Популярно о конечной математике и ее интересных применениях в квантовой теории - Феликс Лев

и правильные, то должны статью принять без субъективных суждений о потенциальной важности. Но получил такой ответ:

Dear Felix Lev,

Many thanks for submitting the manuscript “A Simple Proof That Finite Quantum Theory And Finite Mathematics Are More Fundamental Than Standard Quantum Theory And Classical Mathematics, Respectively" to Scientific Reports. However, we regret that as the subject of your study is beyond the scope of the journal we cannot consider it for publication as pure mathematics is beyond our scope. Scientific Reports publishes original research from all areas of the natural and clinical sciences. I apologize that this was not discovered earlier during the quality control stage.

Thank you for the opportunity to consider your work. I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion and hope you will not be deterred from submitting future work to Scientific Reports.

Best regards,

Mark Daly

Editorial Board Member

Scientific Reports

Этот Daly – член Editorial Board и про него журнал сообщает следующее:

Mark joined Scientific Reports in November 2017 after an undergraduate degree in physics at the University College Cork, Ireland, and PhD at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, Japan. His interests lie in optical manipulation and structured light.

Т.е., у него есть аж PhD. И с таким “высоким” уровнем он думает, что моя статья по чистой математике (а в журнале есть разделы Mathematical Physics, Quantum Physics и др.). Т. е., опять все как обычно, что вопрос о фундаментальной статье, которая меняет стандартные парадигмы по физике и математике решает тот кто понятия не имеет о фундаментальной физике и математике. В инструкции для авторов пишут, что автор должен предложить кто из Editorial Board может быть handling editor. Я предложил Igor Yurkevich, который работает в Aston University, но ему даже не послали. Когда я ему об этом написал, то он ответил. Ответ очень интересный т. к. показывает мнение физика, который в этих кругах:

I am pretty sure that they even did not bother to send abstract to anyone. Usually such an invitation to handle a submission takes a week or so until someone picks it up. If not, they send another "chasing up" invitation to other Editorial Board members. Quick response means that some technical clerk read and decided not to proceed with formalities. This is now standard procedure in Nature and Science publishing journals. Someone's taste decides everything – era of scarce resources!

Т.е., даже высококвалифицированный физик понимает, что что-то не то в королевстве датском, но от высококвалифицированных физиков мало что зависит.

Еще одна попытка – журнал Mathematics, который, вроде бы, высоко не котируется и часто берет работы авторов, которые не в establishment. В отличие от так наз. престижных журналов, здесь отказ мотивировался рецензиями:

Рецензия 1: The Author of submitted manuscript believes that he presents and proofs fundamental ideas concerning general relations between the quantum theory and foundations of mathematics. He refers to the previously published papers (authored by him) and to results presented there. Some of those articles can be found in the references. Those papers were devoted to the finite mathematics and proposed by the Author «finite quantum theory». Unfortunately, it is difficult to judge positively the submitted manuscript. The Author presents in the first part of the paper some historical and philosophical considerations and remarks. Next, the Author presents proposed by him a statement and mathematical proof and discussion (Section 3), and finally, he goes back to the discussion of rather philosophical nature. Concerning the more mathematical part of the manuscript, it contains the figure and some considerations which have already been published by the Author in Physics of Particles and Nuclei Letters 14:77 (2017) – this article was not mentioned in the list of references. Concerning the latter, one can find there only the references to four books devoted to the philosophy and those concerning the papers which were written by the Author. In my opinion, the manuscript does not fit the topic s of the Mathematics journal. Maybe it will be more suitable for publishing in one of the journals devoted to the philosophy. Moreover, the form of the paper does not meet the standards of the journal. Thus, I can conclude that the article should be rejected.

Рецензия 2: This is another paper of the Author dealing with a kind of modular arithmetic and its purported application in physics. The method is motivated by the verification principle. According to Wikipedia (I am not a philosopher and therefore have to rely on external sources), «Verificationism, also known as the verification principle or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies)». This is in contrast to the Author's definition «A proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false (see e.g. Refs. [1])». – the term empirical is missing. Then the Author continues «Popper proposed the concept of falsicationism [3]: If no cases where a claim is false can be found, then the hypothesis is accepted as provisionally true». – I am afraid I am not able to see the relevance of this discussion to the mathematical content. I also find it trivial to demand that «According to the principles of quantum theory, there should be no statements accepted without proof and based on belief in their correctness (i.e. axioms)». This is a rather general principle for physical theories; not only quantum mechanics. I am afraid that the main statement of the paper is almost trivial: «Main Statement: Even classical mathematics itself is a special degenerated case of finite mathematics in the formal limit when the characteristic of the field or ring in the latter goes to infinity». Is that not done in analysis all the time? The Author also misses out the metamathematical debates on *) constructive mathematics; as exposed, e.g., in… и дальше