2021-05-28 21:57:51 UTC
I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of light possible?" today. The editor wrote:
"While the reviewers expressed interest in your work, they were unconvinced by your analysis. One reviewer offers specific recommendations for restructuring your analysis in terms of Minkowski spacetime, to make it easier to understand. I encourage you to use the reviewers' comments to recast your analysis in a more convincing way."
I consider use of Minkowski spacetime to be the problem rather than the solution because it encourages the belief that time is symmetrical when all physical evidence shows it to be asymmetrical. I avoided Minkowski diagrams for that very reason, but that point needs to be emphasized and expanded.
The other reviewer took issue with my claim, “Infinite speed represents a barrier which cannot be breached, even by a tachyon. Furthermore, infinite speed would mean that the tachyon would be everywhere at once, which would present an analytical and philosophical conundrum.”
"The author just says this, without any analysis or any reference to other experts. It may seem intuitive to the author. It might be readily accepted as true by students who heard such statements from their physics teacher. But it is incorrect."
I don't think it's "incorrect," but the claim would seem to require significantly more development. Some of the discussion with Ron has already begun this. It appears that an acceptable paper would require a lot more detail on the two major concerns expressed by the reviewers.
I thought it was strange that the first reviewer would say, "the speculative nature of the article suggests to me that AJP is not the appropriate journal for this article" since the first publication on FTL particles that obeyed SR was in the AJP :-))