PREAMBLE TO THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN 1995 IN THE JOURNAL ASTROPHYSICS AND SPACE SCIENCE, ENTITLED: TWIN UNIVERSE COSMOLOGY

Consolidated document. 16 original pages have been gathered here; the links below open each section.

Collection: PUBLISHED WORKS AND PREPRINTS — this document is part of it.

2) Large scale structure and 'twin universe model'.
Twin Universes cosmology (p 3)
Twin Universes cosmology (p 4)
Twin Universes cosmology (p 5)
Twin Universes cosmology (p 6)
Twin Universes cosmology (p 7)
Twin Universes cosmology (p 8)
Twin Universes cosmology (p 9)
Twin Universes cosmology (p 10)
Twin Universes cosmology (p 11)
Twin Universes cosmology (p 12)
Twin Universes cosmology (p 13)
Twin Universes cosmology (p 14)
Astronomy and Astrophysics
F3216

2) Large scale structure and 'twin universe model'.

Twin Universes cosmology (p 2)

Twin Universes cosmology (p 3)

Twin Universes cosmology (p 4)

Twin Universes cosmology (p 5)

Twin Universes cosmology (p 6)

Twin Universes cosmology (p 7)

Twin Universes cosmology (p 8)

Twin Universes cosmology (p 9)

Twin Universes cosmology (p 10)

Twin Universes cosmology (p 11)

Twin Universes cosmology (p 12)

Twin Universes cosmology (p 13)

Twin Universes cosmology (p 14)

Astronomy and Astrophysics

This presentation of works also constitutes a journal. After 1995, things go downhill. For eighteen months, despite a dozen submissions to various specialized journals, no submission to a referee. Invariable reply:

Sorry, we don't publish speculative works.

In October 1996, the same reply from Astronomy and Astrophysics, with the immediate return of a manuscript of about twenty pages. I call James Lequeux, the journal's editor.

- I don't understand. Your journal has published papers on dark matter.

- Yes, but for dark matter we have observational evidence: strong gravitational lensing effects.

- But our model also produces such effects, attributing them to a different cause. That's neither more nor less speculative. I'd like to insist that this work be submitted to an expert. If the latter finds disqualifying conceptual errors, we won't insist. Otherwise, you'll publish the work. Agreed?

- Agreed.

James Lequeux therefore submits the article to an anonymous referee and in February 1997 the latter replies, finding the work immediately "provocating and interesting", judging that the implications of such a model must be explored. A first series of questions follows. The discussion then begins. The initial article dealt essentially only with the confinement of galaxies. The referee then asks that this work be integrated into a complete cosmological model, that is to say that the question of cosmic evolution be addressed. In eleven months he asks sixty questions. The answers cause the article to swell. But the tone is very cordial and the questions are highly relevant. We take this opportunity to thank the referee in one of the letters accompanying our successive submissions (seven versions of the article). And the latter replies:

- I appreciate the kind remark about my work. I appreciate the patience of the authors .

As the referee wanted us to make a link with other works, which he cites (those of Foot, Volkas, Berezhiani and Mohapatra, Physical Review 1995, which refer to the solar neutrino deficit and suggest the existence of a "mirror universe") this leads to other developments.

The paper having become too large, we cut it into two parts, the second dealing with the radiative phase, and other themes. Suddenly we receive, dated December 1, 97, a letter from James Lequeux

Astronomy and Astrophysicsa European Journal Editors in Chief: H.J. Habing, J.Lequeux

J. Lequeux
Observatoire de Paris
61, avenue de l'observatoire
75014 Paris, France

Monsieur J.P. Petit

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

fax: 04-42 26 97 18

Ref : MS 5945

December 1, 1997

My Dear Petit,

I have just received the referee's reply on the 7th version of your paper "Matter-ghost matter astrophysics". I have the impression that the process will not converge and that we must stop here. I personally doubt that it is possible to arrive at a paper whose form and substance would be acceptable for publication in A&A. It is not possible for the referee and the editors to spend so much time on an article with ultimately few results.

I have therefore decided to stop here, and not to accept your paper for publication. You should consider my decision irrevocable and without appeal. It also concerns paper No. 2 " Matter-ghost -matter astrophysics. The radiative era..." which depends on the first.

Yours sincerely,

*signed: *J . Lequeux.

This letter is accompanied by the referee's latest comment, which in no way constitutes a rejection, since he states, as he had always done, "I think the basic idea is interesting". He merely asks for further details on the technique used for the numerical simulations, which we were ready to send him.

James Lequeux's irritation is understandable, as, up to a point, are those of the other journals. They are flooded with articles. Nature receives a hundred papers a day. After reflection, we decide to shorten this first article by limiting it to sections which, in principle, have already been thoroughly examined by the A & A referee and appear to us to have received his approval. We therefore send the following article to James Lequeux, accompanied by the enclosed letter:

Jean Pierre Petit
Director of Research
at CNRS
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Fax: 04-42 26 97 18

Aix, 12 January 1998

Dear Lequeux,

I have received your letter of 1 December 1997. I quite understand your irritation as an editor, faced with an affair that has been dragging on for more than ten months and that has already given rise to seven successive drafts. I imagine that journals like yours must be swamped with articles. If all your author-referee pairs indulged in such a game of ping-pong, your affair would become unmanageable.

But I am only partly responsible for this situation. I recall that the initial article was only twenty-two pages long. Your referee, over the course of successive exchanges, asked... sixty questions, which concerned only twenty percent of the text!

He wanted a complete cosmological model. He was provided with one. Then he wanted details on its radiative phase. There, the paper exceeded ninety pages. It was cut in two. But the referee wanted us to establish a link with other work by people who also envisaged structures with two populations (Foot, Volkas, Mohapatra and Berezhiani, "mirror universe" model, Physical Review 1995). This work therefore went off in all directions, and in the end I expected to receive questions like "and what about quarks, what do you think of them?"

I took up the whole of the work again and retained parts that had been extensively analyzed by your referee and received his approval. From there I recomposed the enclosed article. I therefore retained three themes: the confinement of galaxies and the problem of their rotation curve, the description of the "matter" phase of the twin model and the question of negative gravitational lens effects (already mentioned in a previous publication), the whole forming a coherent scientific whole with a minimum of coherence.

I removed the parts referring

To group theory.
to the joint solutions of the system of the two field equations "posi-Schwarzschild-Néga-Swcharzschild" that we had developed.
to our new model of spiral structure, based on 2d simulations.
to a model of galaxy formation.
to a theory of joint gravitational instabilities (conjugate Jeans equations)
to the reconstruction of Newton's and Poisson's equations in this twin context.
to the work of Foot, Volkas, Berezihani and Mohapatra, where our response had been a geometrical description of "mirror neutrinos", in terms of groups.

since your referee had made no comment on these sections.

I also removed the part devoted to the Very Large Structure, since the referee was still asking for clarifications on the techniques of our 2d simulations, although these were carried out in a completely classical manner.

We have renamed this second matter "repulsive dark matter". The existence of an unobserved component, in the universe, has, admittedly, become indispensable for accounting for numerous phenomena relating to astrophysics. Insofar as no candidate (machos or massive neutrinos) has been able to impose itself credibly and our model also accounts for strong gravitational lens effects, linked to galaxies and clusters, why not envisage a repulsive dark matter, an idea that seemed to have won over your referee from the outset, who recalled his general impression in his last report: "I like the basic idea".

F.Landsheat has disappeared as a coauthor since the part he had dealt with, linked to the spiral structure, does not appear in this new text.

I hope that the article I am sending you can be published in Astronomy and Astrophysics.

I take this opportunity to send you our best wishes for 1998.

*signed: *J.P.Petit

Immediate reply from Lequeux, who sends the article back to us without forwarding it to the referee:

Astronomy and Astrophysicsa European Journal Editors in Chief: H.J. Habing, J, Lequeux

J. LequeuxObservatoire de Paris 61, avenue de l'observatoire 75014 Paris, France

Monsieur J.P. Petit

xxxxxxxxxxxx

16 January 1998

Dear Sir,

I am sorry, but as I told you in my letter of 1 December, my decision to reject your papers "Matter ghost matter astrophysics" is final. You can submit this paper to other journals, for example:

Gravitation, Astrophysics and Cosmology
Ed. in Chief: Fang Li Zhi
Dept of Physics and Steward 0bservatory
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
USA

(4 copies).

Sincerely,

Signed: J. Lequeux.

Let us note in passing that the journal he cites had, a year or more earlier, sent us back the standard reply, probably without any real reading: