Популярно о конечной математике и ее интересных применениях в квантовой теории - Феликс Лев

understands what is done in the paper. In addition, Reviewer 3 does not understand that it is disgraceful to make negative statements without any substantiation. I wrote an appeal but again, in contrast to the usual practice, the editor even did not want to consider the appeal and informed me that her decision was final. Ignoring author’s appeal fully contradicts scientific ethics.

Let me say a few words about the dark energy problem. Usually physicists working on this problem believe that since this a macroscopic problem then there is no need to involve quantum theory and the problem can be tackled exclusively in the framework of classical theory. And many physicists working on this problem are not even familiar with very basics of quantum theory. In particular, the report of Reviewer 3 shows no sign that he/she understands basic facts of quantum theory. He/she tried to reinterpret my statement in terms of classical physics but he/she does not understand that quantum theory cannot be interpreted in terms of classical physics.

Meanwhile, as shown in my paper, it is obvious from quantum theory that the cosmological constant problem (or dark energy problem) does not exist. I tried to explain this obvious fact in my several papers. Some of them have been published (e.g. in Phys. Rev. D) but the papers devoted exclusively to this problem have been rejected even by arXiv. However, I believe that the arguments given in the last version of the paper are so convincing that now arXiv has accepted my paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02788. I would be grateful if you inform physicists about that paper.

Thank you. Sincerely, Felix Lev.

Главный редактор Timothy Tait написал мне, что он уже не главный редактор. По моей просьбе он переправил это письмо Stefano Profumo, который стал главным редактором. Казалось бы, если главный редактор видит, что один из редакторов поступает вопреки всем правилам научной этики, то он должен как-то отреагировать. Но он не опустился до того, чтобы мне ответить и как-то отреагировать.

Следующая попытка – Nuclear Physics B. И сразу пришел ответ:

Dear Dr. Lev,

I have now carefully considered your manuscript and reached the conclusion that it falls outside the scope of Nuclear Physics B. Therefore, I regret to inform you that we are unable to publish your manuscript in Nuclear Physics B. For the kind of articles we publish please refer to

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/05503213

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

Yours sincerely,

Hubert Saleur

Editor, Nuclear Physics, Section B

Мой ответ:

Dear Professor Saleur,

You rejected my paper with the motivation that it falls outside the scope of NPB. This motivation is not clear to me. You are the editor responsible for QFT and mathematical physics. The main result of the paper (obtained for the first time) is fundamental even for quantum theory itself i.e. even regardless of applications. It is fundamental not only for cosmology but even for particle physics, and the paper can be also treated as a mathematical physics paper. As noted even in the abstract, physicists usually understand that physics cannot (and should not) derive the values of c and ћ but they usually believe that physics should derive the value of Λ. Physicists often believe that “fundamental” Λ is zero and so QFT can start from Poincare symmetry. They also believe that even if Λ is not zero then it is so small that de Sitter symmetry is not important in particle physics.

As shown in the paper, Λ is meaningful only in semiclassical approximation while on quantum level one should work with the parameter of contraction from dS or AdS algebras to the Poincare algebra R. The main result of the paper is that R is fundamental to the same extent as c and ћ. Therefore de Sitter symmetry is not emergent but is more fundamental than Poincare symmetry. This has several fundamental consequences. I tried to make the paper as short as possible and for this reason I discussed mainly consequences for the dark energy problem because this problem attracts a lot of attention and has been discussed in particular in NPB (for example in A.M. Polyakov. B 834, 316 (2010)). At the same time, as shown, for example in [8], irreducible representations (IRs) of the dS algebra considerably differ from IRs of the Poincare algebra. In particular, in dS IRs a particle and its antiparticle belong to the same IR. Therefore the very notion of particle and its antiparticle is only approximate and even electric charge is not strongly conserved. One IR of the dS algebra splits into IRs of the Poincare algebra for a particle and its antiparticle in the limit R→∞.

For me it is rather strange that famous Dyson's paper "Missed Opportunities" appeared in 1972 but physicists still believe that fundamental theories should be based on Poincare symmetry. I hope that my paper can change this situation.

I could agree that maybe it was desirable to discuss applications to QFT in greater extents but I believe that it is obvious that the main result is fundamental even for QFT and particle theory. Also, NPB publishes many mathematical physics papers. Of course if the paper is sent for review I will take into account referee recommendations. I hope that in view of the above remarks your decision may be reconsidered. Another possibility is that I revise the paper such that it contains the same main result but applications are discussed in greater extent. May I hope that in that case the paper will be sent for review? Is it possible that NPB will invite me to submit such a paper? Let me note that the paper is in arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02788

Thank you.

Sincerely, Felix Lev.

И все как обычно: Saleur написал какие-то слова, а на авторские возражения он отвечать не собирается, т. е. у автора нет права на appeal.

Но недавно произошло чудо: после моих многочисленных протестов