I didn't know it was impossible

My theory of the electromagnetic origin of the nuclear interaction has been published in an american journal under the title "Electromagnetic Theory of the Binding Energy of the Hydrogen Isotopes", Journal of Fusion Energy (2011) 30 :377-381. Ma presentation in Glasgow is easier.

Official objections of the french Académie des Sciences (December 5, 2008):

 "1) Pourquoi les spins ne s'orienteraient-ils pas de façon à ce que l'énergie 
soit négative, dont attractive?"

It is the Bieler hypothesis in 1924, abandonned since because the neutron was not yet discovered. In the deuteron, the magnetic moments of the proton and the neutron repulse themselves like aligned and opposite magnets. They are aligned by reason of symmetry along their common rotation axis. I assume that there is no orbital movement as in the Bohr atom. Indeed the nucleus has no nucleus.

"2) Quid du mouvement quantique de point zéro, dont l'amplitude est sûrement 
très supérieure à la valeur dE calculée au paragraphe 2 (avant-dernière 
formule)?"

There is no experimental proof of a zero point quantum movement in a nucleus. It is only a theoretical assumption.

"3) L'auteur pense expliquer l'attraction entre le neutron et le proton en supposant que le neutron est fait de 2 particules. Mais comment explique-t-il l'attraction qui tient ces 2 particules ensemble?"

The neutron contains electric charges equal and opposite. They are separated under the electrostatic induction of the nearby proton. Everybody can observe that a pen rubbed on a cloth attracts small neutral pieces of paper.

4) Si le neutron est fait de 2 particules A et B, dont l'une, soit A, est très proche du proton alors que B est éloignée, comment ne par considérer que c'est A et le proton qui constituent une particule?"

There are three electric charges in the deuteron giving a quadrupole by fusion of the proton and the neutron. 

5) L'auteur évoque brièvement les quarks... mais des quarks, il y en 3 dans le neutron, et pas 2, et puis il y en a aussi 3 dans le proton!

The magnetic moments of the quarks have not yet been measured as far as I know, therefore cannot be used.

 Objections by an academician

"L'énergie d'origine électromagnétique de la paire proton-neutron est très petite par rapport à l'énergie de liaison, déjà assez faible, du deutéron."

The electromagnetic energy of the proton-neutron pair is of the order of magnitude of the binding energy of the deuteron as shows the Coulomb force between the protons (inexistent in the deuteron). It is taken into account in the Bethe-Weizsäcker model.

"Ceci n'a rien à voir avec l'approximation du dipôle, qui est, d'ailleurs, assez bonne pour la distance moyenne de deux nucléons dans le deutéron."

Surely not : the distance between the electric charges in the deuteron is given by the deuteron quadrupole moment which separation distance is  2.738 x 10^-27 cm² . Its quadrupole moment is 0.5 fm, of the same order of magnitude as that of a nucleon. The proton is not far enough from the neutron to allow the use only of the dipole approximation. 

"Vous pouvez faire le même calcul en prenant les vraies distributions des charges à l'intérieur du proton et du neutron. Ces distributions sont mesurées aux expériences de diffusion profondément inélastiques, (c'est à dire à haute énergie et à grand moment de transfert), d'électrons sur du deutérium. Vous pouvez calculer l'énergie électrostatique, avec le dégré de précision que vous le souhaitez, à l'aide des formules classiques que vous trouvez dans les manuels de physique niveau lycée."

The precision of diffusion is much less than mass measures of the nuclides. High energy bombardment is like swatting a fly to know its anatomy.

"Je dois avouer que votre calcul me paraît totalement incompréhensible."

In the past, the editor Gallimard refused to publish Proust, supposed incompréhensible. This academician seems to ignore electromagnetism, preferring the charm of the quarks and variable constants.  

Another academician accepted to discuss but withdrawed, saying that I should call a nuclear specialist. In fact, a specialist is limited in his specialty and has no hindsight on it.

Objections of Nuclear Physics A:

"it is incorrect to calculate the np electromagnetic interaction by disregarding the `positive' fraction of charge in the neutron and using only the `negative' fraction"

Although it is an approximation giving an error of  30%, it gives an analytical formula.

"It is incorrect to use np mean distances as small as 0.6 fm in deuterium and 0.14 fm in tritium"

The distance of 0.6 fm corresponds to that predicted by the nuclear potentials. The low value calculated for tritium is compatible with its low quadrupole moment. It experimental value seems to be unknown.

Lastly, the scale of energy given in Eq.(20) is no more than arbitrary manipulation of the fine structure constant alpha together with the proton mass."

It is purely coincidental that the same letter is used for the fine structure constant and the alpha particle.The fact that αm_pc² is practically equal to the binding energy of the α particle is a consequence of the electromagnetic theory of the nuclear interaction.

Objection of the European Physical Journal A

"the ms does not meet the scientific standards of the  EPJ A"

The scientific standards of EPJ A do not exist : I asked them but I got no answer.

Objections of the journal Few-Body Systems

"The work is based on qualitative estimations of the electromagnetic interactions in the deuteron and  does not fit with the minimal scientific standards of the review." 

My calculation is quantitative and in accord, at least approximate, with  the measured binding energy of the deuteron never calculated by anybody even with supercomputers.

Objections of Physics Letters B by a member of the "Commissariat aux Energies Alternatives (CEA)

"The things that you discuss are not so simple."

If it were simple everybody would know it.

"Your considerations, for instance, ignore completely quantum mechanics,"

If I had ignored quantum mechanics, the fine structure constant would not appear in my formulas".

"and just to give you one example where this is important, the binding energy is NOT the minimum of the interaction potential, kinetic energy will reduce this by a large amount (may even destroy the binding)."

Contrarily to the atom, the nucleus has no nucleus where to apply the angular momentum. Therefore the nucleons cannot orbite like the electrons in the atom.

"The issues that you are raising touch upon the polarizabilities of nucleons, and this  has been very much studied, both theoretically and experimentally."

The polarizabilities of the nucleons are valid only in a uniform electric field. The electric field of the proton is in 1/r², therefore not uniform in its vicinity where lies the neutron.

Objection of the Physical Review C

Regrettably, your response reemphasizes the previous concerns that the manuscript is not at a level of present-day research in nuclear physics. Among other concerns, it does not consider quantum mechanics which is indispensable for objects the size of the atomic nucleus.

With the shell model, based on quantum mechanics, it is impossible to calculate the binding energy of the simplest nucleus, the deuteron 2H.

Objections of Europhysics Letters

"Your theory is on the level of knowledge of hundred years ago. It is absolutely wrong and has nothing to do with the current level of nuclear science. We would like to advise you to study one of the textbooks on nuclear physics."

The modern nuclear physicists ignore electromagnetics known since two hundred years ago.

"The head of the laboratory gave him (Schechtman, the 2011 Nobel prize winner) a textbook of crystallography and suggested he should read it."

"This article has to be rejected with no further consideration. The author seems to be unaware that there are in nature strong nuclear forces that cannot be reduced to electromagnetic ones."

I guess that Dr Z is unable to calculate the binding energy of the simplest nucleus beyond the proton, the deuteron. There is no experimental proof of the existence of the so-called strong force. It is usually assumed that its coupling constant αs is 1, but it varies depending on the authors. It is now a variable constant (a good joke) : "the coupling constant of the strong force becomes weaker at high energies". This proves that the laws of the nuclear interaction remain unknown after one century of nuclear physics and it is impossible to calculate ab initio from the strong force the binding energy of the nuclides.

Rejected without justification: 

 "On behalf of the FFP12 Scientific Organizing committee, I am sorry to inform you that your abstract ID's:34 Titled:

Discovery of a formula for the nuclear to chemical energy ratio;

has been rejected."

The European Physical Journal - Plus

Reviewer #1: The author claims that only electromagnetic forces would be necessary to determine nuclear stability. This means the nuclear interaction can be disregarded to discuss the stability and nuclear dynamics. Even admitting this controversy hypothesis, the discussion of the deuteron bound state using the proposed electromagnetic interaction should be done in the quantum mechanics context. It is the solution of the eigenstates of the proposed quantum electromagnetic Hamiltonian, that should be compared with the experimental data. Otherwise, we would be denying also quantum mechanics treatment in nuclear scenery.
In my opinion the presented manuscript has no scientific meaning including erroneous conceptions in its proposal. Its publication should be refused.

We regret to inform you that we are unable to publish your paper in Nuclear Physics A as it does not match the state of the art in nuclear physics studies.

They take me for an illuminated guy.

The Supervisory Editors of Nuclear Physics A have now carefully considered your submission.

We regret to inform you that we are unable to publish your paper in Nuclear Physics A as it does not match the state of the art in nuclear physics studies.

 At last almost an encouragement

 "Je ne connais rien a la physique nucleaire (car je viens de la physique atomique). Il me semble cependant que le calcul que vous proposez est trop beau pour etre vrai."