Популярно о конечной математике и ее интересных применениях в квантовой теории

Manuscript ID: universe-2083477: “de Sitter symmetry and neutrino oscillations” by F. Lev.

Author’s appeal on editorial decision

My paper has been rejected on the basis of the report of Reviewer #3 and Academic Editor’s note: “The author did not address the issues raised by reviewer n.3 in a satisfactory manner”. The editors did not take into account that Reviewer #1 and Reviewer #2 recommended publication.

As I note even in the abstract: “Although the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations has been confirmed in many experiments, the theoretical explanation of this phenomenon in the literature is essentially model dependent and is not based on rigorous physical principles”, and the discussion in the paper explains this statement in detail. I propose a fully new approach. Even from the title of my paper, it is clear that any reviewer should have at least very basic knowledge in de Sitter symmetry at quantum level. However, Reviewer #3 does not have this knowledge. His/her remarks about E²-p²=m² immediately demonstrates this. In my reply to his/her report, I explain in detail that in AdS quantum theory, this relation can be only approximate. I also point out to the fundamental Dyson's result that AdS quantum theory is more general (fundamental) than Poincare quantum theory.

I believe that in this situation, any decent scientist should acknowledge that he/she was not right. However, in his/her second report, Reviewer #3 does not discuss my explanation at all and again repeats his/her statement about E²-p²=m². Scientific ethics assumes that, in the discussion between the author and the reviewer, both sides should try to understand each other, and it should not be such that the reviewer's statement is the ultimate truth that is not subject to discussion. I have no doubt that for any expert in de Sitter quantum theory it will be ridiculous that E²-p²=m² in this theory is discussed in a prestigious journal which has an impact factor of 2.813, and that this is in fact the main reason for rejecting the paper. It is also ridiculous that Reviewer #3 quotes papers on AdS/CFT without having any basic knowledge in AdS quantum theory.

I do not claim that my approach solves the problem of neutrino oscillations. The problem is very complex and what I propose is only an initial approach to solving the problem. I note that my paper is submitted to the section “Mathematical Physics”. In my understanding, it is not assumed that a paper on mathematical physics should immediately describe some experiments: the goal of mathematical physics is to propose new mathematical approaches which, hopefully, sooner or later will be used in physics. However, in the report of Reviewer #3 there is no sign that he/she treated my paper as submitted to Mathematical Physics. In particular, there is no sign that Reviewer #3 is familiar with representations of the AdS algebra in Hilbert spaces.

In the essential part of his/her report, Reviewer #3 discusses mass and flavor eigenstates, Cabibbo-like mixing angles, PMNS matrix elements, MSW theory etc. So, he/she discusses the problem in the framework of the existing approach to neutrino oscillations. However, I state in the paper that this approach contains several very essential theoretical uncertainties. Reviewer #3 does not comment on my statements, in particular, he/she does not say that they are incorrect. Moreover, those statements essentially come from Kayser's paper which Reviewer #3 recommended. So, the idea of my paper is to consider the problem without representing flavor states as direct sums of mass eigenstates. Nevertheless, Reviewer #3 discusses my paper in the framework of the approach which he/she likes, but in the context of my paper this is meaningless.

Reviewer #3 writes that in my paper there is no prediction for neutrino masses and for theoretical change in the decay rate of a muon. I already responded to these remarks, but Reviewer #3 repeats them again without commenting on my response.

Reviewer #3 does not agree with my explanation why the status of the electron, muon and τ- lepton differs from the status of the neutrino. He/she writes: “But if we set a typical m of the order 0.01eV for neutrinos, we still get a very large mR.” But I explain that the matter is that for the electron, muon and τ-lepton, the variations of ${\tilde W}$ are much less than mR, while for the neutrino they are of the same order or greater.

Reviewer #3 writes: “I also don't see any alternative theory proposed in the article”. He/she repeats that my paper contains “the drastic deviation from the standard principles of quantum field theory and special relativity” and again writes: “I didn't find any compelling argument to reject E2-p2=m2.” So, Reviewer #3 even does not understand how ridiculous it is to recommend papers on AdS/CFT and at the same time accuse me of deviating from special relativity and from E²-p²=m². Those statements show that Reviewer #3 is completely unqualified to understand my paper, because all its results come from the fact that in ADS quantum theory the relation E²-p²=m² is not exact.

I would be grateful for the info on whether this appeal will be considered.