<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi Al<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Thank you. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Of course I too think that entanglement is an illusion caused by misunderstanding.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>It seems that once again in human history we find ourselves in the position where pervasive dogma clouds our understanding of nature.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>af.kracklauer@web.de<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 30, 2015 12:23 PM<br><b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br><b>Cc:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Hi Chip:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Some thoughts below:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Gesendet:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> Freitag, 30. Oktober 2015 um 15:57 Uhr</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap: break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space' name=quote><div style='margin-bottom:7.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Von:</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> "Chip Akins" <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a>><br><b>An:</b> "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div name=quoted-content><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Hi Al</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>No, I was not referring to </span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Al: Been a while since I read JC!</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Question Al: When you say, “The "locality loophole" always struck me ridiculously far-fetched!” Do you mean that you feel that “entanglement” is real?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Al : Best</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Chip</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 30, 2015 9:43 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br><b>Cc:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Hi Chip et al.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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.?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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!</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Regards, Al </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt'><div style='margin-bottom:7.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Gesendet:</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> Freitag, 30. Oktober 2015 um 14:01 Uhr</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>