полная версия

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

Dear Professor Silvestri,

Thank you for the info about your decision on my paper. Of course I believe that the decision is not fair. Please find my appeal attached. I think that the main problem is not that Reviewer 3 understands nothing in my paper and obviously cannot refute my derivations. Everybody knows something and does not know something, and it is impossible to know everything. In my opinion, if a scientist is proposed to review a paper which he/she does not understand then he/she should either decline from being a reviewer or say that different approaches have a right to exist. However, Reviewer 3 believes that only papers done in the spirit of his/her mentality can be published and all other papers should be prohibited such that the readers even should not know about their existence. Reviewer 3 does not understand that it is disgraceful to make negative statements without any substantiation. As explained in the appeal, I believe that my results will be extremely interesting for the readers of Physics of the Dark Universe, and my paper is fully in the scope of the journal. However, if your final decision is that my paper cannot be published in the usual way, I would be grateful if you consider the following possibility. My paper is published but along with the paper you or any reviewer writes a paper or comments explaining why my approach is unacceptable. In particular, the report of Reviewer 3 can be published. I believe this will be extremely important for the readers because they will be given an opportunity to make a judgment and will understand pros and cons of different approaches. Maybe my understanding of Reviewer 3’s intentions is not correct and he/she will appreciate the opportunity to express his/her opinion.

Thank you. Sincerely, Felix Lev.

Но сразу получил такой ответ:

Dear Dr. Lev,

I understand your disappointment, every decision if of course questionable, but our decision is final.

Kind regards,

Т.е., она даже не хочет играть в игру, что, якобы, она честно пытается разобраться. Она начальник группы, которая пишет, якобы, высоконаучные статьи по dark energy. В этих статьях никакой квантовой теории нет и в помине, все основано на классической ОТО, статьи печатает Phys. Rev. и другие журналы, так что видимость большой науки соблюдается.

Все это заняло три месяца и теперь ясно, что с самого начала она искала только повод, чтобы отфутболить. После этого я написал главному редактору журнала:

Dear Professor Tait,

I regret that you decided not to respond to my seminar proposal. The proposal had nothing to do with the fact that my paper was rejected. I believe the results are fundamental and my hope was that physicists at UCI would be interested. In this situation I decided to describe my experience with your journal. For the first time in my practice the editor even did not try to make an appearance of fair treatment.

First the paper was rejected because Reviewer 1 wrote a short (and meaningless) review stating that the paper contains nothing new. According to the editorial policy, a paper should be reviewed by at least two reviewers but this requirement was ignored. When I pointed out to this requirement the editor changed her opinion and proposed me to revise the paper.

After revision the editor found two reviewers. The report of Reviewer 2 was positive and the report of Reviewer 3 was negative. Then the editor found the pretext for rejecting the paper that two of three reviews were negative. The pretext obviously is not reasonable for the following reasons. First, it is quite probable that Reviewer 1 is the same person as Reviewer 3. But regardless whether or not this is the case, for the current version there were two reviewer reports, positive and negative. In that case the paper is usually sent to adjudicator or a board member writes a report. But in this case, in contrast to standard practice, the editor immediately rejected the paper without any additional reports.

The report of Reviewer 3 had no sign that he/she 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 arXiv взял мою статью [12], а недавно эту статью приняли и в Physics of Particles and Nuclei Letters, и этот журнал печатает Springer. Статья вышла в [13]. А в моей другой статье [14] вопрос о Λ тоже был рассмотрен. Профессор Одинцов (Odintsov), который является главным редактором журнала Symmetry был одним из рецензентов.

Потом у нас была короткая переписка. Как он написал, в своих работах он объясняет Λ из более-менее общепринятых подходов. Я спросил его, почему же тогда он пропустил мою работу. Он ответил, что считает, что разные подходы могут быть опубликованы. Это пример высокой научной порядочности. Поэтому подведу краткий итог.

Формула ОТО для космологического ускорения – просто следствие квантовой теории в квазиклассическом приближении. Для доказательства этого утверждения не нужны пространство де Ситтера и какая-либо геометрия (метрика, связность и т. д.). Просто рассматривается квантовая механика двух частиц в квантовой теории в которой симметрия определяется коммутационными соотношениями алгебры де Ситтера. Результат не имеет никакого отношения к тому есть dark energy или нет, т. е. для доказательства dark energy не нужна и поэтому нет никаких причин считать, что она вообще существует. Т.е., никакой проблемы космологической постоянной или проблемы темной энергии нет в принципе.

Вопрос о том почему Λ такая маленькая не стоит в принципе из следующих соображений. Эта величина имеет смысл только в квазиклассическом приближении и, если мы хотим выразить эту величину через (kg,m,s), то результат зависит от численных значений величин (c,ћ,R), где R параметр контракции от алгебры де Ситтера в алгебру Пуанкаре. Как объяснено в параграфе 11.3, вопрос о том почему эти величины такие а не другие не стоит в принципе.

Мой результат более общий чем результат ОТО т.к. любой классический результат должен быть следствием квантовой теории в квазиклассическом приближении. Результат важен также из следующих соображений. Пока что все фундаментальные квантовые теории исходят из background space (хотя, как отмечено выше, этого понятия вообще не должно быть в квантовой теории). Многие физики, которые строят квантовые теории гравитации думают, что background space в квантовой теории должен быть таким, чтобы в классическом пределе он переходил в background space в ОТО. Например, Loop Quantum Gravity основана на такой философии. Но результат по космологическому ускорению показывает, что результат ОТО в квазиклассическом приближении получается без какого-либо background space в квантовой теории.

Так как работы по cosmological acceleration были опубликованы в статьях и в [7], то вначале я не планировал продолжать писать статьи об этом. Но потом подумал вот что. Мое объяснение космологического расширения очень ясное, но почему-то никто его не признает. Здесь есть научные и ненаучные причины.

Ненаучные причины очевидны. Так как вокруг dark energy идет большая деятельность – статьи, конференции, планируются эксперименты и т. д., то те кто в этом, очевидно, не захотят отказываться от этого и признавать, что это бессмыслица. А научная причина такая. Как я уже писал, даже физики, занимающиеся квантовыми теориями не знают неприводимых представлений алгебры де Ситтера. Наверное, мои статьи об этом читать не просто т.к. они думают, что поля важнее чем частицы. Поэтому у них, наверное, нет стимула разбираться в моих работах. Поэтому я решил написать фактически популярную статью о том почему dark energy – бессмыслица, а мое объяснение естественное.

Посылал статью в несколько журналов, но везде отфутболивали. Иногда по чисто формальным признакам. Например, у них есть software по определению plagiarism. Эта software видит, что статья использует предложения, которые раньше использовались и заключает, что статья – plagiarism. В данном случае система видит, что используются слова из моих предыдущих работ и тоже заключает, что plagiarism. Я пытался объяснить редакторам, что в данном случае это естественно т.к. статья – популярное изложение моих результатов. Но это как об стенку горох: они видят заключение их software и больше не хотят вникать.

Но я послал статью в Foundations of Physics, хотя мой опыт с этим журналом, описанный выше, показал, что журнал не следует принципам научной этики и не соблюдает правила своей же editorial policy. Причина была такая. Хотя Rovelli, который стал главным редактором после 't Hooft не соблюдает научную этику (об этом подробно написано ниже), но он – один из немногих кто писал, что dark energy – бессмыслица. И моя статья начинается со ссылки на статью Bianchi and Rovelli (2010) озаглавленную " Why all These Prejudices Against a Constant?". Поэтому я надеялся, что, по крайней мере для Rovelli, будет ясно о чем статья и поэтому статья будет рассмотрена.

Ответ, который подписал Samuel Craig Fletcher, был такой:

Dear Dr. Lev,

We have received your submission FOOP-D-22–00163 entitled

"Discussion of cosmological acceleration and dark energy".

Before entering a submission to the reviewing process, we check whether it obeys criteria such as the following:

– Is the topic of research suitable for this journal?

– Does the paper contain original ideas and new results?

– Are the arguments and calculations accurate and correct?

– Is the exposition sufficiently well organized, and worded well?

– Does the overall quality agree with our very tough standards?

I regret to inform you that the editors had to conclude that this work is not suitable for publication in Foundations of Physics.

I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration.

То есть ясно, что статью никто не читал или были не в состоянии понять. Ответ чисто формальный. Приводится пять критериев которым должна удовлетворять статья и никаких объяснений, почему моя статья не удовлетворяет этим критериям. То есть никаких попыток даже сделать вид, что научная этика соблюдается. Ясно, что я написал appeal:

Paper: FOOP-D-22–00163 "Discussion of cosmological acceleration and dark energy"

Author: Felix Lev

Author’s appeal on editorial decision

The problem of explaining cosmological acceleration (CA) is one of the key unsolved problems of modern physics. Almost all the literature on this subject assumes that CA is a manifestation of dark energy. Professor Rovelli is an expert on this problem, and in his paper with Bianchi titled "Why All These Prejudices Against a Constant?" the authors explain that such an explanation is not physical. In my works, I present new arguments in favor of this point of view and explain that CA is a natural consequence of quantum de Sitter symmetry. The purpose of my short letter to FOOP is to present arguments that will be understandable to a wide range of readers. Therefore, I hoped that my paper would be considered by the editors of the FOOP on the merits.

In the rejection letter, Dr. Fletcher first describes five criteria that a paper submitted to FOOP must meet:

1) Is the topic of research suitable for this journal?

2) Does the paper contain original ideas and new results?

3) Are the arguments and calculations accurate and correct?

4) Is the exposition sufficiently well organized, and worded well?

5) Does the overall quality agree with our very tough standards?

and then he writes: “I regret to inform you that the editors had to conclude that this work is not suitable for publication in Foundations of Physics.”

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 Λ 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 Λ 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 Λ=0 corresponds to the flat Minkowski space while the case Λ ≠ 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 Λ=0 is preferable than Λ ≠ 0. However, the concepts of background space-time and Λ 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 Λ. 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.

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

Gastón García

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.