The Editor

The New Scientist

24:4:99

Dear Sir

Since when has an absurdity helped solve a paradox? If, like myself, you find the notion of time-warps leading to quantum weirdness (Marcus Chown reporting on Mark Hadley, April 24, p20) totally lacking in explanatory power, do not despair! The article said nothing about experimental evidence, and I have every reason to believe that there is none.

The only experiments that have ever been interpreted as demonstrating the weirdness concerned are the "quantum entanglement" ones, such as the famous "EPR" (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) experiments of Alain Aspect and his team in Paris, 1981-2. I have recently resubmitted to Physical Review A a paper on this subject, explaining that these and many other similar experiments have absolutely straightforward explanations that have been ignored. See <http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9903066> for the paper itself and my Web site (<http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat>) for more.

Hadley's ideas are, as surely Marcus must realise, pure fantasy, and I do not think New Scientist will continue to be respected unless it begins to distinguish a little more clearly between this and science. Hadley tells us that "the peculiar thing that happens to time when particles interact is exactly what is needed to create all quantum weirdness." What weirdness? Tell us the evidence for it! And if you value your sanity, I strongly recommend that you do not take the advice to "imagine a circle of space-time distorting ...".

I'm sorry to appear to come out so strongly against this particular article (it is but one among many that have been no less ridiculous in recent years), but I just do not understand the justification for re-opening the subject. It was covered more than adequately a year or so ago (*) . Would New Scientist consider a change of name, to "New Fantasy"?

* Ref? [Sorry, it's not in my bibliography. Could the editor please find it for me?]

Caroline H Thompson