| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics - Electromagnetic Forum » CLEO/QELS conference, about
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:36 pm |
|
|
|
|
Technical Publications Group of the conference suppresses a discussion
about the classical spin. I prove the works of Loudon, Bishop,
Nieminen, Heckenberg, Rubinsztein-Dunlop, Simpson, Dholakia, Allen,
Padgett, Parkin, Knoner, Garces-Chavez, McGloin, Dultz, Schmitzer,
O'Neil, and MacVicar confirm an existence of the spin tensor and,
consequently, confirm an incompleteness of the electrodynamics. I
calculate a laser-material interaction when a light beam is absorbed.
But my submissions "Confirmations of Reality of the Electrodynamics'
Spin Tensor" [1] and "Circularly Polarized Plane Wave Has Spin Angular
Momentum" [2] were rejected by the Group without explanations, though
a full text paper corresponding to the second submission, "Mechanical
stresses produced by a light beam" [3], will be published by JMO
before May 2008, and a full text paper of the first submission,
"Inevitability of the electrodynamics' spin tensor" [4] is in progress
in JOPA since December 01, 2007.
We see, the physicists not only keep silence (see my posts Silence of
the physicists. 2, 1), but they even shut our mouths.
[1] 83_khrapko_nov07, Preprint archives at www.sciprint.org
[2] 84_khrapko_nov07, Preprint archives at www.sciprint.org
[3] Spin_produces_stress, Preprint archives at www.sciprint.org
[4] Inevitability_spin_khrapko_mar07, Preprint archives at www.sciprint.org
R. Khrapko |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:07 pm |
|
|
|
|
Erin Richardson has sent me an explanation of the rejection (see
below). My reply is:
My analysis of the technical contents of works of seventeen famous
authors surpasses the authors' analysis. My analysis gives results
that are unexpected for the authors. I refute their conclusions and
show that, in reality, results of these works contradict the
electrodynamics. I prove my clear main claim: Spin of a light beam is
not a moment of Poynting vector. Spin of a light beam must be added to
the moment of Poynting vector of the beam. This result, as well as the
topics of the authors' works, is in the scope of meeting particularly.
My result is original one particularly. I claimed this result before
2001 [1, 2, 3]. Nobody has ever claimed this result. Quite the
contrary, this result was rejected or ignored by Editors, opponents,
and reviewers many times.
Dear Erin Richardson: Sorry, it is hard to believe you have read my
papers.
Erin Richardson wrote on February 27, 2008:
Dear Dr. Khrapko: The committee cited the following reasons for
rejection of your papers:for 705, limited technical content; claims
not sufficiently supported; not clear; insufficient meeting interest /
outside scope of meeting; and for 708, insufficient originality;
claims not sufficiently supported; key information omitted; not clear;
insufficient meetinginterest / outside scope of meeting. You are
welcome to submit postdeadline papers, but if you choose to doso
please keep in mind the information noted above. Thank you for your
interest in the meeting. Best regards, Erin Richardson Manager,
Technical Programs The Optical Society
[1] R. I. Khrapko, "True energy-momentum tensors are unique.
Electrodynamics spin tensor is not zero," physics/0102084.
[2] R. I. Khrapko, "Violation of the gauge equivalence," physics/
0105031
[3] R. I. Khrapko, "Does plane wave not carry a spin?" Amer. J. Phys.
69, 405 (2001)
Radi Khrapko |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:16 am |
|
|
|
|
I am forced to write to CLEO/QELS conference once more:
Remonstrance
The program committee rejected my papers 08-C-705-CLEO, 08-C-708-CLEO
because of insufficient originality and limited technical content. I
am alarmed with the wording. Do the members know publications about
the spin tensor besides my publications? Do the members are
discontented with my analysis of the works of Loudon, Bishop,
Nieminen, Heckenberg, Rubinsztein-Dunlop, Simpson, Dholakia, Allen,
Padgett, Parkin, Knoner, Garces-Chavez, McGloin, Dultz, Schmitzer,
O'Neil, and MacVicar?
If the 2-pages papers are insufficient for an understanding of the
spin tensor, I will be glad to give elucidations personally, but I
have no possibility to arrive in San Jose if my submissions will not
be accepted in time.
I am not sure if the committee intends to conceal that the works as
well as my investigations prove a reality of the spin separately from
a moment of Poynting vector, the fact, which is denied by the
scientific community.
Radi Khrapko |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:29 pm
|
|