aroline H Thompson
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1
Note: The reason none of my papers on the Bell test loopholes have appeared in Physical Review Letters and Physical Review A is clear:
Editorial policy of the American Physical Society journals (including PRL and PRA):
"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."
"Homodyne
detection and optical parametric amplification: a classical approach applied to
proposed “loophole-free” Bell tests", C H Thompson, January
2005, revised July 2005.
Submitted to Physical Review A, 02:08:05; rejected. Submitted after
significant improvements and slight change of title to J. Opt. B, November 2005, with copy at quant-ph/0512141
[For the earlier, PRA, edition see quant-ph/0508024.]
The "loophole-free" tests proposed by Garcia-Patron
Sanchez
et al may well be truly loophole-free, but will anyone be surprised if
they do not violate any Bell inequality? Local realists will in any
case expect this, but I think that quantum theorists are likely to do so
too, since they will not be able to prove that they are dealing with
"non-classical" light. The whole theory behind their method
of producing the light and their test for "non-classicality"
(involving interpretation of distributions of homodyne detection voltage
differences and negative Wigner densities) is highly suspect. [Note:
no prior knowledge of homodyne detection is required, and, though
familiarity with Wigner densities might be desirable, I have none myself.]
In about 1980 the idea of using two-channel polarisers and the CHSH Bell test, abandoned in about 1970, was revived. But the CH74 test that it replaced might well have been superior. It seems to have been forgotten that, as the 1974 derivation shows (but not earlier ones), it does not need any assumptions about fair sampling.
This updates my 1996 Chaotic Ball work, summarising the various loopholes that I have discovered since then and reiterating more strongly than ever the fact that no valid test has yet been done. The model is designed as a teaching aid to show why the "fair sampling" assumption is not reasonable.
Submitted to Physics Essays, March 2001. Rather technical, originating from a study of Gregor Weihs' 1998 experiment, quant-ph/9810080. Important, though! How often do they check for rotational invariance? Are their ideas on phase and momentum correct?
Submitted to PRA, 1999, and rejected for no sound scientific reason (see The Tangled Methods of Quantum Entanglement below and correspondence relating to final rejection). Includes important derivation of useful Bell inequality, and pretty graph showing how close raw data from Aspect's experiment were to the realist prediction. This is the final version of quant-ph/9711044, submitted to PRA in 1997. [The GED version has a major error in Table I (Sc should be -0.121, not 10.121). This and other minor errors are corrected in the .doc version, May 2004.]
The first attempted publication of some data from Alain Aspect's thesis, revealing various possibilities for bias. Rejected by PRL after some discussion and appeal. This paper achieved the rare honour of being referenced by a member of the establishment: it is referred to by Tittel in quant-ph/9806043.
The "detection loophole" explained, or why almost all Bell tests are blatantly biased! This fact has been independently discovered now many times, but continues to be (effectively) ignored. I discovered the basic facts in 1993/4. The paper was written in the light of details from Aspect's thesis, which I read in 1995. It has been cited by at least one member of the establishment: Abner Shimony in his "Bell's Theorem" page in the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy".
Overlaps with quant-ph/9711044 . It is usually assumed that "non-factorable" means something weird, but it can arise quite naturally if the coincidence mechanism is not perfect
Illustration of a principle that may be relevant when the "detection loophole" is open.
Asymmetry widens the detection loophole. Note that Aspect's experiments were not symmetrical.
This chapter includes Aspect's own justification for his "subtraction of accidentals".
Details of Aspect's "photon detection" apparatus, and his justifications for parameter settings. The section gave me all the evidence I need that the "photon" has been invented so as to justify Planck's formula! The experimenter can choose what to count and what to reject!
Criticism of the "evidence" for quantum entanglement and of the system that allows this to be accepted. pdf file (101 kb)
Intended for the general reader. Concentrates on the subtraction of accidentals and introduces my ideas about what really goes on in the recent PDC experiments.
"Chaotic Ball Model", pp 230-234 in A. Afriat and F. Selleri, "The Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen Paradox" (Plenum Press, New York and London, 1999)
Introduction to my ideas on "photon" detection, the subtraction of accidentals and the detection loophole. The lower the "efficiency" of the detectors the greater the "violation of Bell's inequality", contrary to accepted opinion!
The history of the rejection of my papers on the subtraction of accidentals by PRL and PRA.
Paper intended to publicise the EPR "loopholes". It concentrated on the "subtraction of accidentals", which is relatively easy to understand. Included in the "proceedings" but unfortunately without the diagrams (I met the editor at Storrs, June 2000, and he was most apologetic).
Almost identical to the above, but published copy does include diagrams.
Almost the same again!
I have changed my mind on several quite important features of PWA theory. They are still changing, but the fundamental idea remains the same: matter is built of pulsating wave centres and forces depend largely on relative phases of wave centres and incoming waves.
The essay is in two parts, the first concerned with erroneous experimental "facts" in Modern Physics, drawing largely on material from Forgotten History and from my Bell test studies, the second introducing the key ideas of the Phi-Wave Aether as in Phi-waves and forces .
Covers my latest ideas on the nature of forces, all of which are based on the same mechanism: "wave centres" drift towards the position in which they can most efficiently resonate with "phi-waves".
Some thoughts, explaining how light can work as a pure wave in a continuous aether. A key point is that it can be regarded as a primarily longitudinal wave. (see also my FAQ file).
Why "relativity theory" was unnecessary, and some ideas on how things really happen. I have since found out some complications, for instance that the Michelson-Morley experiments were not completely null ...
Miller, Dayton C, “The Ether-Drift Experiment”, Cleveland Plain Dealer, "All Feature Section" p.1 & 6, 1040, 10 March 1940.
From email from James DeMeo, January 2001: see more at http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm . The Cleveland Plain Dealer article is a layman's quick survey of a lifetime's effort to counter Einstein's artificial interpretation of the results - results that the experimenters themselves never accepted as ruling out the aether. All that is ruled out is an absolute, rigid, aether.
Sent to Physics World as a follow-up to an article they had published, "Sherlock Holmes investigates the EPR paradox", Physics World, April 1995, pp 39-42. I flatter myself that I could have been the model for the mad woman scientist who gets murdered at the end!