Scientific Ethics and Accountability

SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS, PLAGIARISMS, AND DECEPTIONS

Following the first, manifestly political rejection without scientific sense reproduced below with due dismissal by Prof. Santilli, Mr. B. Nachtergaele, editor in chief of the JMP blamed all editors as listed below for the final rejection with the statement *There was no support from the Editorial Board to publish the manuscripts.* (see the original note reproduce at the end of this web page).

William Pound

International Committee on

Scientific Ethics and Accountability.

Mirror submission uploaded in the Scientific News of the Santilli Foundation

Professors **Sergio Conti, E. Weinan, Joel Feldman, Jźrg Fršhlich, Yasuyuki Kawahigashi, Jonathan Keating, DŽnes Petz, Robert Bartnik, Abel Klein, Stefan Hollands, Horng-Tzer Yau, Mark Fannes, Giovanni Gallavotti, Michael Loss, Christoph Schweigert, Jan Philip Solovej. CŽdric Villani, Bruno L. Z. Nachtergaele, Manfred Salmhofer,**

http://jmp.aip.org/about/about_the_journal

Dear Colleagues,

I hereby respectfully submit for publication in the *Journal of Mathematical Physics* the following three papers:

**Nonunitary- Isouniary scattering Theory of Hadronic Mechanics;
I: Conceptual and Mathematical foundations
II: Deformations-Isotopies of Lie's Theory, Special Relativity, and Mechanics;
III: Basic Formulation Without Divergences;**

available in pdf download from the website

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/Isoscattering.html

The papers have been jointly submitted via electronic filings under all requirements of your Journal, and are not under consideration elsewhere.

The main scope of the papers is the following. Over fifty years of research by a large number of scholars the world over have identified vast mathematical, physical, chemical, experimental and industrial evidence (see the
review with original works in free pdf download) according to which special relativity is indeed *exactly valid* under the conditions clearly stated by Einstein (point particles and elm waves propagating in empty space, historically referred to *exterior dynamical problems*), but it is *inapplicable* within (rather than "violated" because not intended for) physical media (historically referred to as *interior dynamical problems*), including the interior of the scattering region. Since the conventionally used scattering theory is crucially based on the axioms of special relativity, *the "experimental results" claimed by CERN, FERMILAB, DESY, ORSAY, RUTHERFORD, JINR and other laboratories need a collegial re-inspection before acquiring the character of serious, final, experimental; results.*

Among a large variety of evidence requesting a re-inspection of the scattering theory, this open submission is intended to bring to your personal attention the fact that inevitable non-Hamiltonian effects occurring in the deep mutual penetration of extended charge distributions within hyperdense hadronic media, as it is the case for high energy inelastic scattering, cause an alteration of the *numerical value* of the eigenvalues of Hermitean operators, thus requesting a re-inspection of the scattering theory

Above all, this open submission is intended to make sure of your personal awareness of the unspoken fact that *special relativity and quantum mechanics are reversible over time, while all inelastic scattering processes are irreversible. Consequently, the former theories cannot be seriously claimed as being exactly valid for the latter processes.* Needless to say, the selection of the appropriate coverings of special relativity and quantum mechanics for interior problems should be open to scientific debates, but *not* their needs.

The submission of the above quoted three papers on the *Lie-isotopic scattering theory* are merely introductory to the expected future submission of the covering *Lie-admissible scattering theory* with an irreversible structure beginning with its mathematical foundations (units, numbers, etc.) and then passing to irreversible physical axioms.

To treat the papers with a minimally scientific process, you should know that the isoscattering theory is solely intended for **reversible** scattering events and is **axioms-preserving,** thus allowing the broadening of the applicability of Einsteinian and quantum axioms to reversible interior dynamical problems. Consequently, the papers stress the possibility that the numerical results claimed for **reversible** scattering events may eventually result as being correct. However, major departures from claimed experimental results are expected for **irreversible** (inelastic) scattering events as conducted so far and currently under way at various labs around the world.

As additional information, you should know that Papers I and II are merely preparatory for the main Paper III, and include: 1) A review of the used mathematics; 2) The identification of th invariant formulation of relativity and mechanics for interior dynamical problems; and 3) Their specialization for the first time to the interior of the scattering region. Hence, according to a vast consensus by consulted colleagues, Paper III is incomprehensible without a proper study of Papers I and II. In any case, the sole reading of Paper III without the availability of Papers I and II results in a plethora of "objections" that, in reality, are evidence of substantial lack of technical knowledge of the new field.

In the event length problems might overcome scientific values and you are solely interested in the possible publication of Paper III following due editorial control, please note that I have various invitations for the publication of Papers I and II by other Journals, thus allowing the joint publication of Papers I and II at another Journal and the publication of Paper III at the JMP. However, such a solution implies that the JMP would not fulfill its primary claimed function, providing a record of novel applied mathematics.

A very preliminary version of the three papers was submitted in 2009 to the JMP; the editorial review is reproduced below; and the papers herewith submitted are substantially different than the original ones, thus warranting a basically new review, due in particular to the emergence of new experimental evidence on the inapplicability of special;l relativity within the scattering region, which ex[periments were under way at the time of the original submission.

This collegial submission has been suggested by: the absence of any visible scientific content in the editorial review; the rejection of Paper III based on the sole inspection of Paper I; the lack of answer as of today by the JMP editorial office of my request dated 4/1/10 for a direct consideraiton of Paper III; as well as the financial, ethical and scientific implications of the unresolved character of the scattering theory whose dimensions are such to mandate a collegial decision, rather than limiting the responsibility to a silent review by any individual editor.

Needless to say, I would be immensely grateful for any *constructively critical* comments or suggestions, with the understanding stated in Paper I that the currently used scattering theory required decades of studies. Consequently, the submitted paper can at best hope to *initiate* collegial studies toward the future achievement of a more adequate scattering theory, the not infrequent expectation of the achievement of utmost conceivable maturity in in the initiation papers being utterly nonscientific,

Thank you for your consideration and best regards

**Ruggero Maria Santilli**

ibr@gte.net

http://www.i-b-r.org

http://www.santilli-foundation.org

http://www.nuclearwasterecycling.com

http://www.neutronstructure.org

http://www.magnegas.com

PS. The subsequent papers on the irreversible Lie-admissible scattering theory will be discussed at the forthcoming

*International Conference on Lie-Admissible Treatments of Irreversible Processes*

December 30, 2010 to January 7, 2011, Crystal Beach, Florida. Any interested colleague is cordially invited to spend the new year eve in sunny Florida, relax on January 1 and 2, and initiate the sessions on Monday, January 3. 2011.

**
=================================**

JMP review dated March 30, 2010

Dear Professor Santilli,

I regret to inform you that we do not find your manuscript #09-1397, "NONUNITARY-ISOUNITARY SCATTERING THEORY, I: Conceptual and Mathematical Foundations" suitable for publication in the Journal of Mathematical Physics. Two referee reports are enclosed.

Sincerely,

**Bruno Nachtergaele, Editor **

**
===================================**

Referee's report

Manuscript #09-1397:

Editor's Recommendation: Reject

Associate Editor Recommendation: Reject

Referee #1 Evaluations:

Overall Rating: Reject

Quality of Research: Weak

Quality of Presentation: Weak

See separate file.

Referee #2 Evaluations:

Overall Rating: Reject

Quality of Research: Weak

Quality of Presentation: Weak

Referee #2 (Comments to the Author):

The paper is 41 pages long. Pages 1-20 and 34-41 contain no statements of a mathematical nature. They are devoted to the history of the subject, general philosophical remarks, etc. Only pages 21-33 contain mathematical statements. In papers published in JMP (as in any other mathematical research journal) a large majority of the space should be devoted to mathematical results. The refereed paper does not fulfill this criterion, and thus it should be rejected by JMP.

Based on what I wrote above one could ask whether the material of pages 21-33 supplied possibly with a short introduction merits a publication in JMP. In my opinion it does not. These pages contain almost exclusively definitions. Definitions are an important component of any mathematical theory, but they should be accompanied with some theorems, or at least conjectures -- interesting, nontrivial statements satisfied by the concepts introduced by the authors. Such statements, to my understanding, are missing in the refereed manuscript. Therefore, even the mathematical part of the manuscript is not suitable for JMP.

The idea that seems to underly the mathematical part of the paper is the following. Consider an associative algebra with a distinguished positive element $T$. Replace the usual multiplication by a new one, called by the authors the "isoproduct" $A\hat{\times}B:=A\times T\times B$ (see (3.2)). Most of the remaining definitions seem to be consequences of introducing the "isoproduct". The idea of the isoproduct could be considered as a simple exercise in an introductory course on abstract algebra. The paper does not describe any interesting consequences of this concept. Note in parenthesis, that if we consider the map $\PhiA)\mapsto T^{\frac12}AT^{\frac12}$, then $A\hat{\times} B=\Phi^{-1}(\Phi(A)\Phi(B))$. Thus the isoproduct is fully isomorphic with the old one. Therefore, I do not expect any interesting results from introducing it, unless one considers some limiting procedure (eg. $T\to0$ in some sense) -- this is not, however, considered in the paper.

The paper uses often terminology coming from physics. In particular, the word "scattering" is contained in the title. Nowhere in the paper I could find anything related to scattering as it is understood in the physics or mathematics literature (comparison of the asymptotics of a process for a distant future and past).
The paper is written in a sloppy way, with numerous misprints (eg. "initia;l" in the abstract. Its English is often awkward.

Many statements in the paper are difficult to judge, because they are very vague. Let me point out one statement, which is precise enough to be evaluated, and which is clearly false. On page 13 the authors write "quantum mechanics...misses 2% of the binding energy of the hydrogen molecule from unadultarated quantum principles". In reality, the binding energy of the hydrogen molecule computed on the basis of quantum mechanics agrees very well with its experimental value.

**
======================================**

Letter to the editor dated April 1, 2010

Dear Professor Nachtergaele,

I appreciated the courtesy of your clarification and suggestion that I will keep confidential. Please be reassured that I agree with the reviewer on is main point, that Paper I is not appropriate for the JMP because essentially a review and mainly physical in content. The content of Paper II is in applied mathematics but still a review. Papers I and II were suggested by the absence of these studies in the JMP and the specialization, for the first time of the topic to the scattering problem so that Paper III could be fully understood.

To save time to all, I would immensely appreciate your indication as to whether it is appropriate on for Prof. Animalu and mnyself to resubmit solely Paper III as a single independent paper with no review at all of the content of Paper I and II and the sole quotation of papers published in refereed journals, since this presentation would be indeed in applied mathematics and novel.

In any case, due to the peculiar aspects of the topic of Paper III brought to your attention before, and its direct applied mathematical character, it appears recommendable for your Journal not to reject Paper III on non related aspects pertaining to other papers without its direct technical review.

Sincerely

**Ruggero Maria Santilli**

PS. Allow me to suggest that you do not accept as yours the last statement in the review (to the effect that quantum mechanics represents exactly molecular binding energies) because excessively political. In fact, the literature on the impossibility of QM "without adulterations of its basic axioms" to represent exactly the H_2 (let alone other) binding energy is quite vast. At any rate, QM predicts that the two identical valence electrons should repel each other and certainly not attract.

Also, the above insufficiency is the historical reason for the introduction of the screened Coulomb potentials for the improvement of the numerical representation of the binding energy via the multiplication of the Coulomb potential by a completely arbitrary function f(r), V*(r) = f(r) e2/r, which "screening" did indeed improve the numerical presentation of the H_2 binding energy.

However, the claim that "quantum" mechanics is exactly valid for screened Coulomb potential is purely political on numerous grounds:

1) Quantized energy levels solely occur for the Coulomb potential and are completely lost fort the screened one as well known ans evident in any case. Consequently, the dubbing of "quantum" mechanics under screening of the Coulomb law is political.

2) The totally arbitrary function f(r) of completely unknown mathematical physical or chemical origin is fitted from the data and then QM is claimed as being exact. This is not serious science.

3) The Coulomb potential is a basic invariant of QM. Under its screening all basic symmetries are violated, beginning with a brutal violation of Galileo's symmetry. Claiming that QM is exact under such a brutal violation of its basic symmetry is excessively political and it is not serious science.

4) The map from the Coulomb to the screened Coulomb potential is notoriously non unitary. Therefore, screened Coulomb potential are a small particular case of the covering hadronic mechanics due to its invariant nonunitary structure, but the referee's considers its mathematical structure an exorcise for a graduate student.

In the eventuality you are interested in quantitative treatment of the above, you may inspect the review
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/santilli-scientific-discoveries-4.html
and particular the paper quoted therein authored by qualified academic chemists published in refereed journal.

The fact that your referee is unaware of all this appears to confirm that we are indeed living in a period of "Dark Age" in basic science particularly in the USA due to the absence of "doubts" at the foundation of any serious science, as well as in view of the known suppression of scientific democracy for qualified, basically novel scientific views, which is a clear sign of scientific decay.

**
======================================**

On May 9., 2010, Prof. Santilli resubmitted final edited versions that can be downloaded from the link

ttp://www.santilli-foundation.org/Isoscattering.php

On July 15, 2010, Mr. B. Nachtergaele released the following final rejections blaming all above listed editors.

.

Subject: Regarding your manuscript #10-0544

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:10:38 +0000 (UT)

From: jmp@math.ucdavis.edu

Reply-To: jmp@math.ucdavis.edu

To: ibr@gte.net

CC: ibr@verizon.net

Dear Professor Santilli,

I regret to inform you that we do not find your manuscript #10-0544, "NUNITARY-ISOUNITARY SCATTERING THEORY OF HADRONIC MECHANICS, II: Deformations-Isotopies of Lie's Theory, Special Relativity, and Mechanics" suitable for publication in the Journal of Mathematical Physics. **There was no support from the Editorial Board to publish this manuscript and its two companion papers in JMP. **

Sincerely,

Bruno Nachtergaele,

Editor

--

Copyright @ 2010 by The International Committee on Scientific Ethics and ASccountability

P. O. Box 1577, Palm Harbor, FL 34683, USA, William Pound, Chairman, luca54321@verizon.net

Uploaded May 10, 2010

,p>