Популярно о конечной математике и ее интересных применениях в квантовой теории - Феликс Лев
Шрифт:
Интервал:
Закладка:
E2-p2=m2 (18.2)
В своем ответе на первую рецензию, я популярно объяснил следующее. Теория относительности не отвергает E=p2/(2m), но говорит, что это соотношение является приближенным, и оно работает с хорошей точностью когда vc. Аналогично, AdS не отвергает (18.2), но говорит, что это соотношение работает с хорошей точностью только в каком-то приближении. Но Рецензент #3 полностью проигнорировал мое объяснение и опять написал, что отклонение от (18.2) недопустимо. То есть, он/она не говорит, что мое объяснение неверно, а просто его игнорирует. Допустим это еще можно было как-то понять, если бы он/она были в принципе против де Ситтера. Но он/она даже рекомендует мне какие-то статьи по AdS/CFT. То есть, он/она совершенно не понимает, что для де Ситтеровской симметрии соотношение (18.2) может быть только приближенным. Я сразу написал редакции короткое письмо в котором написал, что Рецензент #3 не понимает самых основ де Ситтеровской симметрии и попросил чтобы редакция спросила у ЛЮБОГО эксперта по де Ситтер симметрии является ли соотношение (18.2) точным или приближенным. А потом послал им такой appeal:
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
