FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Electromagnetics
Marasmus of "Optics Connumications" editors
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [1 Post] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Radi Khrapko
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:38 am    Post subject: Marasmus of "Optics Connumications" editors Reply with quote

Dr. Kawata rejected my paper "A rotating electric dipole radiates spin
and orbital angular momentum" on July 14, 2006.
His message is short:

"The paper under consideration is erroneous. The spin of an
electromagnetic field is a well known concept (e.g., see M. SUFFCZYNSKI
"ELEKTRODYNAMIKA", Warszawa, 1965, page 381) but the ratio of
energy to spin is equal to angular frequency for the circular polarized
plane wave ONLY. So the formula (1.2) of the R.I. Khrapko paper is
wrong because according to this formula E/L=omega for the radiation of
rotating electric dipole but this radiation is not the circular
polarized plane wave."

Meanwhile, Dr. Kawata must know that, according to the scientific
community paradigm,
"A plane wave traveling in the z-direction and with infinite extension
in the xy-directions can have no angular momentum about the z-axis,
because ExH is in the z-direction and [r x(ExH)]_z = 0" (W. Heitler,
"The Quantum Theory of Radiation", Clarendon, Oxford, 1954, p. 401).
All today's physicists insist that a circularly polarized plane wave
has no angular momentum. These are: J. D. Jackson, F. Rohrlich, D. E.
Soper, J. M. Jauch, L. H. Ryder, L. Allen, M. J. Padgett, R. Loudon, R.
Zambrini, S. M. Barnett, J. W. Simmons, M. J. Guttmann, A. M. Stewart,
H. C. Ohanian, J. H. Crichton, P. L. Marston, etc.

At the same time all today's physicists insist "this is no longer the
case for a wave with finite extension in the xy-plane" (W. Heitler).
All today's physicists insist that a circularly polarized BEAM "can
always be considered to be carrying a spin angular momentum of h per
photon" (L. Allen and M. J. Padgett, AJP, 70, 568).

Thus the statement "the ratio of energy to spin is equal to angular
frequency for the circular polarized plane wave only" can be considered
as a display of marasmus if we take account of my correspondence with
OC since September 2002.
Note, Optics Communications excludes objections: "The rejection of an
article by one of the Editors should generally be regarded as a final
decision and the conclusion of the review process". Optics
Communications does not want to hear and to see.

Radi Khrapko
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [1 Post] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:46 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Electromagnetics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Narrow-mindedness and insolence of "Optics Connumications... Radi Khrapko Electromagnetics 3 Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:30 am
No new posts Optics of door security viewer Jane Physics 10 Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:54 am
No new posts The biggest mistake in classical optics Josef Matz Electromagnetics 12 Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:54 pm
No new posts Optics: need help understanding lens flare/smear effect Gert Physics 1 Wed May 17, 2006 9:22 am
No new posts Wave-particle duality in quantum optics Stephen Parrott Research 1 Fri May 05, 2006 4:26 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0159s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0029s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]