Second desk-rejection for my I-Field Theory manuscript from Foundations of Physics (same editor), again without technical feedback or peer review.

Rejections without reasons prevent productive dialogue and make it impossible to address concerns I don't know about.

The paper remains on Zenodo for anyone who wants to engage with the physics: https://zenodo.org/records/20390108

#Physics #TheoreticalPhysics #SpringerNature #OpenScience #AcademicPublishing #Entropy #FoundationsOfPhysics

The Irreversibility Field (I-Field):A Classical Framework for Fundamental Irreversibility in Physics

 We present the I-field: a classical scalar field minimally coupled to matter whose equation of motion contains an explicit time-asymmetric dissipation term, derived from the Euler-Lagrange-Rayleigh (ELR) formalism [@rayleigh1877]. The field does not modify the gravitational sector: Einstein's field equations are unchanged, and the total stress-energy tensor of matter plus I-field is covariantly conserved. In the limit $\gamma \to 0$ the theory reduces exactly to standard classical field theory.  The dissipation term $\gamma u^\mu \partial_\mu \mathcal{I}$, where $u^\mu$ is the four-velocity of the cosmological rest frame and $\gamma > 0$ is a coupling constant, is odd under time reversal while every term derived from a Lagrangian is even. This explicit breaking of time-reversal symmetry at the level of the field equation --- rather than through boundary conditions or statistical postulates --- has three consequences derived as theorems within the framework:   1. The I-field carries a covariant entropy production density   $\sigma_{\mathcal{I}} = \gamma\dot{\mathcal{I}}^2 \geq 0$   pointwise, establishing the second law of thermodynamics as   a field-theoretic identity rather than a postulate.     2. The energy transferred from matter to the I-field is strictly   non-negative, providing a microscopic account of dissipation   without invoking a heat bath or environment.     3. The preferred time direction is globally well-defined,   identified with the cosmological rest frame in which the   cosmic microwave background is isotropic [@fixsen2009].     The theory is self-contained and makes no modifications to the gravitational sector. The framework provides a minimal, classical extension of standard field theory in which irreversibility is fundamental rather than

Zenodo
@FundamentalTime For most publications in peer-reviewed journals, a paper should somehow fit into the field. Research is usually a slow process and any new publication makes small steps forward, building on previous research. Peer-reviewing has to be done by the same people, who have to do their own research to publish. So there is not much time for evaluation and feedback is often spared for work that has a good chance of publication. It may also take several tries, at different journals.
@cminz The 'I' in the I-field theory stands for Irreversibility, not Information. This theory treats irreversibility as a fundamental property rather than an emergent effect, a concept currently absent from the literature. The mathematical foundation is robust, derived from first principles, and fully consistent with general relativity. Most importantly, it is verifiable through falsifiable predictions like gravitational wave echoes. Full math on Zenodo, which the editor likely skipped.
@FundamentalTime The peer-reviewing has to be done by someone that can, not only understand your paper, but is also able to point out possible issues with your work (and this often for free). The more your work is directly connected to the research usually published in that journal, the easier it is for the editor to find an expert that can do the review (quickly enough). Exotic or radical ideas are usually either completely wrong or extremely hard to review.
@cminz Current physics is the truly 'exotic' one by assuming a reversible world we never observe. The I-field theory is as simple as it is intuitive: it treats irreversibility as a fundamental law rather than a statistical accident. Just as a riverbed is formed by the water's friction, neural traces and gravity are formed by the vacuum’s dissipation. It is more logical to build time into the equations than to treat it as a fluke. Robust math is on Zenodo, waiting for a brave reviewer.
@FundamentalTime The word 'exotic' was perhaps a poor choice by me for 'non-main-stream'. My posts aimed to raise some general points for the peer-reviewing process and I wanted to give some reasons why a paper can be rejected without further discussion (not just about your work).