Generalized Rest Mass and Dirac’s Monopole in 5D Theory and Cosmology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author presents a summary of different works by himself made in different decades that intend to emphasize important physical results when considering a 5D world and projecting it to the 4D spacetime with the appearance of the electromagnetic interaction.   No results seem to be new, but they are gathered in manner that could be of potential interest to the theoretical community. 

Frankly, I see no obvious connection to understand any astrophysical problem with this formalism, nor to understand the origin of dark matter or dark energy. The ideas presented are vague to solve these problems. But still the formalism could be of help to someone that want to apply it to a physical problem. In this regard, I recommend the publication of the manuscript in Universe. 

I have only a few minor points: 

1. In line 56 (and others below) the counting of spacetime indexes are 0,1,2,3,5 …skipping the number 4. Why should be a “5” instead of a “4”?

2. The first time that electric charge appears is in eq. (5). It would nice to have some kind of explanation of how the electromagnetic interaction arises from the fifth dimension (a couple of lines would suffice).  

3. A term in first parenthesis of eq. (11)  appears with a strange symbol that should be corrected. 

4. In line 293 and below, Brans and also Brans-Dicke is misspelled as “Brance”. This must be corrected. 

5. The word Bremsstrahlung is misspelled in lines 309 and 311. 

Author Response

See submitted file : 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a poorly presented set of statements and equations without any coherent clear new results and conclusions. The author claims to have created a 'new  viewpoint on some problems of Modern Physics' without being specific on what exactly is the new concepts introduced and why do they lead to a better understanding of magnetic monopoles and Maxwell equations.
This lack of specific well defined new results indicates that the paper is not interesting enough to merit publication.

Author Response

See submitted file : 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In the new version of the paper the author has tried to clarify some points of the analysis. However, this attempt has been superficial with no true clarification. For example, no modifications were implelented in the anstract explaining the claimed novel features of the analysis. Instead of inserting the clarifications in the text at the locations where the relevant equations appear, the author has added a new section (section 6) where he has made an attempt to make some clarifications. However this attempt was not succesfull since to clear description of the results exists. For example the statement 'Finally, one can obtain the first pair of the Maxwell equations with the nonzero r.h.s. that vanishes after imposition of the x5 cylindricity conditions (See Eq. (31) in my MS). This leads to the idea about the Dirac’s
 monopole.' The author does not bother to explain exactly what is the relevance of the monopole here, how it enters in the equation and what are the implications of its presence there. The paper remains full of similar non-specific claims and statements. Thus I do not recommend publication.