."

Earlier I wrote that Gordon W.F. Drake and his Referee deny a transfer
of angular momentum from an electromagnetic wave to a mirror. Thus,
they state that the angular momentum conservation law is broken when an
electromagnetic wave is reflected from a mirror. Such men cannot rule
this journal's Editorial Policies.

The last rejection confirms my statement.

Radi Khrapko

Radi Khrapko · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 142

This is a lie that a strict criterion for acceptance in APS journals is
manuscripts must convey new physics. My papers prove that the absence
of spin is a serious defect of Maxwell electrodynamics. But they were
rejected by APS journals more than 20 times. In particular "Moment of
the Poynting vector is not spin" was rejected by PRA & PRL without an
argumentation. Jane Throwe wrote on June 21, 2006, "We consider the
manuscript that you have submitted to be a resubmission of AT10082 that
you submitted previously to PRA.Your manuscript has been considered.
We regret to inform you that we have concluded that it is not suitable
for publication in Physical Review Letters."

The criterion for acceptance in APS journals is manuscripts must
protect the corporate interests.

Radi Khrapko

Google