From: Physical Review A [pra@aps

From: Physical Review A [pra@aps.org]

Sent: 03 March 2004 22:06

To: ch.thompson1@virgin.net

Subject: To_author AG9055 Thompson

Re: AG9055

``Chaotic ball'' model, local realism, and Bell-test loopholes

by Caroline H. Thompson and Horst Holstein

Dear Dr. Thompson,

Thank you for your message dated 23 February last regarding your manuscript referenced above, which we had to reject on 27 August 2003.

It has indeed been a difficult task to define the boundaries between the scope of Physical Review A and adjoining areas, such as chemical or mathematical physics or papers that deal with foundations of quantum mechanics.

We can understand your wish that our editorial policy be different. However, in light of the growth of the journal, it has become necessary to delineate the scope of PRA ever more sharply [see Editorial, Phys. Rev. A 52, No. 2, p. i (1995)]. The Editorial Board and the Editors decided that to be considered for publication in Physical Review A, a theoretical paper on the foundations of quantum mechanics should either (i) have an explicit and direct connection with experiment, or (ii) shed significant new light on quantum mechanics itself, by presenting new results in physics that significantly advance the field.

Under this policy, we had to advise you, in accordance with the referee's recommendation, to submit your manuscript for publication in another journal, more dedicated to foundations of quantum mechanics or philosophy of science.

We are sorry that you do not agree with our policy, which indeed is meeting with the approval of most of our readership and advisors. We actually do find your insistence difficult to understand, in view of the many alternative venues that are open for your purposes.

Yours sincerely,

Bernd Crasemann

Editor

Physical Review A

From: Caroline H Thompson [ch.thompson1@virgin.net]

Sent: 20 February 2004 23:10

To: Physical Review A

Cc: Horst Holstein

Subject: RE: To_author AG9055 Thompson

Re: AG9055

``Chaotic ball'' model, local realism, and Bell-test loopholes

by Caroline H. Thompson and Horst Holstein

Dear Prof Crasemann

Thank you for your message of 19 February. Whilst we have no choice but to accept your decision, we consider it to be misguided and seriously suggest that the Editorial Board should once again review their policy.

Yes indeed there are other journals, but are the experimental details we discuss of interest to philosophers? They would usually depend on physicists to digest this kind of information first. Our article is -- or at least, should be -- of immediate concern to experimenters, in particular to those who read PRL and PRA. It suggests that they should do "more comprehensive" sets of experiments -- ones that cover a substantial part of the parameter space -- if they hope to understand what is really happening in the Bell test experiments. The parameter space that is relevant is not just the limited one implied by the QT formula but the space of *all* parameters likely to affect the results. These include beam intensity, detector characteristics and size of coincidence window, to name but a few.

Is the Editorial Board's policy reasonable? It is surely not reasonable to assume that *all* papers on the loopholes are non-constructive. Our paper, along with the other one you rejected a few years ago (quant-ph/9903066) and one that I have not had the temerity even to submit to you (quant-ph/9911082), leads to a return to the old ideas about light and to ways of using these to explain a wide range -- indeed probably *all* -- "quantum optics" experiments. And it really is not correct to refer to the loopholes as "inventions". Some of the recent ones proposed are indeed inventions, bearing no relation to the actual experimental conditions, but the detection loophole is hard fact. So is the matter of subtraction of accidentals, though I think we can take it that all are now agreed that this is not legitimate.

Though we do not spell it out explicitly (it is not the main aim of the paper), we do make testable predictions that do relate to properties of nature. Consider an optical Bell test experiment in which the standard CHSH test is violated. Suppose the constancy of the total number of coincidences it tested thoroughly (not just looking at the "Bell test angles", as seems to be customary) and it is found, as we predict, that the number is not constant, having max and min at points half way between the Bell test points. This would tell us that the detectors (and possibly the polarisers) were *not* behaving as if they were detecting "photons" but instead were responding to classical wave signals. Further experiments would then be needed to investigate to what extent the deviations from QT were due to the behaviour at the polariser and to what extent at the detector. Other predictions, all leading to the same conclusion, concern deviations from sinudoidal shape of the coincidence curve, especially if the detection rate is decreased by either attenuating the beams or decreasing detector "efficiency".

[Much of the ambiguity of the Bell test results would, incidentally, be cleared up at a stroke if the experimenters were to publish all the known characteristics of their photodetectors. They are aware that the response to intensity is *not* exactly a matter of proportionality, since there are "dark counts" at zero intensity and the possibility of saturation at high ones. In order to complete the local realist model we need to know the true shape of the response curve.]

Again, is it reasonable for the Editorial Board to expect a paper devoted to clearing the way for new theory by pointing out how to check if the existing one is at fault to also suggest a complete replacement for QT? As I said above, we do have ideas for replacing a limited part of QT -- quantum optics. They are currently under discussion with some of the experimenters and theorists concerned. Can we really be expected to do more than that?

Yours sincerely

Caroline H Thompson

(for C H Thompson and H Holstein)

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Physical Review A [mailto:pra@aps.org]

> Sent: 19 February 2004 19:47

> To: ch.thompson1@virgin.net

> Subject: To_author AG9055 Thompson

> Re: AG9055

> ``Chaotic ball'' model, local realism, and Bell-test loopholes

> by Caroline H. Thompson and Horst Holstein

> Dear Dr. Thompson,

> Thank you for your message dated 31 August regarding your manuscript

> referenced above, which we could not accept for publication. We agree

> with the referee that the work would be better suited for publication in

> another journal, more oriented toward foundations of physics or

> philosophy of science. Among the 2500 manuscripts submitted annually to

> Physical Review A, we must select those for publication which, inter

> alia, satisfy our primary acceptance criterion (see enclosed "Notice to

> Referees"): contain new results in physics that significantly advance

> the field. Our acceptance criteria are extensively discussed by the

> editors and members of the Journal's Editorial Board and revised from

> time to time. With regard to local realism, our current policy is

> summarized succinctly, albeit a bit bluntly, by the following statement

> from one of our Board members:

> "In 1964, John Bell proved that local realistic theories led to an upper

> bound on correlations between distant events (Bell's inequality) and

> that quantum mechanics had predictions that violated that inequality.

> Ten years later, experimenters started to test in the laboratory the

> violation of Bell's inequality (or similar predictions of local

> realism). No experiment is perfect, and various authors invented

> "loopholes" such that the experiments were still compatible with local

> realism. Of course nobody proposed a local realistic theory that would

> reproduce quantitative predictions of quantum theory (energy levels,

> transition rates, etc.).

> This loophole hunting has no interest whatsoever in physics. It tells us

> nothing on the properties of nature. It makes no prediction that can be

> tested in new experiments. Therefore I recommend not to publish such

> papers in Physical Review A. Perhaps they could be suitable for a

> journal on the philosophy of science."

> Thus, you see that your request to seek additional review of your paper

> would not be helpful.

> We are sorry not to have better news, but fortunately there are many

> other prestigious journals with editorial policies that allow

> consideration of papers such as yours.

> We appreciate your sharing your concerns and hope that you will

> understand our constraints.

> Yours sincerely,

> Bernd Crasemann

> Editor

> Physical Review A

> Email: pra@aps.org

> Fax: 631-591-4141

> http://pra.aps.org/

> Please see the following forms:

> http://forms.aps.org/author/rvwstndrds-au-pra.pdf

> Review Standards - Notice to Referees - PRA