First response (2001.10.12)
Reply (2001.10.24)
Final response (2001.10.26)

First response

Message-ID: <3BC727D1.F71B2091@ahobon.reduaz.mx>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:26:41 -0500
From: Valeri Dvoeglazov
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sweetser@alum.mit.edu
Subject: 1st referee report
References: <200110022317.TAA29451@world.std.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="------------31F63844F676A2500C373CD0"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------31F63844F676A2500C373CD0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Dr Sweetser,

Please find below the 1st referee report in the LaTeX format .

Sincerely,
Valeri Dvoeglazov
Guest Editor
===

--------------31F63844F676A2500C373CD0 Content-Type: application/x-tex; name="com-sw.tex"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="com-sw.tex"

\documentclass[12pt, fleqn]{article} \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts} \begin{document}
Comment to \textbf{There is no place like home: Looking for a metric equation for gravity within the structure of the Maxwell equations} of Douglas B. Sweetser\\

Before making detailed analysis of the manuscript of Dr. Sweetser, I wish to note that

1. the author begins his work with the phrase \textit{'The Maxwell equations written in the Lorenz gauge...'}

But the original Maxwell equations are regardless of choice of the gauge.

2. Again, section \textbf{An opportunity for gravity} begins with similar words \textit{'The Maxwell equations can be quantized...'}

The equations cannot be quantized, some physical quantity can be done but not some mathematical object.

3. It was not Gupta who found that \textit{'the probability of the scalar mode cancels that of the longitudinal mode,'} Gupta and independently Bleuler showed that the Coulomb potential can be formed by virtual exchange of the transversal photons between two charges.

So it would be good if the author makes some corrections on noted points.\\

Further, the author doesn't give some short explanation why the scalar photons 'must be eliminated' from consideration of the quantum electrodynamical system. So here it is reasonable a question what is sign of the energy of the 'gravitational scalar photons' introduced by the author.\\

Also, the author doesn't introduces the procedure of quantization of his 'gravitational scalar photons'. To my point of view, it is essential lack of work.

\end{document}

--------------31F63844F676A2500C373CD0--

Reply

To: Valeri Dvoeglazov
Reply-To: sweetser@alum.mit.edu
Subject: reply to reviewer 1
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:03:07 -0400
From: Doug B Sweetser

Reply to reviewer 1 comments on: "There is no place like home: Looking for a classical metric equation for gravity within the structure of the Maxwell equations" by D. Sweetser

Numbered comments: 1&2. The two examples of incorrect language, along with similar errors elsewhere, have been corrected.

3. Bleuler has been credited. Gupta wrote in part, "the probability of emission of a real longitudinal photon is canceled by the 'negative probability' of the emission of a corresponding scalar photon."

Concerning the need for scalar photon "elimination", the following sentence was added to the rewrite: "A scalar photon would not change under space or time reversal, so its symmetry is different from the electric 3-vector field and the magnetic 3-pseudo-vector field, and thus does not have an obvious role to play in electrodynamics."

The paper is an attempt at a classical unification of electrodynamics and gravity. The field equations solved are the Maxwell equations with the choice of the Lorenz gauge, and the results are a continuous metric equation and solution to the classical problem of the rotation profile and stability of disk galaxies. The discussion of Gupta/Bleuler's work was meant to motivate the search in the first place: there are transmission modes that are not used. No attempt was made to quantize the gravitational scalar photons. To clarify this focus, the word "classical" has been used often in the rewrite, including in the title above.

Final response

Return-Path:
Received: from ahobon.reduaz.mx (ahobon.reduaz.mx [148.217.51.3]) by TheWorld.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21199 for Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:33:01 -0400
Received: from ahobon.reduaz.mx ([148.217.51.54]) by ahobon.reduaz.mx (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19684 for Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3BD9904C.2BF9AEA3@ahobon.reduaz.mx>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:33:18 -0500
From: Valeri Dvoeglazov
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en,ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sweetser@alum.mit.edu
Subject: answer of reviewer 1
References: <200110241703.NAA15118@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

======
I am sorry for some delay, I was actually busy. I was going to write detailed comment but what I can say just today (below).

1. It seems the author has studied the problem of quantization of the EM interaction with no sufficient care. The problem of negative energy (not negative probability !) of the scalar photons was the first serious problem of the QED which has been solved in series of works, first of them was short note of Fermi. But this problem is not completely solved for single charge. The author does not take into account this point so his procedure of 'quantization of the gravitational potential' is too formal. Similarity of the equations for the scalar EM potential and for the gravitational potential is no a reason to claim that the gravitational potential can be 'quantized' in the similar way as it has been done with the scalar EM potential.

2. Second essential mistake of the author is his attempts to use the quantum object (photons) to description of the classical systems. Photons are excitations of the quantum oscillators (of the phi and A potentials). If the author describes the classical system on language of these excitations, he had to give in the manuscript the corresponding procedure how the classical quantities (gravitational field) is described by the quantum objects.

So taking into account two these points, I should say that the manuscript cannot be accepted for publication.
=====

Comments & Questions: Physics Web Board

Next: Second referee