SciPost Submission Page
A rigorous calculation of the Feynman and Wheeler Scalar Fields propagators in the ADS / CFT correspondence using distribution theory
by A. Plastino, M. C. Rocca
Submission summary
As Contributors:  Mario Rocca 
Arxiv Link:  https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.03473v2 
Date submitted:  20190208 
Submitted by:  Rocca, Mario 
Submitted to:  SciPost Physics 
Domain(s):  Theoretical 
Subject area:  HighEnergy Physics  Theory 
Abstract
By appeal to Distribution Theory we discuss in rigorous fashion, without appealing to {\bf any conjecture} (as usually done by other authors), the boundarybulk propagators for the scalar field, both in the nonmassive and massive cases. These calculations, new in the literature as far as we know, are carried out in two instances: (i) when the boundary is a Euclidean space and (ii) when it is of Minkowskian nature. In this last case we compute also three propagators: Feynman's, AntiFeynman's, and Wheeler's (half advanced plus half retarded). For an operator corresponding to scalar field we obtain the two points correlations functions in the three instances above mentioned
Current status:
Submission & Refereeing History
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 1 on 201942 Invited Report
Strengths

Weaknesses
1 The problem discussed has been already addressed in the literature in more depth than is attempted in the present article.
2 The relevant references are not cited, e.g.:
https://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9911182
https://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/0212072
https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0150
https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2909
3 Renormalized 2point functions are not considered. The unrenormalized 2point functions are not well defined distributions at coincident points for all scalar masses.
4 Except for the introduction, the article is a compendium of fairly elementary calculations.
Report
Due to the reasons cited above, I deem this article unsuitable for publication.
Requested changes

The referee wrote a very poor report that does not address the CONTENTS of our paper.
1 False assertions are made by the referee. For instance, the ADS/CFT Wheeler propagator
for a scalar field has been NEVER before discussed in the Literature.
2 The referee gives references that are not related at all to our paper.
For instance, the first of them refers to propagators for tensor fields. We deal only with scalar fields.
 We do cite the main 15 papers on the subject.
 We also cite Nastase's book.
3The referee seems to ignore everything about distributions. For instance, he speaks about
value of distribution at a point, which is nonsense.. In particular for two point correlation's functions,
renormalized or not renormalized.
4 It seems that the referee has not bothered to read our paper in any detail.
With all due respect, we request then a new, more adequate referee.with knowledge
on Distribution's Theory.
Mario Rocca
The referee wrote a very poor report that does not address the CONTENTS of our paper.
1 False assertions are made by the referee. For instance, the ADS/CFT Wheeler propagator
for a scalar field has been NEVER before discussed in the Literature.
2 The referee gives references that are not related at all to our paper.
For instance, the first of them refers to propagators for tensor fields. We deal only with scalar fields.
 We do cite the main 15 papers on the subject.
 We also cite Nastase's book.
3The referee seems to ignore everything about distributions. For instance, he speaks about
value of distribution at a point, which is nonsense.. In particular for two point correlation's functions,
renormalized or not renormalized.
4 It seems that the referee has not bothered to read our paper in any detail.