impact in the community, this would be the right moment to publish a longer book-length treatment.

So I am sorry, but we will not change our decision about this proposal. I hope you will be successful in publishing your ideas as one or more journal papers.

То есть опять, раз у меня не QFT, то пошел подальше, а слова, что ”They are nonetheless open to new approaches” противоречат предыдущему. Мой ответ был такой:

Dear Angela,

Thank you for this info. To be honest, it looks rather strange for me. You say that “other established researchers in quantum theory remain skeptical. In particular they question the sense of applying finite mathematics to QFT in place of the well established renormalisation theory.” Did they send you their reports or these are only words? Do they have at least very basic understanding of finite mathematics? They propose me to publish new papers. My proposal is based on papers published in known journals: Annals of Physics, J.Math.Phys., J.Phys.A, Phys.Rev. D, Physics of Particles and Nuclei and Theor. Math. Phys. (the last two journals are published by Springer). If this is not sufficient then what are their requirements for publications? You say that “If the published results have some impact in the community…”. Several physicists support my approach. You say that you received two reports from physicists I proposed. But my list contains six names. Will you wait for other reports? Indeed, many physicists do not accept my approach but so far I failed to receive clear explanations of their reasons and to be honest, I suspect that one of the main reasons is that they do not have at least very basic understanding of finite mathematics. For the problems I discuss I do not need QFT and renormalization theory because I consider only systems of free particles in the framework of standard de Sitter symmetry or de Sitter symmetry based on finite math. I show that those symmetries result in effective interactions which have not been discussed in the literature, they change the notion of elementary particles, conservation laws etc.

Let me also note that in 2017 Springer published a monograph by Vourdas where applications of finite math are discussed and this monograph has nothing to do with QFT and renormalization theory. And finally my MOST fundamental result is: standard continuous math with infinitely small, continuity etc. (which was started by Newton and Leibniz approx.. 370 years ago) is a degenerated special case of finite mathematics in the formal limit when the characteristic of the field or ring in the latter goes to infinity. Moreover, in view of existence of elementary particles it is obvious that in nature there are no infinitely small quantities and no continuity but fundamental quantum theories are based on continuous math and many physicists oppose results where the other math is used. This result fundamentally changes the usual philosophy on what math and what physics are the most fundamental. I have no doubt that sooner or later this result will be acknowledged.

In summary, I would be very grateful if you explain me the following. Will you wait for the reports of other physicists proposed in my list? Could you tell me what are the requirements that my results have an impact in the community? And to be honest, I would be very grateful if you tell me without diplomacy whether I have real chances to be published by Springer. If the clear answer is “no” then no questions will be asked and I will not bother you anymore.

И после этого получил такой ответ:

Dear Felix,

Given the consensus among four long-standing advisors who I have now consulted, I am afraid that your book will not be further considered by Springer. It is a difficult case, as one of the reviewers commented, so perhaps another publisher will come to a different conclusion.

То есть теперь она уже ясно говорит, что шансов опубликовать монографию нет. Я не могу ее осуждать потому что она может принимать только те решения которые ей разрешают. И в данной ситуации у нее не было выбора.

Но через два года ситуация изменилась. Я переработал монографию и послал ей новую просьбу. В ней написал, что моя просьба простая: раз я посылаю proposal в раздел Fundamental theories of physics, то те которые будут рассматривать мой proposal, обязаны рассмотреть его в рамках editorial policy этой серии. Приведу полностью эту policy:

The international monograph series “Fundamental Theories of Physics” aims to stretch the boundaries of mainstream physics by clarifying and developing the theoretical and conceptual framework of physics and by applying it to a wide range of interdisciplinary scientific fields. Original contributions in well-established fields such as Quantum Physics, Relativity Theory, Cosmology, Quantum Field Theory, Statistical Mechanics and Nonlinear Dynamics are welcome. The series also provides a forum for non-conventional approaches to these fields. Publications should present new and promising ideas, with prospects for their further development, and carefully show how they connect to conventional views of the topic. Although the aim of this series is to go beyond established mainstream physics, a high profile and open-minded Editorial Board will evaluate all contributions carefully to ensure a high scientific standard.

То есть, произносится много хороших слов о том что могут быть non-conventional approaches, new and promising ideas и то что члены Editorial Board должны быть open-minded. Как я уже писал, предыдущие рецензии в этой серии не имели ничего общего с этой policy. Angela Lahee ответила, что она согласна, что моя просьба разумная и будет просить членов Editorial Board написать рецензию в соответствии с этой editorial policy. И она просила многих написать рецензию, но никто не захотел. Как она писала, кто-то долго тянул, а потом написал, что он занят своими делами и у него нет времени, но большинство просто не ответили.

Я не могу понять их логику: если они согласились быть в этой Editorial Board, то, казалось бы, они взяли на себя моральное обязательство писать