Популярно о конечной математике и ее интересных применениях в квантовой теории

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.