Популярно о конечной математике и ее интересных применениях в квантовой теории

Ms. Ref. No.: PLB-D-22–01075

Title: Discussion of cosmological acceleration and dark energy

Physics Letters B

Authors appeal on editorial decision

Dear Professor Brax,

Thank you for your email informing me about the editorial decision on my paper. The decision is based on the referee report. Even the first sentence of the report shows that the referee does not understand the main goal of the paper and does not understand the meaning of the cosmological constant problem widely discussed in the literature. The goal of the paper is not only “to justify the fact that a non-vanishing cosmological constant is natural from a quantum point of view” but, more importantly, to explain that the problem why Λ is as is does not arise. I note that, ideally, any result of classical physics should be derived in semiclassical approximation of quantum theory.

My result (7) is derived in semiclassical approximation of quantum de Sitter symmetry. I note that the result can also be derived in General Relativity (GR) with Λ. However, GR is only a pure classical (i.e., non-quantum) theory, here Λ is simply a phenomenological parameter taken from outside, and the theory cannot explain the known problem that the experimental value of Λ is 120 orders of magnitude less than the value expected from quantum field theory. The referee says nothing on whether my derivation is new and whether it is important that, as noted even in the abstract, it is based “only on universally recognized results of physics and does not involve models and/or assumptions the validity of which has not been unambiguously proved yet (e.g., dark energy and quintessence)”.

In the referee's opinion, since Eq. (7) can also be derived from the Friedman equations with Λ then my result is of no interest. However, the Friedman equations also are pure classical, they follow from GR and here Λ also is simply a phenomenological parameter taken from outside.

As I noted in my cover letter, I believe that in physics, different approaches have a right to be considered. However, the report shows that, in the referee's opinion, only those results can be published which are based on approaches which the referee understands. The report contains no hint that the referee is an expert in quantum theory and can judge the results derived in this theory.

In summary, the report contains no hint that the referee tried to understand my results or is qualified to understand. In addition, it took more than a month for writing four trivial sentences. I would appreciate it if the editorial decision were reconsidered.