Популярно о конечной математике и ее интересных применениях в квантовой теории

The rejection letter does not explicitly say that my paper does not satisfy conditions 1)-5). However, since the paper is rejected, it is understood that it does not meet these conditions. Then the question arises, does it not satisfy all conditions 1)-5) or only some of them? Apparently, according to the meaning of the letter, one must understand that Dr. Fletcher thinks that all of them.

If Dr. Fletcher considers himself a scientist, does he understand that scientific ethics requires that any negative statement in an official rejection letter must be substantiated? The rejection letter does not contain any hint that someone from the editorial board was trying or was able to understand the meaning of my paper. One of the reasons why I sent my paper to FOOP was that since Professor Rovelli is an expert on the subject then at least he can judge the paper. However, members of the editorial board responsible for my paper either did not read the paper carefully or were not able to understand it.

I hope that if the editorial board wants FOOP to have a reputation as a journal that respects scientific ethics, then the decision on my paper will be reconsidered.

и в ответ получил письмо от самого Rovelli. Он пишет, что сразу отвергает мою статью из-за "unacceptable tone" (неприемлимый тон):

Dear Dr Felix Lev,

your appeal has been forwarded to me.

Given the unacceptable tone of your letter ("If Dr. Fletcher considers himself a scientist,"…, "if the editorial board wants FOOP to have a reputation as a journal that respects scientific ethics, I have decided not to follow up on it and confirm rejection definitively.

Regards,

    Carlo Rovelli
    as FOP Chief Editor.

То есть Rovelli, наверное, очень горд собой, что он отверг статью из-за моего тона. А то, что со мной поступили по-хамски т.к. статью держали более двух недель, никто ее не рассматривал и написали дурацкое отклонение – это уже не так важно. И у него даже нет намерения извиниться, что такое отношение к автору противоречит всем принципам научной порядочности. А мой ответ – не тот тон. И для него главное не то является ли статья важной, какие там результаты, а то что мой тон неприемлимый. Это один из примеров, что Rovelli не соблюдает научную этику. Другие примеры будут даны ниже.

Следующая попытка: журнал Letters in Mathematical Physics. Оттуда сразу пришел такой ответ:

Dear Dr Lev,

Your manuscript, MATH-D-22–00107 titled: "Discussion of cosmological acceleration and dark energy"

Author(s): Felix M. Lev

submitted for publication in Letters in Mathematical Physics on 07 Apr 2022 has been carefully considered by the Editors of LMP.

In their opinion, the content does not meet the high standards of our journal and we regret that we are not able to consider your manuscript for publication. Below, please find their comments for your perusal.

I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration and wish you every success in finding an alternative place of publication.

Comments to the author (if any):

This manuscript does not appear to contain new significant mathematical physics of the type published in Letters in Mathematical Physics. I suggest transferring to Gen Rel Grav or similar.

Sincerely Yours,

    Christopher Fewster
    Editor in Chief
    Letters in Mathematical Physics

То есть вначале говорят, что, якобы, внимательно рассмотрели статью, но потом без всякого объяснения говорят, что статья не удовлетворяет высоким критериям журнала. И, конечно, проблемы с научной этикой их не волнуют.

Моя следующая попытка – журнал General Relativity and Gravitation. Оттуда довольно быстро пришел такой ответ:

Reviewer comments on your work have now been received. In view of the report and the recommendation of the Associate Editor who handled the paper I regret to inform you that your submission is not suitable for publication in GERG. The reviewer comments can be found at the end of this email or can be accessed by following the provided link.

Thank you for your interest in GERG.

Yours sincerely

    Mairi Sakellariadou
    Editor-in-Chief
    General Relativity and Gravitation

Reviewer comments:

Associate Editor:

The submission is not appropriate for GRG.

Ясно, что это просто отписка. Хотя говорится, что "The reviewer comments can be found at the end of this email", но никаких комментариев рецензента нет. А фраза Associate Editor никак не объясняет почему статья не подходит для журнала. Ясно, что я написал протест:

…Such an attitude to the author fully contradicts scientific ethics because:

Although the email says that “The reviewer comments can be found at the end of this email”, in fact there are no reviewer comments.

The phrase of the Associate Editor: “The submission is not appropriate for GRG.” is given without any explanation and contradicts the editorial policy of GERG according to which “Theoretical and observational cosmology” and “Relativistic astrophysics” are in the scope of GERG.

My paper gives a solution to the problem of cosmological acceleration, and my approach is fundamentally new because the solution is given in the framework of quantum theory.

I would appreciate it if the editorial decision were reconsidered.

но получил стандартную отписку из которой ясно, что они понятия не имеют о чем статья:

"The submission does not comply with the requirements of novelty and scientific relevance, therefore it cannot be considered for publication in GRG.

Следующей попыткой было послать статью в European Physical Journal Plus. Согласно их правилам, letters можно представлять только по приглашениям редакции. Поэтому я послал редакции такой Proposal:

"Proposal for a letter to the Editor

The title of the letter is “Discussion of cosmological acceleration and dark energy”. The current version of manuscript contains 8 printed pages. It be found in the HAL archive: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03581039.

The problem of cosmological acceleration (CA) is one of the hot topics of modern physics and cosmology. In the vast majority of works on this topic, the cosmological expansion is explained as a manifestation of dark energy, quintessence or similar mechanisms. For example, explaining the Nobel Prize for Peebles, some members of the Nobel committee said that he opened our eyes that we know only 5 % of the universe because almost 70 % is dark energy and 25 % is dark matter.

The generally accepted approach in theoretical physics is such that when new experimental data appear, then, first of all, they should be explained on the basis of the available proven theory. Only if this fails, then some new exotic explanations must be invoked. However, in the case of CA, the opposite approach was taken: there were practically no works in which this phenomenon is explained on the basis of the available results, and in most works the effect is explained on the basis of dark energy and other exotics.

Probably, one of the historical reasons was that Einstein said that introducing ? was the greatest blinder of his life. Even in textbooks written before 1998 a point of view was advocated that"…there are no convincing reasons, observational and theoretical, for introducing a nonzero value of and that"… introducing ? to the density of the Lagrange function a constant term which does not depend on the field state would mean attributing to space-time a principally ineradicable curvature which is related neither to matter nor to gravitational waves".

However, several authors (see e.g., Refs. [1,2]) give clear arguments that the explanation of CA by dark energy is not physical. In my publications [2–6] I show that the problem of CA has a clear solution based on well-established results of quantum theory, and the explanation does not need dark energy or other exotic mechanisms the validity of which has not been proved. More details on my publications can be found in my ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000–0002–4476–3080

The generally accepted opinion is that since the problem of CA deals with large macroscopic bodies located at large distances from each other, there is no need to involve quantum theory to study this problem, and the problem must be considered within the framework of General Relativity and other classical theories. However, ideally, every result of classical theory should be obtained from quantum theory in semiclassical approximation.

Consideration of the CA problem from the point of view of quantum theory sheds essentially new light on this problem. For example, in classical theory the case ?=0 corresponds to the flat Minkowski space while the case ? ? 0 corresponds to the de Sitter (dS) space. As noted above, the usual philosophy is that empty space should be flat and therefore the case ?=0 is preferable than ? ? 0. However, the concepts of background space-time and ? are pure classical. On quantum level the problem is what symmetry group or algebra is preferable. As shown by Dyson in his famous paper “Missed Opportunities”, the dS group is more general (fundamental) than the Poincare one because it is more symmetric, and the latter can be obtained from the former by contraction. In addition, since the dS group is semisimple, it has a maximum symmetry and cannot be obtained from other groups by contraction. This Dyson’s result has nothing to do with the relation between dS and Minkowski spaces and with the value of ?. Consequently, quantum theory based on dS symmetry is more general (fundamental) than quantum theory based on Poincare symmetry.

It is difficult to imagine standard quantum theory without irreducible representations (IRs) of the Poincare algebra. Therefore, quantum theory based on dS symmetry should involve IRs of the dS algebra. However, my observation is that even physicists working on dS quantum theory are not familiar with such IRs. Some of them give a strange argument that such IRs are not needed because fields are more important than particles.