Sir,

While it is clear that spin-orbit coupling can be get for nuclear
forces by using a relativistic approach, practitioners known that the huge
spin orbit separations at big magic numbers do still need of an empirical
adjust. So I considered interesting to take a look to nuclei for magic
numbers 50, 82 and 126 by looking at the sub-shells that are responsible
of the magicity. These are, respectively, g9/2, h11/2 and i13/2.

I considered to evaluate the average weight of nuclei while they are
filling these sub-shells. As the filling happens for neutrons and protons,
this double process drives to consider rectangles. Of the possible nine
rectangles, only three touch the valley of stability, and they happen of
course near the doubly magic nuclei, ie:

A) Near P=50,N=50,
B) Near P=50,N=82, and
C) Near P=82,N=126.

Using the filing order for instance from Cottinghan/Greenwood, one sees that
the respective average number of nucleons in each rectangle
is 90, 115, and 181.

The corresponding masses show a intriguing pattern.

A) 90 amu is about 83,8 GeV, which is about a -4% of the mass of the W
                               or/and about a  8% of the mass of the Z0.
B) 115 amu is about 107 GeV, which is about a  6% of LEP Higgs Events.
C) 181 amu is about 167 GeV, which is about a  3% of the mass of the Top

Your editor has considered all the above process unscientific. Textually,
N. Auerbach wrote back that  "I have reviewed the above  paper and find it to 
be scientifically not valid".

I can recognise that there is no backing theory, one of many body
kinematical relationships or so. But there are not arbitrary choosing
of data points or any other unscientific, nor numerologist, methodology.
He could argue, as other journals did, about if a multiple coincidence
of events below 10% error deserves notification as a letter. Or about
if the event B is qualified enough. Perhaps your editor is tired of
glancing over speculative comments -which regretly is nowadays a hard part
of the job of being an editor-. If he is tired, I will suggest him
simply to quit the job.

Yours,

Alejandro Rivero