New material for Caroline Thompson's Physics Site

(1999 onwards)

Notes, in reverse chronological order

30:12:05: Homodyne paper rejected.  They haven't grasped the point, which was to get the proposed experiments actually done and see if I'm right: the Bell test will not be infringed.  I have not been offered a chance to respond to the referees.

01:12:05: Submitted "The ‘Chaotic Ball’ model: local realism and the Bell test ‘detection loophole’", C H Thompson and H Holsteinquant-ph/0210150 to  J Phys.B.

28:11:05: Submitted "Homodyne detection and optical parametric amlification: a classical approach applied to proposed “loophole-free” Bell tests", quant-ph/0512141, to J Phys. B.

12:10:05: Now might be a good time to join in the battle in wikipedia to get a fair deal for local realism in the pates Bell's Theorem, Bell Test Experiments and related pages.  I notice that a Google search on "Bell test loopholes" give quite a bit of prominence to a certain C H Thompson and to wikipedia.  Unsurprisingly, other sites easily beat wiki on Bell's Theorem.

Added link to Bibhas De in People and Places .  He gives a brilliant satirical criticism of current physics.  Replacement ideas include a photon with mass, and other concepts I dispute.  His teacher was Hannes Alfven ... perhaps they both could have learned from my Phi-Wave-Aether.

I'm still working on revisions to my paper "Homodyne detection and parametric down-conversion: a classical approach applied to proposed “loophole-free” Bell tests", intending now to submit to J Opt B.  Parts of my "classical approach" have turned out (thankfully) to be already well known.

31:08:05: Added Eric Lerner's site to People and Places  .  It presents a comprehensive survey of the arguments against the Big Bang.

27:08:05: I've discovered Robert Fritzius' work and added new entry in People and Places:  

Robert Fritzius:  is currently (August, 2005) trying to re-open the "Great Debate" of the 1920's re the true nature of and distances to spiral nebulae.  He has resurrected observations on their internal motions that were used by  Adriaan van Maanen to argue that they must be relatively close.  It's high time the observations were checked!

09:08:05: It did not take long for PRA to decide they did not want my paper!  See my response to their rejection message.

08:08:05: Letter to New Scientist, commenting on their reputation for balanced reporting.

04:08:05: I've submitted my paper "Homodyne detection and parametric down-conversion: a classical approach applied to proposed “loophole-free” Bell tests", to Physical Review A, 02:08:05, and copy is now at quant-ph/0508024 .  It represents a challenge to the proposers to actually go ahead and do the experiment!  I predict that it will fail to violate the test.  Note that no prior knowledge of homodyne detection is assumed.

28:07:05: Whoops!  Is someone confusing me with another Caroline Thompson?  The North Wales Daily Post ran an article yesterday based on the Western Mail one and opened with "A WELSH scientist who inspired The Da Vinci Code by author Dan Brown last night unveiled plans to write her own thriller".  I don't know if the first part is true, but the second certainly isn't!  My first book will probably be just my own true story of my involvement in physics -- exciting in its own way, but no thriller.

26:07:05: Its reputation in physics may not be quite of the standing of Physical Review Letters, but I've made it to the Western Mail !  The context, too, may not be quite what I would have chosen, but, hey, Dan Brown is a highly intelligent man and we did, back in 1999, have some interesting exchanges.  See the full text of the article (minus embarrassing picture) either at the Western Mail web site or here.  Radio Wales will be interviewing me tomorrow morning. [28:07:05: This did not in fact come off.  The "Good Morning Wales" team decided the arrest of bombers in Birmingham more likely to interest their audience!]

17:07:05: Wikipedia battle has re-opened, in Bell's theorem talk page.  Do join in!

15:07:05: Yet another letter to New Scientist, ridiculing idea of backwards time.

21:05:05: Wikipedia battle continues, now mainly in discussion re the Bell test experiments page.

15:04:05: Appeal for support!  I'm still fighting in wikipedia, having recently discovered that the supposed derivation of a Bell inequality in the page on Bell's theorem not only uses poor notation but is actually wrong, failing to bring in the notion of hidden variables where they are needed.  See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Article_content_disputes

and please do feel free to join me.  Supporters of QM say I've wasted their time, but it is the other way around.  They are blindly supporting something that is totally erroneous, even by their own standards.  They are apparently unable or unwilling to check it out for themselves.  

23:03:05: I have, for the present, lost my battle to improve wikipedia's information on the Bell test loopholes, though my contributions have left a trace here and there.  You will no longer, at present, even be able to find out from wikipedia what the various different Bell inequalities are!  The central page for my work  is now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments .  See also its discussion page, though.

I have now, incidentally, been flung out of Physics Forums (twice!).  It seems the establishment does not like people to know too much.

Re The Aether, Relativity, Cosmology , James DeMeo continues to have great ideas.  Suppose, for instance, that the blue-red shift of the CMBR is merely evidence of a temperature difference and nothing to do with our motion?

16:02:05: The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalities now effectively (as far as I am concerned!) replaces the Bell's theorem page.

31:01:05: As expected, some of my contributions to wikipedia, in particular the page  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_Theorem have now been corrupted beyond recognition, others weakened by the removal of refs to my work.

16:01:05: Added Aczel's "Entanglement" to my book list, despite my opinion that he is wholly wrong in accepting the Bell test violations at face value.

13:01:05: I've decided to put my new paper on loophole-free Bell tests etc on the site.  I had hoped for feedback from the people concerned but none has been forthcoming.  Perhaps you have some comment?  The title is "Homodyne detection and parametric down-conversion: a classical approach applied to proposed “loophole-free” Bell tests", but don't worry if you don't know the jargon.  Give it a try!

12:01:05: I've been active recently in http://www.physicsforums.com/See the Quantum Physics section, and threads such as "Aspect’s Experiment was Flawed", "How do particles become entangled?" and one started today (Jan 12, 2005), "Local Realism After Bell".

See also discussions in wikipedia associated with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_TheoremI drew attention in PhysicsForums to my pages and some of the establishment have at last realised that I present Bell's Theorem from the local realist point of view!  Since this is not the "generally accepted" one, I may find myself forced to move one or two pages to http://www.wikinfo.org/ . 

14:12:04: If you want to know what discussion groups I belong to, I've added a page to tell you. 

Watch this space for ideas re the latest proposals for "loophole-free" Bell tests, why Wigner densities are not the relevant hidden variables (phase is), classical explanations for homodyne detection, Mandel dips and more.

26:11:04: Are attitudes changing?  In the past few months almost all of my messages posted to the sci.physics.research news group have passed the moderators.  This morning one that suggested alternative explanations for a "delayed choice quantum eraser" experiment was accepted.

21:11:04: The last letter was not published, so here is another, following up Ralph Estling's contribution.

02:11:04: Added yet another letter to New Scientist to my collection: "Entangled or not?" 

14:10:04: I've updated my ideas.  See

"The Phi-Wave Aether: a Wave Theory of Everything" (.pdf (two-column compact format) or HTML), prepared for the book “The Aether: Poincare  and Einstein”, edited by Valeri Dvoeglazov, to be published by Apeiron.

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.

02:10:04: Another letter to Physical Review Letters, complaining about misleading titles and abstracts.

14:08:04:   I've now created several more pages in the wikipedia encyclopaedia, replacing completely the original "Bell's theorem" and "CHSH inequality" pages.  New pages include:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BellTestLoopholes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clauser_and_Horne%27s_1974_Bell_test

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_optical_Bell_test_experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden_variable_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_Theorem

16:07:04: I've placed another short paper on the site:

"The CH74 Bell test does not require 'fair sampling'.  Why is it not used?", C H Thompson, July 2004. [Title now changed to: "Clauser and Horne’s 1974 Bell inequality: a neglected escape route from the “fair sampling” loophole"]
Available as HTML file or, in more compact format, as .pdf file

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.

29:06:04: I have started contributing to "wikipedia" (anyone can!), editing a few pages to give a more balanced view on entanglement and inserting a new one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BellTestLoopholes .  In case this disappears or is edited by someone else, I've saved the original text file.

18:06:04: Brief comments on Aspect's famous Bell test papers of 1981-2 have been added to Experiments in the headlines .

11:06:04: I've finished yet another presentation of my Chaotic Ball model, putting it in historical context and describing the various mistakes that have led to false quantum theory claims:

"Setting the Record Straight on Quantum Entanglement", C H Thompson, June 2004.  Available as HTML file or a more compact (13-page) Word .doc file.

29:05:04: I've added a short section on the experimental evidence for Compton's model of scattering in Forgotten History, and prefaced my bibliography with a copy of the American Physical Society's editorial policy statement, under which no paper on the Bell test loopholes will ever be considered for publication in PRL or PRA.

22:04:04: I have updated my ideas on the "matter interference" and "buckyball (fullerene) diffraction" experiments, my earlier hypothesis having proved a non-starter.

I continue to be active in the Wave-Structure-Matter Yahoo group , gradually refining my own theory -- the Phi-Wave Aether.

04:03:04: Two new people added to my  People and Places file:
Gabriel LaFrenière, who does beautiful animated graphics of interacting wave systems, some just what I need for my PWA model;
Pete Brown ("Mountain Man"), a man with ideas.  He's produced some interesting articles on Western Science and a comprehensive set of links to sites on the aether.

25:01:04: I have recently joined the Wave-Structure-Matter Yahoo group.  Some very interesting discussions are currently going on re the aether and the nature of forces.

Minor edits have been made to my pages on The Aether, Relativity, Cosmology (more are intended) and a few new entries to my People and Places file (Werner Hofer, Electric/Plasma Universe and Bill Mitchell).

04:01:04:   Jim Wright has added a supplement to his set of papers, which I host.

Two more letters (in addition to technical ones to experimenters etc.)
20:11:03    Letter to John Cornwell (cc New Scientist) re failure of the peer review system etc..
27:11:03    Letter to New Scientist arguing against Ben Craven's of 22:11:03, which had quoted the standard belief that we could not explain everything using common sense.

18:12:03: Two more books for my list:
John Waller's "Fabulous Science" -- highly recommended, especially for little-known facts about Millikan's oil-drop experiments' and
Christopher Jon Bjerknes' "Albert Einstein, the Incorrigible Plagiarist" -- qualified recommendation only.

19:11:03: I've added three people to my People and Places file: 

Eric Reiter, who has unearthed much the same Forgotten History as me and gives a beautiful alternative, wave-based, explanation of the photoelectric effect, as well as demonstrating experimentally that gamma-rays are not "photons".

Robert O'Keeffe, who has very interesting ideas, based on the facts of chemistry, regarding the nature of matter and structure of atoms.

Glird (alias DuGabriel): an original thinker with a model of the universe built entirely of a continuous fluid compressible aether.  New site includes well-organised useful links.

22:08:03: Letter to New Scientist re Dayton Miller's evidence for aether driftNeil Russell's article, ("Fabric of the final frontier", 16 August 2003, p 22) confirms my impression that present-day people working in the field have never even heard of Miller.

29:07:03: My revised and extended "Chaotic Ball" paper, rejected by the American Journal of Physics on the grounds that it contained material more suitable for a research journal, has now been further edited and submitted to Physical Review A.

16:07:03: My essay, "The Phi-Wave Aether", written for Andrew E. Chubykalo et al.'s proposed book,  “Has the last word been said on classical electrodynamics?", has been accepted.    It 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 .

27:06:03: Another letter to New Scientist re confusion of simulation with real experiments: Charles Choi (June 21, page 17) reports on a simulation of "molecules without electrons".

16:05:03: A few words on the Tonumura 1989 electron double-slit experiment have been added to my Critiques file.  I have never been convinced there were any actual "particles" in the beam.

09:05:03: Sorry but I've been a bit angry recently.  My latest letter to New Scientist reads more like a personal attack than I meant.  What I meant to criticise was the way in which papers on subjects such as quantum information confuse real and thought-experiments.

03:05:03: My new paper on the Chaotic Ball model and other Bell test loopholes is in trouble!  The editors of the American Journal of Physics, after an initial favourable review, don't think teachers of physics (their intended readers) ought to be confused by details of all the "other" Bell test loopholes -- the subtraction of accidentals and other experimental weaknesses.  They ask me to cut the paper down to just the bare bones of the Chaotic Ball model itself.  Of course in a way they are right.  Teachers could well find it confusing to hear that what they are teaching is not based on any sound evidence.

The unexpurgated version is available as a Word .doc file or .pdf file.  The first version, differing little in content, is still at quant-ph/0210150

02:05:03: Experiments in the headlines: Note revised comments on Kim's 1999 experiment.  I no longer think this (necessarily) provides evidence of detector memory effects.

25:03:03: My new paper on the Chaotic Ball and Bell tests loopholes has been revised in the light of the referee's review and is available as a Word .doc file or .pdf file.  The original version is still at quant-ph/0210150

30:12:02: Letter to Physics World re Dayton Miller and the evidence for aether drift.

12:12:02 I've added a review of Dishington's physics to my book list. As far as I can tell he thinks like me, only more mathematically.

09:12:02 Another addition to Critiques: Santori's new results on indistinguishable photons -- Are they really "independent"?

28:11:02 "Critiques" file ("Experiments in the headlines") has been updated, with bookmarks and a few new entries added:

25:10:02 I've put an updated version of my Chaotic Ball paper in the quant-ph archive.  (pdf file only archived; HTML version available on this site.)  It shows intuitively why the "fair sampling" assumption is not reasonable in the real life experiments, asking more emphatically than ever if the "Bell tests" in common use can be considered valid.  Has scientific rigour gone by the board now that they are investigating "applications" of quantum entanglement, forgetting that nobody has ever proved it happened? 

Forgotten History continues to grow steadily.  I've added a link to pdf download of Millikan's 1923 Nobel Prize Lecture.  Even with Compton's billiard-ball ideas on scattering of photons by electrons, Millikan still rejected the photon concept.  As he continued to state, the photoelectric equation that his experiments confirmed does not in itself tell you anything about quantisation.

09:08:02 Additions to Experiments in the headlines, re the Altewischer experiment on plasmons and entangled photons and an oldie, the Geneva experiment on the speed of quantum information (Gisin, Tittel et al, July-September 2000).

23:06:02 Added to "People" file: Ray Tomes: Whilst I am not so sure about some of his key ideas, Ray fully deserves his reputation as the "genius of the Southern Hemisphere" and his views may well complement my own.

Jim Wright has asked me to replace the information on his cosmological ideas by the file Cosmology - From Infinity to the Lab .  Please note that this in no way represents my own ideas!

19:05:02 A few words added to Forgotten History: 1. Alternative explanations for Dayton Miller's "aether drift" results.  Is there a link with Gershteyn's apparent variations in the value of "G", the gravitational constant?  2. Have Einstein's relativity theories ever been "generally accepted"?  They have been, right from the start, rejected by some important people, notably Louis Essen (inventor of the atomic clock).

19:04:02 The March issue of the American Journal of Physics -- a journal aimed at teachers of physics -- is devoted to quantum theory.  It includes a couple of papers related to quantum optics and the Bell tests, omitting to mention that local realism has not been ruled out.  I have written to two of the authors.  One of the letters, to C H Holbrow, I have also sent to the editors.  If students are doing experiments to demonstrate the existence of the photon, why not ask them to do further experiments to show that this conclusion is false?

31:03:02 I have been busy in the sci.physics.relativity newsgroups recently, and this has led to an unpleasant episode in which James DeMeo (author of probably the most valuable paper on Dayton Miller in existence!) was viciously attacked as a result of the false information about William Reich that is available on the internet.  I have now included his own version of the story as a link from his entry in my People and Places file. 

10:03:02 "Experiments in the headlines" now replaces a section on critiques of published papers.  Four entries so far, including Rowe et al, Nature 409, 791 (2001) on entanglement of trapped ions.

28:02:02 I've added a little anecdote by Carver Mead to Forgotten History, giving a partial answer to the question: "Did Quantum Theory help in the discovery of the laser?"

23:02:02  Letter to Physics World re the fact that a training in quantum mechanics is not appreciated as a job qualification.  It is a response to a letter that suggested it was pointless to teach advanced quantum mechanics to people who were destined for jobs in the financial services.  My suggestion; "It is pointless to teach ... quantum mechanics".

08:02:02  Another letter to New Scientist re ridiculous quantum-theoretical claims concerning teleportation (February 9, page 5, "All tied up" : My indignant response, in defense of sanity!)

03:11:01   One of my letters has actually been published (Physics World, November, 2001, p17)!      And they have not edited out the links to my papers, or the controversial claims!  It's about quantum entanglement and the lack of experimental evidence.  Re the realist explanations for the experiments, I write:

"Such explanations are not hard to find.  They merely don't get published in the top journals".

17:10:01 Another letter for my collection: In August I wrote to the American Journal of Physics criticising a long article by Prof Franck Laloë for giving a misleading picture of the realist alternatives to the "quantum entanglement" interpretation of the Bell test results, and not giving useful references on the loopholes.   This letter has led to interesting correspondence with Laloë and inspired a new paper.

For some different ideas on the evolution of the Solar system, see Tom Van Flandern's book, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets.  (Not that I agree with everything he says -- see also entry in People and Places.)

05:09:01 As Notton is a physicist and engineer there could be more than a grain of truth in his humorous essay, "How to create and publish a great theory" (Physics World, August 2001, p 56)?  I wrote to Notton and to Physics World.

19:08:01 Forgotten History now includes a section on William Crookes.  Do we really know what "radiation pressure" is?  

29:07:01 Forgotten History : ideas from 1916 on the photoelectric effect now added.  Millikan, who did the definitive experiments confirming Einstein's formula, totally disagreed with the interpretation in terms of photons ( or "light quanta", the term "photon" not yet having been invented).

26:05:01 I've added a few paragraphs on Hubble to my Forgotten History section.  It seems that Einstein and his followers are responsible for the myth that Hubble showed that the universe was expanding.

20:05:01 See the sci.physics newsgroup for my main activities for the past few months.  I've been standing up to the establishment on the wave nature of light, quantum entanglement, the nature of the universe and the way science is conducted.  See for example news:3b06401d_1@news2.vip.uk.com..., but I've been posting at a rate of about 5 a day so browse around.

I've also been standing up to Tom Van Flandern re his ideas on the speed of gravity.  Surely "aberration" of gravity cannot cause acceleration?  Protons would be accelerating spontaneously in accelerators ...

07:04:01 Did you know that there are a wealth of "anomalies" and suspect explanations relating to the basic law of gravitation?  That there is no actual evidence that the force is proportional to mass?  Though doubtless the paper contains a few elementary errors and a little fantasy as well as fact, there is every reason to believe that evidence suggesting interesting possibilities has been suppressed.  See David Pratt's article at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/gravity.htm.

New Scientist responded to my letter re the Ganzfeld ESP experiments.   My easy explanation was wrong, but I remain convinced that if I knew every single detail I'd find another, and it would not involve anything psychic!

24:03:01 Re-write of 10:03:01 letter re ESP, responding to another correspondent.

10:03:01 Letter to New Scientist debunking an ESP experiment they had put on their web site.

02:03:01 I've just written to Jim Ryder, with copies to Physics World, New Scientist and David Kielpinski re why physics students are finding the subject so difficult.  

In my view it is because so much of it is nonsense, based on misinterpretations of experiments.  I discuss the Michelson-Morley re-evaluation by Dayton Miller (there is an aether only not the one they looked for) and the EPR (Bell test) experiments, concentrating on the recent test involving pairs of ions in a trap.  Kielpinski was on the team.  I wrote separately to him a few days ago asking for clarification of some points.  Whatever the truth of the matter, it is ridiculous to suggest, as a Physics World article does, that there are nonlocal correlations here and it is time for local realists to "be realistic and admit defeat"!  The particles concerned are not even measured separately.

03:12:01 DeMeo is not the only person to have spotted Shankland and Einstein's error!  See notes by Nobel prizewinner Prof Maurice Allais (his prize was for economics, but his physics deserves another!) to the French Academy of Sciences, 1997, 1999 and 2000 at  http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/Science.htm

01:02:01   I've reviewed William Day's "A New Physics".  If only he'd taken notice of Miller's work!  If only he had not tried to do the impossible, with a solid aether!  See Dayton Miller's evidence for aether drift - the story in his own words, written for the popular press.  See DeMeo's paper for more.

27:01:01    I'm updating Forgotten History .  The more I find out the more scandalised I become.  As a direct result of Einstein's failure to appreciate Dayton Miller's evidence for aether drift, not only has orthodox physics gone off on the wrong track but almost all "fringe science" attempts to improve on it, however brilliantly conceived and honestly argued, have had zero chance.

24:01:01    In response to popular request, my paper on phi-waves and forces is now available as a pdf file.  It went down quite well at the Brighton workshop on space propulsion.  (It gives my December 1990 ideas on how the universe really works.  Already I can see room for improvement ...)   Contrary to the impression given in the press, the workshop was a sober international exchange of views, making no exorbitant claims.  Nobody there thought that (Observer, January 7) "warp-drive engines - Scotty's pride and joy on the Starship Enterprise - could soon be propelling spacecraft across the solar system".  The first tentative steps may have been made towards the discovery of new forms of energy and propulsion.  If they come to anything, they will be as useful here on earth as out in space.   Funding is needed to explore leads that conflict with the text books, ideas that cannot get published in the orthodox journals as the referees cannot be expected to know whether or not they are scientifically valid.

15:01:01  "Phi-waves and forces" is now improved and enhanced with diagrams.

17:12:00    I've at last written up a substantial part of my ideas on how the universe works.  I was invited to give a paper at a workshop on space propulsion, organised by Graham Ennis, leader of the forcefieldpropulsion egroup.  I hope others there will be interested in my "Phi-waves and forces".

I've been finding out more about what gravity really does in the Gravitational Anomalies egroup (not a public one I'm afraid ...)

20:11:00 Letter to New Scientist re Robert Park's "Voodoo Science" and the misrepresentation of facts about cold fusion; new section on phi-waves in my FAQ file.

14:11:00   Jim Wright has revised his paper on the cosmos.  I still find his explanation of the red shift implausible, but see for yourself: some of his ideas are good.  His original paper and comments (which included some of my own ideas, though these need updating) is still available.

Roger Gouin has ideas on the kind of physics we need to understand life, and is currently trying to persuade me that my view of the universe is too naive!  I'm hoping that we shall find our ideas equivalent.

I've been busy defending my ideas on (a) a detectable aether that flows (see DeMeo's paper, 4:10:00 entry) and (b) all forces propagating at speed c or thereabouts against those of Tom Van Flandern, who is an expert on the Global Positioning Satellites (GPS) and tells us that gravity goes at nearly infinite speed.

22:10:00    I've now got an Acrobat writer, and the revised version of the paper I presented at the Storrs NPA meeting, June 2000, is ready for inspection:

"What really happens in those Bell correlation experiments?", pdf file (101 kb)  It's a general discussion of what is wrong with the experiments, and my ideas as to why things are so bad!

19:10:00    One can but try!  I don't suppose they will print it, but I've sent in yet another letter.  The New Scientist had declared on its cover: "One man thinks that the electron has been split.  If he's right its curtains for quantum theory".

I wrote to query a point of fact - the article claimed that scientists have produced entangled photons -  introducing my letter with "Surely I can't be the only reader to find some of the sensational statements in your magazine 'unscientific' and profoundly irritating?  This time, for once, I am in agreement with the conclusion - that the splitting of the electron or something similar ought to spell the end of quantum theory as the accepted description of the real world.  Let's get our facts right, though."

04:10:00  I have been sent a web link to a document that is critical in relation to Special Relativity and the existence of the aether!  At the Storrs NPA conference, Héctor Múnera presented a paper on this same subject, but I did not fully realise its importance.  He (or someone) handed out copies of a very important paper by Dayton Miller - a very comprehensive report, written in 1933, detailing all the experiments he had done checking the Michelson-Morley results, investigating the small but persistent periodic patterns that had been dismissed as a "null" result as they were smaller than the expected patterns if you use the theory under test.  But if you approach the information with an open mind, you cannot avoid a different conclusion!   

This 1933 paper has been totally ignored.  In 1955, Shankland et al wrote report that discredited it, but this report is blatantly biased and a disgrace to the profession!  I have read Miller's work.  I wholeheartedly support James DeMeo in his condemnation of Shankland and interpretation of Miller's results as evidence of a preferred frame, the existence of the aether, and of the partial entrainment of the aether with solid bodies.

30:09:00    Will the authorities wake up?  Steven Brown, after venturing to my site, has written to NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) suggesting that, as a matter of national security, the evidence for non-locality should be investigated before the state commits matters of national importance to encryption using methods that depend on it.  Great!  Though, as I've pointed out in some of my papers, there are real correlations waiting to be exploited so, hopefully, only these would be used in practice.  It is not any direct risk to national security that I'm worried about, only the corruption of science causing wastage of resources and danger to our sanity!

For an example of the latter, see that latest Geneva paper (18:09:00 entry).  They might just as well be spending money investigating the efficacy of prayer!  Having failed to investigate the real possibilities that I've been telling them about since 1997, they decide to believe that this nonlocal effect really happens and therefore that it counts as "science" to try and investigate its speed of propagation and its mechanism.  As what they think they are seeing they know to be impossible under "local realism" no holds are barred, no absurd hypothesis ruled out!

18:09:00 Follow-up from my 29:07:00 letter to New Scientist: I am making public a message addressed to Ian Percival that I have now sent to many people: the Geneva speed of quantum information experiment is even more absurd than I had thought!  The only "speed" involved in the experiment is that of a rotating wheel that cannot possibly affect the results as nothing is measured related to it!  This is why the experiment shows that variations in the speed have no affect!!!!!  But do read my letter.

01:09:00 It's time to put the record straight on a few points of historical fact!  Is Einstein's reputation based on fact?  Is quantum theory as necessary as they say?   This file was inspired by a recent contact - Theo Theocharis - a dissident of long standing, who wrote a quite well-known article in Nature back in 1987 on the "Science Wars".

09:08:00 It's high time I mentioned the egroup that emerged from the NPA Storrs meeting: http://www.egroups.com/group/NPA_Dissidents .  This has been keeping me busy, after a shaky start dominated by Viv Pope, who, it seems, has views diametrically opposed to those of the majority.

31:07:00 Major re-arrangement of web site! Hope it all works ... New "Progress Report" on quantum entanglement etc, which I still regard as my main speciality.  New annotated bibliography.

29:07:00 Another letter to the New Scientist!  The Geneva group have been working out the speed of quantum information but have yet to establish that is exists! (See N.S, July 29, p12).

12:07:00 Just in case you're interested, a little about who I am ...and, at last, someone who is as extreme as myself: Rae West at http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/mp_modern_physics.htm !  I've only read the first few pages but I'm fascinated!  Did theoretical physics really play much part in the invention of the bomb?  Is superfluid helium actually a very fine powder?

10:07:00    I've at last started a FAQ: a small beginning, answering a few questions on light and the aether.

02:07:00  The NPA conference was great!  If you care to browse through my contributions to the forcefield egroup you will find that it has extended my knowledge, shaken my ideas, quite considerably!  

02:04:00    The good news is that some people do want to know the truth!  The NPA (Natural Philosophy Alliance) has invited me to a conference in Storrs, Connecticut, this June to talk about the EPR experiments - why they don't show instantaneous action at a distance - and is paying my fare.  By no means all the members are "realists" in my sense of the word, but there will certainly be a few.

The bad news is that my attempts at extracting more information on that GHZ experiment (see 12:02:00 entry below) have had zero success.  It is therefore almost impossible for me to write the letter to Nature that is so richly deserved!  How can I write saying the published "explanation" is nonsense if I can't produce an alternative?  How can I produce an alternative without all the information?  I may try all the same: it is clear that there were huge numbers of non-detections, so that their deterministic, supposedly realist, model is obviously ridiculous and also the "detection loophole" is wide open.

One of the references from Pan's GHZ article was to one by Aspect, “Bell's inequality test: more ideal than ever”, Nature 398, March 2000, pp 189-190.  I have written to him (16 February 2000) pointing out how wrong he is in his implied assumption that the detection loophole is unimportant.  I asked him once again about a section in his thesis that I think may be wrong, and that may be the cause of all our troubles.  One small error of logic may have made him believe that the maximum possible bias was tiny, and this may have set the quantum theoretical community off on the wrong track, the track that accepts entanglement of distant particles as a fact!  I have had no reply.

17:02:00 It's about time I introduced the email group that is currently monopolising my time. It's a group whose aim is to save the planet by discovering new energy sources, and perhaps we are making progress. Have a look at http://www.egroups.com/group/forcefieldpropulsionphysics/ . I thought at first that this was nothing to do with me, as I'm not interested in propulsion, but the two go together: find a wonderful means of propulsion and there's a good chance you can use it for more mundane purposes too. Who knows, we may also discover the secret of life, the universe and everything!

12:02:00: Much has happened, though quantum weirdness is still rampant, I fear: see the article on "quantum nonlocality in three-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger entanglement" (Jian-Wel Pan et al, Nature, 403, 515-518 (2000)). The authors include Zeilinger himself. I hope to be reporting my local realist explanation of this monstrosity shortly, but it's a real teaser ...

Much of my time has been spent in the newsgroups - sci.physics mainly - where I've been learning the history of the transistor as well as spreading the gospel about the reality of the EPR experiments.

I've found out a lot more about light and matter - have met Nick Reiter and many others, and improved my ideas on the aether.

17:12:99: That New Scientist letter was not entirely wasted! It drew a kind response from the letters editor. They are thinking of putting in an article some time (indefinite!) and will contact me. That's just great! In fact, suppose I were to draft something for them ....

The long-promised article on rotational invariance and my latest ideas on degenerate PDC is at last in the archive: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9912082

12:12:99 Have just rattled off another letter to the New Scientist. Not much hope of publication but one has to keep the pressure up. This week I've made one notable new contact: Bill Beaty. There's an awful lot of interesting phenomena in this world!

3:12:99 I've continued to be busy in sci.physics. One project concerns trying to get people to think again about lasers and whether a classical description might be possible. The QM model of a coherent laser beam is, they tell me, a set of photons that are not even ordered in time! See the thread "Coherent laser light (was Who Says Light Behaves as a Particle?)"

Spin-offs from the newsgroup have been many and various. It looks as if a new feature of light and detectors is virtually established: you can get a form of interference at the detector between pulses separated in time, though this must only be by something of order a few hundred femtoseconds. This is something that David Chalmers has been saying for years. Though we continue to disagree over the division of light into "photons", he does do his experiments and knows his facts.

Too much has happened! Several aether theorists have contacted me, but I fear I have become less and less interested in detailed theories! What we need is a reassessment of facts first, especially a decision on whether or not we have to model light as an intrinsically transverse wave (see my essay, which probably needs an update by now).

I've been entertained too. Try Ben Best's essay, The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

30:10:99 I've been doing my best to spread the gospel in sci.physics newsgroup this past week. Started with a thread on EPR (my first contribution 38120fa6_3@news2.vip.uk.com) then joined in a couple of others including one on "The Einstein Hoax" (one contribution 3818337f_3@news1.vip.uk.com) and one on the evidence for the particle nature of light (see 38197e2d_3@news2.vip.uk.com).

Paul Marmet wrote to say he'd lost his room at the University of Ottawa. The reason:

The head of the department  explained that it was because I keep questioning the fundamental principles of physics.  The exact words were: "Ton problème est que tu remets en question les principes fondamentaux de la physique".
 

22:10:99 Jim Wright has added a new paper to his little collection on my site. I've also put Paul Marmet's comments there.

I've added Christian Ricordeau to my files.  He's the creator of a universe that is purely waves and is evolving, increasing in complexity. A beautiful vision, but Ricordeau  is an architect, not a physicist! Fortunately, he knows his weaknesses and listens ... (His site is mostly in French, BTW.)

I met Sam Braunstein yesterday and attended his lecture by on quantum teleportation. He was discussing his latest papers ...

14:10:99 There's a glimmer of hope! Physics Today might just possibly (but don't count on it!) publish that letter I wrote back in March .... After editing, of course ... This could be important. It's my contribution to a debate in which some of the big names in quantum theory have taken part.

8:9:99 I've just added a paragraph to my main page, covering the Natural Philosophy Alliance and Common Sense Science. The latter is David Bergman's creation. Something similar to his model of the universe must be possible!

20:8:99 Two days ago I received a copy of Thomas Phipps' book, Heretical Verities, from a well-wisher. It's marvellous, and even funny! Einstein's relativity theories just don't work. Oh, if only Phipps had known about my finding re Aspect's experiments before committing himself to action at a distance, though ... Anyway, reading this reminded me that I meant to make the book list I prepared last year available to everyone. I asked people for recommendations. If you have books you think I should add, perhaps you'd let me know.

Two more messages have been added to PRA rejection. I expect this is the end of that story. I have ended by saying that I didn't need to publish, which is true. I may not even try and publish my next paper other than in the quant-ph archive.

8:8:99 I've made a start in my response to the PRA rejection. I'm considering doing more. How about putting a paper in quant-ph on the failure of the self-correcting mechanism of science, with special ref to the facts of the EPR experiments?

6:8:99 Top priority is what to do about the establishment's refusal to print my "accidentals" paper. When I've sorted things out I'll "reveal all"! It's a cover-up!

I've added my own contribution to the Jim Wright correspondence on the cosmological red shift etc..

28:7:99 Please note Henry Lindner's new web address: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8041/

27:7:99 PRA finally rejected my "accidentals" paper. This story to be continued!!! I wrote saying I'd be posting my response to referees on my web site.

25:7:99 New email address: please note that I shall be changing to c.h.thompson@newscientist.net. This address should already be functional, if you care to try it.

16:7:99 I have started adding correspondence re Jim Wright's papers. I still think his idea far-fetched, and do not like to place significance on numerical estimates, but hope for positive spin-off through airing this new viewpoint. (Also hope he'll set up his own web site soon!)

14:7:99 It seems that "rotational invariance failure" is the next "Bell test loophole" to be tackled! Experimenters have not tested for it, not realising that if you haven't got rotational invariance you can't deduce anything from the "visibility" of coincidence curves. If anyone is remotely interested in this, please do contact me! I could do with help - feedback on papers I'm trying to write, help with diagrams ...

Jim Wright as added an addendum to his paper on an "increasing density" explanation of the cosmological redshift. Numerical comparisons are made with the conventional hypothesis of an expanding universe.

3:7:99 Allow me to introduce Jim Wright, who has some novel ideas about the universe and occasionally listens to what I say!

27:6:99 I've bitten off more than I can chew here, with my interesting people file! Please do not take my assessments too seriously, as, despite some correspondence with the people concernced, I may not have understood them and often have not had time to do more than glance at their sites. I like very much what Henry Lindner has to say.

21:6:99 I've met several interesting people recently, and made a very modest start on another file. My reactions to other people's ideas are not always what they expect!

13:6:99 Yet another letter to the New Scientist! See my letters file.

10:6:99 "Impressions from the quant-ph archive" is expanding fast. With your help perhaps it could expand faster, in terms of lists of relevant papers.

4:6:99 I've added some more suggestions for experiments - "EPR" experiments obey local realism!

26:5:99: Part II of my paper on PDC is now available. It contains a diagram showing how phase difference is related to polarisation state which, though obvious when you think about it, may help in understanding what is going on. I am now also providing links to Part I. If people are interested, the draft (in Latex) of a paper with the maths in it is available on request. This work challenges some of the predictions of SED, as well as QT.

I've met some interesting people recently. In particular, Clarence Dulaney dulaneyc@flash.net, who has been looking into the history of some of our modern theories and come up with some reasonable ideas (and some unreasonable ones!). I am putting his introductory paper here. He is happy to send you more.

24:4:99: I've drafted a letter to New Scientist on Mark Hadley's time-warps. I'm sending him a copy for comment before submitting.

21:4:99: Revised version of my paper on subtraction of accidentals (quant-ph/9903066) entered in archive. The paper still has a chance of publication in PRA.

20:3:99: I'm declaring my "comments" file closed for the present, as it seems to have inhibited people from writing to me. All comments are welcome!

Looks like New Scientist once again gave my letter (11:3:99) a miss - they printed 3 others relating to the same article ....

19:3:99: My new paper on subtraction of accidentals is now in the quant-ph archive. It was submitted two days ago to Phys Rev A.

I've at last sent off a letter to Physics Today, after some discussion with people concerned.

16:3:99: I have made a start on my challenges to quantum optics, with the beginnings of my ideas on PDC.

13:3:99: Links from this section have been updated and may now work!

Yesterday I tried and failed to submit my new "Subtraction of Accidentals" paper to the quant-ph archive and Phys Rev A. Technical difficulties are sent to try us! They will be overcome.

Suggestions are coming along. Perhaps the next ones, on PDC, will have to wait until I've done that long-overdue report on my challenges in this area.

Another letter has gone off to the bottomless pit at the New Scientist, trying once again to tell them that the evidence for non-locality cannot be described as "good", "convincing" or anything else along these lines.

3:3:99: I've started a small file for beginners. Also made a start on suggestions for experiments.

1:3:99: I've put a letter from last week's New Scientist in my letters file. It's not about QT, but much the same thing: crazy ideas may not be good for you!

I've also added the response to my page of criticism re contributions to the book on Instantaneous Action at a Distance. I don't recommend it! The arguments are too totally ridiculous, I'm not linking to it from here!

28:2:99: My essay on light (The Nature of Light) is now free of extraneous characters, though what you make of the contents is another matter!

It has received some criticism on the grounds that there is no need to reject Maxwell theory. I should like to point out that I am not rejecting it (apart maybe for a few details), more supplementing it, suggesting that a real picture of the universe must model everything "as it really is". I happen to think that all fields are, on a fine scale, in seething motion, composed of complicated patterns of high-frequency waves of "something". Might as well call that something "the aether", reserving the right to leave the definition of this term and its further properties somewhat vague.

Have you read the correspondence in Physics Today, February 1999? Pages and pages of the quantum theory experts discussing its interpretation. But they (almost) all assume that it gets all the right answers, and my EPR work suggests otherwise! So how about writing and telling them what you think? I've put some of what I think in a file, The Status of Quantum Theory.

18:2:99: See a new site of dissident physicists for a good mix of cranks and the enlightened. It gives email addresses where available.

See The Nature of Light for some of my thoughts. This looks set to eventually become a whole book. Already it is out of date, as I've now learned that Tesla had the idea that light was basically a longitudinal wave over 60 years ago. The essay is mainly ideas against the photon.

11:2:99: I feel it is time to introduce an enthusiast, working under difficult conditions in Kiev. I think that, buried beneath his intense verbiage, lies a glimmer of "truth". He has a world view of pure waves, based on de Broglie's, and comes up with the idea that atoms, like some biological cycles, work in a chaotic system, moving from one quasi-stationary state to another. I'm not sure I've understood him! He's a challenge for the determined! But see for yourself at quant-ph/9902015, 9902016 or physics/9806002. OK, so it is heavy, but he so honestly believes he has understood the nature of reality. He deserves encouragement (I think!) and a possibility of normal work (as he thinks!).

And a web site I should have recommended long ago - full of interesting papers, such as Al Kelly's on problems with Faraday's ideas on induction, and Podkletnov's paper on gravity shielding. It's the Project Omicron site, run by Juergen Schulz.

15:1:99: A letter to the New Scientist. I have been trying to get them to publicise my work for years now. It should be a good story for them - it was one of their book reviews (in 1992 or so) that started me on the EPR trail. But if they are not yet ready to do that, I'm asking them at least to refrain from inaccuracies!

Updated 18:2:99: Some of the nicer comments on my work. I've included some web sites and a few email addresses, where I felt it would be acceptable. I've got quite a number more gems to be added from my earlier work, but these are largely snail mail and will be added when time.

In the past few months, I have had two papers accepted for publication - my Action at a Distance one and the one for Accountability in Research.


Return to front page