Популярно о конечной математике и ее интересных применениях в квантовой теории

My results in [2–6] and other publications are based on large calculations. To understand them, the readers must be experts not only in quantum theory, but also in the theory of representations of Lie algebras in Hilbert spaces. Therefore, understanding my results can be a challenge for many physicists. Since the problem of CA and dark energy is very important, I decided to write a short note, which outlines only the ideas of my approach without calculations. I hope that after reading this note, many readers will have an interest in studying my approach because it gives a clear solution of the problem of cosmological acceleration and considerably differs from approaches of other authors.

References

[1] Bianchi, E., Rovelli, C.: Why all These Prejudices Against a Constant? arXiv:1002.3966v3 (2010).

[2] Lev, F. M.: Finite Mathematics as the Foundation of Classical Mathematics and Quantum Theory. With Application to Gravity and Particle theory. ISBN 978–3–030–61101–9. Springer, https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783030611002 (2020).

[3] Lev, F. M.: Finiteness of Physics and its Possible Consequences. J. Math. Phys. 34, 490–527 (1993).

[4] Lev, F. M.: Could Only Fermions Be Elementary? J. Phys. A37, 3287–3304 (2004).

[5] Lev, F. M.: de Sitter Symmetry and Quantum Theory. Phys. Rev. D85, 065003 (2012).

[6] Lev, F. M.: Cosmological Acceleration as a Consequence of Quantum de Sitter Symmetry. Physics of Particles and Nuclei Letters 17, 126–135 (2020).

Что не так в этом Proposal? Но их ответ показал, что они даже не думали разбираться:

Dear author,

we have received and gone through your proposal for a letter to the editor with title "Discussion of cosmological acceleration and dark energy". After some internal discussion we regret to say that we do not consider this work for an invited letter to the editor. We would of course very happy if you could consider EPJP for a regular submission, either with this or with any other topic of your interest. Thanks very much for contacting us.

Truly yours

    Gastоn Garc?a
    Editor in chief

То есть, решение было принято после "some internal discussion". Как проходила эта discussion, приводил ли кто-то какие-то аргументы или просто что-то шепнул – об этом не говорится. И это ответ научного журнала с высокой репутацией!

Теперь ответ Brazilian Journal of Physics:

"The Brazilian Journal of Physics (BJP) aims to disseminate original contributions from all areas of Physics, which, in addition of being scientifically sound, introduce new ideas, insights or processes which can be significant contributions to the knowledge of the area. Differences relative to existing knowledge must be sufficiently emphasised and justified, either on theoretical grounds or on clear physical application. Another very important criteria for acceptance is that the contribution should appeal to physicists of all backgrounds. After analysis, it was concluded that the present manuscript does not clearly satisfy these criteria, being more appropriate for submission to a specialised journal.

Как обычно, общие слова без всякого намека, что кто-то пытался разобраться в статье. Но странная фраза что "the contribution should appeal to physicists of all backgrounds". Т.е., физик с любым, даже самым низким уровнем, должен понимать? Но тогда любую статью где есть что-то сложнее чем 2+2 можно отвергнуть. А в заключении пишут, что это статья для более специализированного журнала. В их editorial policy написано: "Founded in 1971, this journal presents original and current research on all aspects of experimental, theoretical and computational physics from around the world. The scope includes all fields from the traditional fundamental and applied physics disciplines (atomic, condensed matter, molecular, nuclear, optical, particle and statistical physics), as well as relevant topics of an interdisciplinary nature, such as biophysics, nonlinear dynamics and complex systems, to name but a few. " То есть, вроде бы, смысл такой, что журнал берет статьи на любые темы. Но мою статью они объявляют, что она подходит только для более специализированного журнала.

Я подумал, что раз так, то не может быть журнала более специализированного чем Astronomy&Astrophysics. Но ответ оттуда такой, что даже при моем большом скептицизме не мог предполагать, что такое может быть:

Our Ref.: AA/2022/44085

Dear Prof. Lev,

Thank you very much for having submitted your manuscript entitled:

"Discussion of cosmological acceleration and dark energy"

to Astronomy and Astrophysics.

I regret to inform you that your manuscript cannot be considered for publication in Astronomy and Astrophysics because we do not publish articles that are not authored by members of astronomical research institutes.

Sincerely,

    Joao Alves
    A&A Letter Editor in Chief

То есть, если ты не являешься членом of astronomical research institutes, то не можешь публиковать у них статьи, даже если они по их теме и содержат выдающиеся результаты. Но в их editorial я не нашел такого требования, которое, очевидно, противоречит всем разумным научным критериям. Когда регистрируешься на сайте журнала, то заполняешь анкету со своими данными и здесь нет этого требования. То есть, люди могут тратить время, готовя статью для A&A, но время будет потеряно, если эти люди не являются members of astronomical research institutes. Поэтому написал письмо, что, если это действительно так, то может ли журнал рассмотреть статью, если кто-то из members of astronomical research institutes скажет, что он/она endorse эту статью. Но никакого ответа не получил, т. е. для Joao Alves надо было найти какой-то повод чтобы отфутболить и тут же забыть, а вопросы научной этики его не волнуют.

Еще одна попытка – Physics Letters B. Здесь членом editorial board ответственным за dark energy является Philippe Brax. Он большой человек в dark energy, пишет статьи в которых предлагает эксперименты по dark energy, участвует в конференциях и т. д. Как-то я написал ему о своих работах. Написал, что из них очевидно, что никакой dark energy нет, что разные подходы имеют право на существование, но так наз. престижные журналы не хотят даже рассматривать мои работы. Никакого ответа не получил. А в Physics Letters B мою статью послали на рецензию. Через полтора месяца пришел такой глубокомысленный ответ:

Dear Dr. Lev,

Reviewers" comments on your work have now been received. I regret to inform you that they are advising against publication, and I have decided your paper cannot be published in Physics Letters B.

For your guidance, reviewers" comments are available to you from the EM website. For your convenience reviews sent to us in plain text format are also appended below.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Yours sincerely,

    Philippe Brax
    Editor
    Physics Letters B

Reviewers" comments:

Reviewer 1: This paper tries to justify the fact that a non-vanishing cosmological constant is natural from a quantum point of view. The main result of the paper (7) is simply the well known fact that a cosmological constant acts as a harmonic potential on particles leading to a force linear in the distance and here proportional to 1/R which quantifies the value of the cosmological constant. This is well known and is for instance used in the Newtonian derivation of the Friedmann equation with a cosmological constant. Hence I cannot see any reason to publish this paper.

Ясно, что я написал appeal:

Ms. Ref. No.: PLB-D-22–01075

Title: Discussion of cosmological acceleration and dark energy

Physics Letters B

Authors appeal on editorial decision

Dear Professor Brax,

Thank you for your email informing me about the editorial decision on my paper. The decision is based on the referee report. Even the first sentence of the report shows that the referee does not understand the main goal of the paper and does not understand the meaning of the cosmological constant problem widely discussed in the literature. The goal of the paper is not only “to justify the fact that a non-vanishing cosmological constant is natural from a quantum point of view” but, more importantly, to explain that the problem why ? is as is does not arise. I note that, ideally, any result of classical physics should be derived in semiclassical approximation of quantum theory.

My result (7) is derived in semiclassical approximation of quantum de Sitter symmetry. I note that the result can also be derived in General Relativity (GR) with ?. However, GR is only a pure classical (i.e., non-quantum) theory, here ? is simply a phenomenological parameter taken from outside, and the theory cannot explain the known problem that the experimental value of ? is 120 orders of magnitude less than the value expected from quantum field theory. The referee says nothing on whether my derivation is new and whether it is important that, as noted even in the abstract, it is based “only on universally recognized results of physics and does not involve models and/or assumptions the validity of which has not been unambiguously proved yet (e.g., dark energy and quintessence)”.

In the referee's opinion, since Eq. (7) can also be derived from the Friedman equations with ? then my result is of no interest. However, the Friedman equations also are pure classical, they follow from GR and here ? also is simply a phenomenological parameter taken from outside.

As I noted in my cover letter, I believe that in physics, different approaches have a right to be considered. However, the report shows that, in the referee's opinion, only those results can be published which are based on approaches which the referee understands. The report contains no hint that the referee is an expert in quantum theory and can judge the results derived in this theory.

In summary, the report contains no hint that the referee tried to understand my results or is qualified to understand. In addition, it took more than a month for writing four trivial sentences. I would appreciate it if the editorial decision were reconsidered.

Я объясняю, что рецензия бессмысленная и что рецензент совершенно неквалифицированный: в рецензии нет никакого намека, что он может судить о чем-то в квантовой теории. И получил такой ответ от Philippe Brax: