Amir D Aczel

(Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 2001)

From my letter to Prof Aczel, 4 January 2005. My own Bell test work forms a kind of sequel to Aczel’s story, starting only a few years before he finishes

Caroline H Thompson, 16 January 2005

Dear Prof Aczel

Yes, the story of entanglement is indeed one of the greatest detective stories of the 20^th century, but I’ve come into the arena late, encountered a totally different set of facts and come to the exact opposite conclusion. Had you interviewed Shimony a year or so later, possibly you would not have come away so convinced that the phenomenon really did happen. I would stake my life (as I’ve said openly in newsgroups) on it not happening!

I may not have met so many of the scientists as you face to face, but I have read a very considerable number of their papers and corresponded with, among other people, Anton Zeilinger, Philippe Grangier, Franck Laloë, Nicolas Gisin, John Rarity, Alan Duncan, Paul Kwiat, even briefly with Leon Mandel. I’ve met Lucien Hardy, Sam Braunstein and Nicolas Gisin face to face. And I have disagreed with all of them! It’s not that I think they are consciously misleading everyone, just that they are all caught up in an illusion. [That this illusion provides them with a livelihood may or may not be another factor in the equation.]

In 1993 I first came across Aspect’s work, and, not without some difficulty, obtained and studied his 1981-2 EPR papers. I discovered for myself how the “detection loophole” works. Later I discovered other loopholes. They are all very real and much more important than most people working in the field realise. Even Shimony did not seem to actually understand the detection loophole until he had read one of my papers on the Chaotic Ball model (see my web site). I don’t know if he read the first one I sent, some time in the late 1990’s, but in 2000 I managed via a mutual friend to gain his attention, and we have since had several quite fruitful discussions. In his otherwise excellent 1978 report with Clauser there is no sign that they between them knew just how it worked. [Or perhaps they did. It was not until Aspect started using his version of the CHSH test in 1982 that the detection loophole really began to be important. Before that, other local realist causes for Bell inequality infringements have to be sought. If they did understand the loophole, though, why did they not stand up and object to Aspect’s test? The detective story is not yet complete …]

Anyway, it rather looks as if we have run parallel paths, starting at much the same point in time but traversing the most contrasting territory imaginable! Whereas you were influenced at Berkeley by Heisenberg into believing mathematics could lead the way in physics, I was influenced at Cambridge by Herman Bondi in the opposite direction. Besides, from my brief introduction to quantum theory and Einstein’s relativity theories towards the end of my mathematics course, I had decided for myself that the theory of physics had gone off the rails. I could not see, and still cannot see, any reason to relinquish intuition. After a long period away from science, I came back at age 50 to discover that the absurdities to which I had objected in 1965 had still not been laughed out of court! Being unemployed but with access (till last year) to a university library, I set myself the task of telling the world the truth: that there is no experimental fact that cannot be explained using ordinary “local realism”. I have mainly concentrated on trying to tell people about the loopholes in the Bell tests, but recently have branched out into general physics, collecting together my ideas on the way forces work into a new wave-based TOE.

… Some day I shall write my own story. I’ve been waiting till I won my battle, since only then are publishers likely to accept it. [Early attempts at publication resulted in comments that it was “too technical” and similar excuses.] I think there are signs that victory is possible, despite the claimed success of applications of entanglement. My postings to the sci.physics.research group are no longer censored; Eric Lerner’s article condemning the Big Bang was published in New Scientist. The community may be gearing itself up for change.

Oh, and I did enjoy your book, despite the fact that it frequently made my blood boil! It filled in many gaps in my biographical knowledge.

Yours sincerely

Caroline H Thompson

Return to front page or

return to book list