[General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers

[Chip Akins]

Hi Al

 

Thank you.  

 

Of course I too think that entanglement is an illusion caused by misunderstanding.

 

There seems to be a particular psychology among some physicists which motivates a search for the fantastic, rather than the solid demonstrable and explainable facts.

 

It seems that once again in human history we find ourselves in the position where pervasive dogma clouds our understanding of nature.

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 12:23 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers

 

  

Hi Chip:

 

Some thoughts below:

 

 

Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Oktober 2015 um 15:57 Uhr

Von: "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> >
An: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Betreff: Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers

Hi Al

 

No, I was not referring to A. O. Barut's work but rather to the recent work of Robert Close and Joy Christian. I don’t think I have seen A. O. Barut's work. Will look at it.

Al: Been a while since I read JC!

 

Question Al: When you say, “The "locality loophole" always struck me ridiculously far-fetched!” Do you mean that you feel that “entanglement” is real?

Al:  Absolutely not!  I hold that "entanglement" is a totally erronous idea, feed by two basic errors: 1) von Neumann's 'Projection Hypothsis', and Bell's faulty inequality derviation (a la Edwin Jaynes).  The result:  all entanglement can be accounted for by a 'common cause' just like for ordinary correlation (which is what it is).  What I meant is that, collaborating detectors, as if they were politicians (or lacking a physical means to communicate superlumnally) is just wild sci-fi!  Something done by those mystifcating physics.

Al : Best

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 9:43 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Cc: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers

 

Hi Chip et al.

 

Of course I endorse your two first sentences. Regarding the third: are you refering to A. O. Barut's earily 90's paper in Found. Phys.?

 

Also:  spin & point particles:  Logically a point particle cannot exhibit spin or any kind of rotation about is axis (using that term with reservation) .  However, it could gyrate.  In fact if it does Zitterbewegung in a magnetic field, seems to me it would have to be induced to gyrate, albeit randomly.  Nevertheless, an ensemble would tend, under the mutual interaction, to seek an energy stable point such that the right and left gyration ration would be proportional to the Boltzmann energy distributio function of temperature, etc.

 

BTW, the Delft group's claims are inline with the standard folklore among quantum opticians over the past 20 years.  The "locality loophole" always struck me rediculously far fetched!

 

Regards,  Al 

  

Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Oktober 2015 um 14:01 Uhr

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151030/41496677/attachment.htm>