This site is about what is wrong with Fundamental
Physics. It started with the discovery that we have
been misled. We have been told that experiments agree
with all the predictions of quantum theory,
including those that involve the impossible - the Bell
test experiments, that are
supposed to show totally incomprehensible effects of
separated particles on each other. I have looked at
the evidence. The "loopholes" that they
know are present are large enough to allow for
perfectly straightforward explanations, with no sign of
"non-locality". I am led to suggest that
perhaps there is other currently-accepted
"evidence" for both quantum theory and
Einstein's relativity theories that needs
re-investigation. (There is! See Forgotten
History .) I am not talking of
"re-interpretation", but of recognising
that if we want to understand nature, not
just produce "predictions", the first step
is to re-assess the facts, reject falsehoods.
Additions, 1999 onwards. Very
30:12:05: Homodyne paper
rejected. They haven't grasped the point, which was to
get the proposed experiments actually done and see if I'm right:
the Bell test will not be infringed. I have not been offered
a chance to respond to the referees.
01:12:05: Submitted "The ‘Chaotic Ball’ model: local realism and the
Bell test ‘detection loophole’", C H Thompson and H Holstein, quant-ph/0210150
to J Phys.B.
28:11:05: Submitted "Homodyne
detection and optical parametric amlification: a classical approach applied to
proposed “loophole-free” Bell tests", quant-ph/0512141,
to J Phys. B.
- The Chaotic Ball
and the Bell test loopholes: For newcomers.
- Wikipedia pages on Bell tests:
I've added some pages of my own to this online encyclopaedia.
Though some now mangled (anyone can edit them), at least they now
- My Papers
(and a few others), with notes.
Report on Realism versus Quantum Weirdness (written July 31,
to Quantum Optics, inspired by EPR and other
"entanglement" experiments. These cover
the nature of light, atomic cascades and
for experiments: Some test fundamental ideas,
others check realist explanations.
in the headlines: Realist ideas on experiments that have hit
the headlines -- primarily those claiming quantum
entanglement. Which "loopholes" are
relevant? What facts do we need before we can explain
them? Most of my requests for additional data etc have gone
to magazines: I've taken to writing to New
Scientist, Physics World and such like, trying to
persuade them to change their tone. Why do they
have to present material as if quantum theory
were universally accepted? It is not. Why don't you
write too? One
November 2001, p17
on my work: This file covers only 1998-9.
It's just to remind me that I'm not on my own.
- The Aether, Relativity, Cosmology: For those more
interested in the structure of the universe than
quantum magic. Should we be thinking in terms an
all-pervading aether whose oscillations of state
are responsible for everything? Could
the universe be in a steady state after all, as
was commonly assumed before anyone heard of a
cosmological red shift? See my ideas for the basis of a Theory
of Everything, the latest version of which (December 2005) is
Phi-Wave Aether: a Wave Theory of Everything" (.pdf
(two-column compact format) or HTML)
History: The Einstein-Miller aether drift scandal, Millikan's
condemnation of Einstein's photon hypothesis, and other
interesting facts the establishment seems to have
forgotten! Additions welcome.
list: Just a few ideas, gleaned from my
friends. If you have ideas for additions please
let me know.
- FAQ: a small
beginning, answering a few questions on light, the aether,
"phi-waves" and forces.
- Who am I?
- People and
Places: Links to other sites (not complete!)
- Discusson groups I belong to
5 Sites . Skip
Previous . Previous
Next . Next
5 Sites . Random
Site . List