It is not open rejection (with arguments) but simple ignorance which characterizes the reaction of the mainstream of physics to my theories. So I'm happy even with some rejections of publications: They at least give me some reaction, even if it is a negative one.
But in this particular case, the "rejection" is quite positive. Of course, this doesn't increase the number of my peer-review published papers. But, fortunately, I do not have to care about this number. The part of the peer-review process which is important for me has been answered positively:
… the paper fulfills the first requirement asked to the referee [Is the paper technically correct and accurate?] … (referee report)
In this sense, the submission has been successful.
And we can have some fun recognising that it is technically correct and accurate, but nor a novel result, nor of much interest for the readers of "Foundations of Physics", that many popular interpretations of quantum theory, in particular many worlds and consistent histories, as well as the decoherence program should be given up:
If one follows the arguments of this paper, the program of developing pure quantum interpretations has to be given up. One can save particular pure interpretations only by introducing an additional physically motivated structure. As a consequence, they loose one of their most attractive features — their purity.
… In particular, we have to include here the modern variants of many worlds, other Everett-like interpretations, and decoherent histories (see [25] for some overview), Mermin's Ithaca interpretation [13], and what Wallace [25] has named "new pragmatism".
… In particular, the popular idea that decoherence can be used to fix a preferred set of observables is false. (the paper)
We have been also surprised to find Mermin's Ithaca interpretation, explicitly mentioned as a pure interpretation in the paper, implicitly classified in the report as a variant of the Everett interpretation – a really nice insider joke.
… The pure interpretations are Everett's relative state interpretation and its variants. … (referee report)
Foundations of Physics
from:
to: ilja.schmelzer@gmail.com
Dear Ilja Schmelzer,
We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript FOOP1026 "Why pure quantum theory is not enough".
With regret, I must inform you that, based on the advice received, the
Editors have decided that your manuscript cannot be accepted for
publication in Foundations of Physics.
Below, please find the comments for your perusal.
I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to
us for consideration and wish you every success in finding an
alternative place of publication.
With kind regards,
Gerard 't Hooft
Chief Editor
Comments for the Author:
Editorial comment: if, as advised by the referee, the author decides to
write a brief paper on this topic, it may be submited to this Journal
as a Letter and it may be reconsidered.
Reviewer #1: The paper departs from some consequences from the theory
of the KdV equations, demonstrated in a previous paper by the same
author, to demonstrate that these consequences are problematic for
"interpretations of quantum theory which reject the classical part of
the Copenhagen interpretation, but do no add an appropriate replacement
to it's quantum part." The main purpose of the author is thus to show
that "The ideal of a 'pure interpretation' of quantum theory, which
does not add anything to the quantum part, but allows to derive the
classical part, has to be given up." The pure interpretations are
Everett's relative state interpretation and its variants. In the
previous paper, cited in the submitted manuscript, the author has shown
that the theory of KdV equations implies "that the Hamilton operator
alone is not sufficient to fix the physics."
As the author acknowledged that the manuscript is a follow-up of the
previous paper, by the way published in Foundations of Physics [FofP],
I have analyzed and compared both, trying to figure out what the main
new developments were. Unfortunately, as far as I was able to make such
a comparison I do not think that the additions should justify anew
paper in FofP. Indeed, the physical ideas are the same, and the
manuscript only extends the points already expressed.
The author, himself, justified the paper in the sense I have
interpreted it, as he wrote, while discussing with one of the referees:
"Reading in the referee report 'I think no one will argue that his
conclusion is incorrect, but for some of the committed many-worlds
people with whom he is contending' has left me with a feeling of
unease. On the one hand, it is nice to read that your conclusions are
correct. On the other hand, there was a feeling that my conclusions
have not been strong enough, that these examples are problematic not
only for some particular opinions of some of the many worlders."
Indeed, while the paper fulfills the first requirement asked to the
referee [Is the paper technically correct and accurate?] it does not
meet the next requirement [Does it contain novel results and do you
consider it of interest to readers of Foundations of Physics?]. I do
not think that a paper to strengthen conclusions from a previous paper
published in the same journal is
suitable to be published in FofP.
Therefore I would suggest the author to write a short and concise
letter stating the main points he thinks were misunderstood or not
enough stated in the previous paper and submit it to the editor of this
journal.