Peer Rejected

rejections > soc.TH > REJ:2026.07.03.0001

REJ:2026.07.03.0001soc.TH (Social Thermodynamics)PRJ-2026-0002Vol. 1, No. 1DOI 10.55555/prj.2026.0001Status: Rejected

The No-Cloning Theorem of Taste: On the Thermodynamic Irreproducibility of Aesthetic Experience

Aurelia Sørensen-Vale1, M. Kaeda Ishibashi2, Per Halvorsen3

1. Institute for Aural Thermodynamics, Trondheim · 2. Department of Applied Maximalism, Rønne School of Design · 3. Laboratory for Involuntary Response, Uppsala

Submitted and rejected July 3, 2026 · 5 pages · 7 figures · review duration: 34 minutes

[pdf][share on x]

Abstract

A design can be copied to the byte and still fail. We formalize this everyday observation as a conservation law, introducing the aural charge of an artifact — the total involuntary physiological response it evokes, measured in gasps () via time-locked spirometry. We prove that is conserved under lossless re-encoding yet, casting an artifact’s felt state as a non-orthogonal vector in a Hilbert space of affective configurations, that no specification-only operator can duplicate it: a no-cloning theorem for aesthetic experience. In a pre-registered within-subject study (), spectrally identical spec-clones (, ) retained only 18% of the original charge (, , , ), and residual charge was uncorrelated with surface fidelity (). A stakeholder dose-response fit with critical committee size shows aura is extinguished above four approvers, and an interpolation sweep confirms aura is a boundary functional: the mean of two masterpieces gasps less than either. The valuable part of a design is the part that cannot, in principle, be copied from its source. Implications for intellectual property are the reverse of those usually assumed.

keywords: aural charge · no-cloning · gasp psychophysics · stakeholder entropy · aesthetic conservation

Cite this rejection

@article{PRJ20260002,
  title   = {The No-Cloning Theorem of Taste: On the Thermodynamic Irreproducibility of Aesthetic Experience},
  author  = {Aurelia Sørensen-Vale and M. Kaeda Ishibashi and Per Halvorsen},
  journal = {Peer Rejected},
  year    = {2026},
  note    = {Rejected manuscript, PRJ-2026-0002},
  url     = {https://peerrejected.com/papers/no-cloning-theorem-of-taste}
}

Citing this paper is done at your own professional risk.

The paper, in full

[open in new tab]

Your browser can't display the PDF inline.

[download the PDF]

More from soc.TH

REJ:2026.09.11.0001 soc.TH (Social Thermodynamics) Rejected

The Passport Is Somewhere Safe: Security Is Bought Only With Retrievability, and the Retrieval Aid That Had to Fail

Elspeth Nunan, T. Aurelio Banning, Ifeoma Achterberg & The Standing Panel on Deposited Property

Comments: 6 pages, 7 figures, 0 reproducible results. Rejected in 36 minutes on Sep 11, 2026.

Abstract: The passport is somewhere safe. Everyone in the household agrees on this, nobody can produce it, and both facts follow from the same act of placement. We report the first study of domestic and institutional safekeeping to observe its own denominator, recovering 24 , 180 placements by exhaustive excavation of premises cleared by a party other than the placer. Recovery does not fall with storage duration; it falls with the care taken at placement. Expecting to repair this, we built and trialled a household Placement Register in which the location is written down as it is chosen. Recovery in the register arm fell (odds ratio 0.71 , 95% CI 0.58 – 0.86 ), and it fell because the register licensed safer placements rather than better records. We therefore abandon the account we set out to defend. Security and retrievability are one quantity: the Lambda approx 9.7 bits of placement entropy admitted by a median dwelling, partitioned at the instant of placement and never afterwards enlarged. Every bit withheld from a thief is withheld from the owner, in the same act. A perfectly secure placement is therefore an unrecoverable one, and the same frontier governs hotel safes and national archives alike. “Somewhere safe” is not a location. It is a disposal instruction, and it is always carried out.

[abs][pdf][bibtex]

REJ:2026.08.30.0001 soc.TH (Social Thermodynamics) Rejected

Courtesy-Driven Deadlock: Simultaneous Speech in Remote Conversation Is Generated by Its Own Repair, Not by Transmission Delay

E. M. Farrow, Sofia Reinholt & The DEFERENCE Study Group

Comments: 6 pages, 7 figures, 0 reproducible results. Rejected in 13 minutes on Aug 30, 2026.

Abstract: Two people on a video call start talking at the same time. They both stop, both apologise, and both start again. Everyone blames the connection, and we find that the connection is innocent. Ordinary call recordings cannot settle the question, because they register when a person was heard rather than when they spoke. Using local-onset capture, which timestamps each talker at their own device before transmission, we measured simultaneity in 84,216 calls and then randomised 1,204 participants to concealed one-way delays between 0 and 640 ms. The collision rate did not move: 4.13 per participant-hour, with a latency slope of 0.01 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.06 ). Courtesy moved it a great deal. Teams briefed on yielding etiquette collided half again as often as untrained teams, and teams instructed to appoint one participant who never yields collided a fifth as often as the briefed teams. We account for this with a delay-differential model in which the governing lag is not the network’s but the talker’s — the time to notice an overlap and decide to defer — and in which deference is the loop gain. Above a critical value the exchange undergoes a Hopf bifurcation and the apology begins to manufacture the overlap it was offered to repair. The remedy is structural. Every meeting should appoint someone to be rude.

[abs][pdf][bibtex]

REJ:2026.08.20.0001 soc.TH (Social Thermodynamics) Rejected

The Fire Extinguisher Is an Inspection Instrument: Charge-Blinded Randomisation in 41,208 Rooms, a 1.24-Million-Room-Year Instrumented Cohort, and a Standing Directive on Attendance

Ines Halloran

Comments: 6 pages, 5 figures, 0 reproducible results. Rejected in 39 minutes on Aug 20, 2026.

Abstract: A fire extinguisher hangs within thirty feet of most people who will read this. Almost nobody has ever seen one used, and the reason is not that fires are rare: the agent inside the cylinder makes no contribution to whether a room catches fire. We linked service records to ignition records for 61,412 rooms across 1,243,900 room-years and modelled room-level ignition against two exposures carried together — whether the unit’s service tag was current, and how much agent the unit held. Attendance predicted ignition strongly (adjusted hazard ratio 0.19 , 95% CI 0.16 – 0.23 ). Charge mass did not predict it, and the dose–response curve is flat from an empty cylinder to a full one. The association survives instrumentation on a 2014 redraw of contractor depot catchments, which moved rooms between inspection circuits for reasons of road geometry alone. We then randomised 41,208 rooms to charged units, to mass-matched inert units that cannot be told apart from them by lift, gauge, seal, or paperwork, or to a bracket and a service tag with no cylinder at all. Over 181,315 room-years the arms were indistinguishable (hazard ratio 1.02 for inert versus charged; pre-specified non-inferiority met). The cylinder is a scheduling device. What protects the room is not the cylinder but the fact that somebody came.

[abs][pdf][bibtex]