Re: LM9256 Standard model masses and models of nuclei by Alejandro Rivero Dr. Alejandro Rivero EUPT Campus Universidad 44003 Teruel SPAIN Dear Dr. Rivero, The complete file concerning the above manuscript has been reviewed by a Divisional Associate Editor. The enclosed comments advise against publication in Physical Review Letters. The Editors accept this advice. Your appeal has been considered, and our decision to reject is maintained. Yours sincerely, Christopher Wesselborg Senior Assistant Editor Physical Review Letters Email: prl@aps.org Fax: 631-591-4141 http://prl.aps.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report of the Divisional Associate Editor -- LM9256/Rivero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Dr. Rivero, Your appeal, together with your manuscript and all related correspondence, was passed on me in my role as the Division Associate Editor. I read these materials and, unfortunately, I have to agree with the earlier decision that your manuscript is not suitable for publication in Physical Review Letters. Let me explain in detail the basis for such decision. In your ms. you point out that there is some similarity between the masses of the doubly magic nuclei Pb208 and Sn100 and the masses of the top quark and the Z (or W) bosons. You also speculate that there might be a similar relation between the mass of Sn132 and the yet undiscovered Higgs. You do not offer any reasons why this very approximate correlation should be anything else than an accident, but you imply that there might be some casual relation between these systems. Simply stating these observations is an insufficient basis for considering your manuscript for publication. The fact that these nuclei are magic is related to their binding energy (in fact to the binding energy differences) not to their total mass. The binding energy is only a very small fraction of the total nuclear mass, which in turn is mostly simply related to the number of nucleons in the nucleus (M = Z*m_p + N*m_n - B). Thus not only the systems are quite different (elementary particles vs. complex nuclei) but the quantity you use does not really reflect the feature (closed shells) that you use for your selection (not to speak about double magic Ca48 or Ni56 which you dismiss). So, let me repeat, since you have not shown that the relation is really accurate on one hand and at the same time you did not suggest any plausible physics explanation why there might be a casual relation between such fundamentally different objects, I must concur with the initial decision that you manuscript is not suitable for publication in Physical Review Letters. Sincerely yours, Petr Vogel DAE for nuclear theory Physical Review Letters Please see the following forms: http://forms.aps.org/author/resubpolicy-prl.pdf Resubmittal Policy (PRL)