Here is the PRD rejection notice and referee's report:

Dear Dr. Williams:

The manuscript ``Electromagnetic antigravity'' (dp9016)

by Williams,L has been reviewed by one of our referees. Comments from the report

are enclosed.

We regret that in view of these comments we cannot accept the

paper for publication in the Physical Review.

Sincerely,

Rashmi Ray

Assistant Editor

Physical Review D

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the paper the author considers the well known five-dimensional

formulation of the four-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell theory with a dilaton

field. The condition of $x^5$-independence of the 5D metric components is

applied. The fifth dimension is considered macroscopically without a

compactification. In this purely classical context, the author presents a

discussion of two ``key implications'' of a general relativistic coupling

between gravity and electromagnetism for ``interstellar travel and mastery of

gravitational force''.

The first of these implications (which was considered in the paper in the

Newtonian limit only) concerns the existence of electromagnetic corrections to

the motion of uncharged test particles. It is necessary to note here, that this

effect is well known in General Relativity: a presence of electromagnetic

fields in a space-time affects the space-time geometry and the corresponding

geodesic motion. It is easy to demonstrate this explicitly, if one considers,

for example, the time-like geodesics in the Nordstr\"om - Reissner and

Schwarzschild geometries.

The second ``result'' is formulated in the paper as a statement that a

macroscopic fifth dimension gives rise to a possibility of motion through space

at constant time with the fifth coordinate as the independent variable (see the

Conclusions). It is not clear, why the existence of a curve (geodesic, may be)

joining two points with different fifth coordinate and the same time-like

coordinate, allows the author to identify this curve with actual motion of a

real object. Moreover, it seems that consideration in this manner of 5D

dynamics for neutral particles should lead the author to the statement that the

space-like geodesics in 4D space are the world lines of these particles.

I do not think that all these can be considered more or less seriously. The

paper itself does not include any serious physical consideration of such

hypothesis and its obvious contradictions with basic physical principles.

The absence of physical results or even motivated hypothesis do not allow me to

recommend this paper for publication.

Here is my response

Dr. Ray,

Thank you for your consideration.

I hope I can persuade you to reconsider, or perhaps entertain a
dialog with the referee.

All of the literature I have seen on the classical 5D theory
addresses the field equations. My paper endeavors to address the
equations of motion, and I know of no systematic development in this
area, even
though the several results I enumerate were implicit in Kaluza's
original paper.

I agree with the referee that because electromagnetic stresses are a
source of spacetime curvature, they can affect the motion of uncharged
particles. But my paper calculates the Newtonian limit of
electromagnetic modifications to the geodesic equation, which are
independent of the field equations which describe the metric. I did
not mean to imply this effect on geodesic motion is the only source of
electromagnetic perturbation of uncharged particles.

I find this theory does allow geodesics corresponding to motion in
space with the 5th dimension the independent variable, and I chose the
constraint of constant time. It is entirely within the spirit of
science for me to identify these mathematical solutions, and allow
others to analyze their properties. I make no claims about the
physical
reality of these solutions, but just that they exist.

The referee concludes such solutions are physically preposterous, and
contradict basic principles. If that is so, I should at least have
these contradictions enumerated.

If the referee feels I have portrayed these results in some
illegitimate matter, I would be happy to make any corrections. But in
any absence of mathematical error, and without a reference as to where
these identical results are already found, I would suggest there are
grounds for your re-consideration.

Sincerely,
Lance Williams

Here is their response affirming their decision:

Dear Dr. Williams:

I am writing in reply to your letter of 19 April regarding

reconsideration of your manuscript ``Electromagnetic antigravity''

(DP9016).

I regret to inform you that we stand by our decision against

publication of your paper in Physical Review D. If you still wish to

seek publication of your paper you should submit it elsewhere.

Sincerely,

D. Nordstrom

Editor

Physical Review D