I created this website to document the deficiency of the modern peer-review system. To show how the incompetence of the referees goes unnoticed and unresolved. To show how much pressure the system places on the journal editors, who for the sake of efficiency put no effort in understanding the reviews, and who base their decisions solely on just 'yay' or 'nay' of the referees. Sometimes the editors may take reviewers' reputations into account, but never their actual arguments.

On this site I have a collection of manuscripts that I have great difficulties publishing. I provide the exact copies of the manuscripts, as well as communications with editors and reviewers. This is my attempt to change the peer-review system - the reviews should be published along with the manuscripts.

With great astonishment I watch how modern knowledge is transformed into a belief. I do not anticipate to correct the way of thinking for the believers - it seems that all scientific journals are in their control. I created this site for those, who like me want to be free from dogmas, and for those young scientists whose mind is still free from the effects of the brainwashing - here they can learn how to separate the truths and beliefs in their teachers' teachings.

I am a senior scientist (theoretician) at the Joint Institute for Nuclear research in Dubna, Russia. I specialize in physics of elementary particles, scattering theory, and quantum mechanics. I have over 150 publications in peer-reviewed journals, and two monographs on the physics and optics of neutrons. I have been working in the field for over 50 years and accumulated sufficient amount or knowledge and expertise to be confident and convinced in my work.

I only welcome your constructive criticism of my papers. Please feel free to find errors. Lets have a scientific debate. Physics is not a matter of opinion - the absolute truth does exist.

- Vladimir Ignatovich
September 1, 2010

Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox

This is a controversial paper - there is no doubt about it. It criticizes the well-accepted fundamentals in quantum mechanics.

First, I overview the problem of defining an observable, such as the momentum of a system. The accepted definition through the eigen value of the momentum operator makes it impossibility to even define the probability of the position.

Second, using the common sense logic and even the logic of the EPR paper, I show that the entangled states of separated particles do not exist.

Third, I show that all the experiments on nonlocality and violation of Bell's inequalities are in fact not credible. I raise doubts about Aspect's experiments, and about more recent experiments using parametric down conversion of photons.

Fourth, it follows from the absence of the entanglement that the widely discussed phenomena of quantum cryptography, teleportation and computing are unwarranted. These branches of science will forever remain as pure speculation with no implementation in the real world.

My goal is not to overthrow quantum mechanics or prevent huge sums money invested into what turns out to be nonsense. My research is motivated only by the interest in, and for the sake of, knowledge.

July, 2010. Submission to Foundations of Physics
Title: On EPR Paradox, No Entanglement Theorem For Separate Particles And Consequences.
May, 2010. Submission to International Journal of Quantum Information
Title: On EPR Paradox, Bell's Inequalities and Experiments That Prove Nothing. Submitted to the special issue Advances in foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Information, as part of conference proceedings. The manuscript was rejected. Appeal was not allowed.
November 7, 2007. Submission to Concepts of Physics
Title: On Epr Paradox, Bell's Inequalities and Experiments That Prove Nothing. The paper has been published in 2008 along with the referee replies.

Quantum scattering theory

It is common in all the textbooks to describe the scattering process using spherical waves. It is logical to do so in classical physics, e.g. acoustics, because the spherical wave is a distortion of the medium. In quantum physics however, scattering describes the transformation of states of a free particle: from an initial state with momentum k into final state with momentum k'.

The free particle has a wave function in the form of a plain wave, which is a solution to the free Schrodinger equation. The final state after the scattering must be a superposition of free states, i.e. superposition of plain waves with different k'.

The Fourier expansion of a spherical wave contains evanescent, i.e. exponentially decaying waves, which are a feature of bound states. To get the correct asymptotical wave function after scattering we must subtract these evanescent waves from the spherical function.

The subtraction gives a good asymptotic of the wave function after the scattering, but creates a lot of problems which are very interesting and worth discussing. However such a simple idea is rejected by everyone whose mind is in tenets of textbooks dogmas since the times of their studentship.

May, 2010. Submission to International Journal of Quantum Information
Title: Quantum Scattering Theories, Their Contradictions And Attempts To Resolve Them. Submitted to the special issue Advances in foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Information, as part of conference proceedings.
July, 2010. Submission to ArXiv
As it turns out, ArXiv does not allow the reviews of the referees to be included verbatim. I received the following message: Your submission's status has been held upon notice from our moderators. Please note that it is inappropriate to directly quote from the referee reports. You may describe the referee reports. My attempts to understand or overcome the reasons behind such barbaric rules were unsuccessful - the manuscript was removed from the ArXiv servers.

Total Internal Reflection from Gainy Media

This paper was written in the response to the article by Prof. Anthony Siegman in the Optics and Photonics News. It is in essence a direct criticism of his work. This fact is important to keep in mind.

September 3, 2010. Submission to Physics Review Letters
The outcome of the analysis of the paper by Dr. Siegman is a proposed experiment, where multiple reflections of gainy medium can be used to study ball lightning and other nonlinear phenomena.
June 03, 2010. Submission to Optics Letters
The article was forwarded to Dr. Siegman for review. This is partially due to our fault, since we did not exclude Dr. Siegman from the potential referees. Obviously, Dr. Siegman did not want the article from being published. However, the topical editor Timothy Carrig, and the deputy editor Brian Justus refused to dismiss his review, even though there is clearly a conflict of interests. I am not even sure if the editors even read the explanations in our appeal.
February 12, 2010. Submission to OPN
We found multiple errors in Dr. Siegman's article, even on the basic level. We listed them in a detailed manuscript, which we forwarded to OP. However since the OPN is not a peer-reviewed publication, they refused to accept the article. Instead, OPN published a short version of our comments.