From: Caroline Thompson [ch.thompson1@virgin.net]
Sent: 09 August 2005 10:30
To: Physical Review A
Cc: Philippe Grangier; Alexander Lvovsky; Emilio Santos
Subject: RE: To_author AH10009 Thompson

Dear Prof Hillery

Had you rejected my paper on the grounds that it attempts to cover too much, making too many linked challenges to existing theory at once, I might have agreed, but to say either that the motivation is unclear or that I do not suggest experiments to test my suggestions is absurd!

Of course, there is more than one motivation here, but all are linked: I am trying to correct perceived faults in existing theory. I should like to see the proposed loophole-free experiments used as a focal point for a fundamental review of how concepts such as entanglement and non-classical light really square up in relation to the real world. In my view, they are parts of a mathematical edifice that has never been properly tested.

If I suggest that this mathematics itself may include errors it is not without reason. In the course of my studies I have encountered glaring errors that have gone unnoticed by referees. One paper in PRL, for instance, included a graph showing negative variances -- something contrary to the very definition.

As to how my ideas can be experimentally distinguished, firstly I should like to point out that my aim is not so much the prediction of new phenomena as the provision of more understandable models. Naturally, such models would be expected to lead to better predictions, but they are strongly dependent on the conditions of the experiment. That is why I should like to see the experiment conducted under a range of different conditions, and recording more data than the proposers require for their Bell test. In the absence of such supplementary data, all I can do is make general statements. For example, I do not expect the results to depend on properties of the beamsplitters in the manner predicted because that prediction depends on premises associated with the photon nature of light that I regard as false.

The only really definite prediction is the obvious one: I do not think there is any chance of the experiment violating a Bell test.

I accept, therefore, that you will not be publishing my paper. I would like to repeat, though, what I must have said before -- that in my opinion your policies do not augur well for the long-term future of your journal. You are suppressing the healthy criticism that ought to be functioning to correct errors and keep theory in line with reality.

Yours sincerely
Caroline

-----Original Message-----
From: Physical Review A [mailto:pra@ridge.aps.org]
Sent: 08 August 2005 13:24
To: ch.thompson1@virgin.net
Subject: To_author AH10009 Thompson

Re: AH10009 
Homodyne detection and parametric down-conversion: A classical approach applied to proposed ``loophole-free'' Bell tests 
by Caroline H. Thompson

Dr. Caroline H. Thompson

Dear Dr. Thompson,

We regret to inform you that the above manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in the Physical Review.

Papers on alternatives to currently accepted theories must meet a set of stringent requirements for publication in the Physical Review. Authors must justify publication by including a clear discussion of the motivation for the new speculation, with reasons for introducing new concepts. In addition, plausible arguments should be set forth that these predictions and interpretations are experimentally distinguishable from existing knowledge.

Your paper does not meet these requirements. We therefore recommend that you submit it elsewhere.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Hillery
Associate Editor Physical Review A

Return to letters page or
Return to front page