Популярно о конечной математике и ее интересных применениях в квантовой теории

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.