[General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers

[John Williamson]

Hello Al,

I have already talked a lot about this. Non-locality is indeed bullshit. Agreed. But is happening in these arguments is just lack of understanding and incomplete thinking.  What one needs to understand is what locality is.  That is the key question.

At the minimum one needs to understand all possible (legal) localities at once. You need to "get" at least three of them - that for the emitter, that for the absorber (or observer - as Wolf is arguing) and that for the photon itself. I am intending to write a paper about it and have already talked about in public.

No time now though .. gotta go and create a tutorial on complex numbers and post it for 400 students.

Regards, J.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of af.kracklauer at web.de [af.kracklauer at web.de]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 9:11 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Manohar .; Joakim Pettersson; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers

Dear Chip & John & Sympaetanten:

Chip:  I also think that the universe is, or rather particles at least are, non-local in their nature.


John: Agreed!

Here on out: Al:  If you guys got it right, then the view I espouse (as laid out in several papers to be found on: www.non-loco-physics.0catch.com) is wrong!

What do you know that, I don't?

BTW: My view stems from a reaction to an early Bell paper ca. 73.  It was ony in the early 90's, however, that I found time to bore in.  I (re)discovered Bell's error, published it, was directed to Edwin Jaynes', who had already found and published the core point.  Since then, I have elaborated the story, published often and presented it at around 30 Quantum Optics conferences, aswellas at the latest SPIE.  In the course of which over the past 20 years I approched, I estimate, 80-100 well known experts (from text to research authors including Nobel laureates) and told that, on the spot they didn't feel able to do the issue justice, but that as soon as they had time they would marshal their effors and publish the analysis that would, of course, devistate this criticsm and verify the commonly held opinion (i.e., the one you are now endorsing).  I'm still waiting; none have found the time!   (I hold that I know exactly why: Jaynes hit the nail exactly on its head: Non-locality, wherever, is nothing but a symptom of serious error.)
Fully expecting to once again to be kept waiting, I remain, respectfully,  Al

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151024/ea31aead/attachment.htm>