<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:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
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=blue vlink=purple><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'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><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?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><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 9:43 AM<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><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Hi Chip et al.<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'>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.?<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'>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.<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'>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!<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'>Regards, Al <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 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'>Gesendet:</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> Freitag, 30. Oktober 2015 um 14:01 Uhr<br><b>Von:</b> "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 Richard</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'>My opinion follows…</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'>It is interesting that they claim to have closed all loopholes in this test and claim to have proven 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='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'>While they may have conducted a far better test, that will not help as long as they keep using the same mathematical premise for “proving” entanglement.</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'>A local variable based on spin of a spatially extended model of the electron, can yield exactly the same results, so what is it that they have proven?</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'><b>Physics today is burdened by illusion and myth</b>. This is a strong statement. But look at history and find any time in human history when this statement was not true. So why would we think that this is not the current condition as well? But let us be more specific. The current identifiable illusions and myths have only a few candidates. “Point particles” is one illusion and myth which is fairly easy to specify as such. Our physical experience, and the math, tell us that for an object to have spin angular momentum it must have a spatial distribution. Interestingly, when we understand that rotation with a spatial extent causes spin angular momentum, we also uncover the subtle evidence of another myth. “Entanglement” appears an illusion and a myth caused by our misunderstanding of the property of spin, and of our measurements, of subatomic particles.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Chip<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>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 30, 2015 7:22 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> Anthony Booth <<a href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org">abooth@ieee.org</a>>; Ariane Mandray <<a href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr">ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</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><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Hi Al and all,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> More on the Delft Bell-test experiment. The article was published in Nature on 21 October. It was just summarized at <a href="http://www.opli.net/opli_magazine/eo/2015/loophole-free-bell-test-tu-delft-crowns-80-years-old-debate-on-nature-of-reality-einsteins-spooky-action-is-real-oct-news/" target="_blank">http://www.opli.net/opli_magazine/eo/2015/loophole-free-bell-test-tu-delft-crowns-80-years-old-debate-on-nature-of-reality-einsteins-spooky-action-is-real-oct-news/</a> . A quote "<span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#371287;background:white'>PhD-student Bas Hensen, lead-author of the study. “We also close the detection loophole, because in this experiment we measure all our entangled pairs. This is the first time all loopholes are closed at the same time in a single experiment, and we still find that the invisible bond between the electrons is there: the first loophole-free Bell test”. </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:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#371287;background:white'> </span>Are minds clanging shut and is this idea (predicted by QM) becoming a dogma so that other possible explanations are still being ignored? Or is the experiment (and the Bell inequalities derivation) really airtight?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On Oct 25, 2015, at 8:12 AM, <a href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><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 Richard & all:</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'>This article resulted from an interview with the experiemnters and describes their interpretation without telling how, or even what, they did. Note also, the second sentence calls on von Neumann's Projection Hypothsis, an, per Karl Popper, inadmisible scientific principle. Noone can say what WAS, before looking. </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'>The whole story depends on wheather this experiment can be understood in classical optics terms, or not. Bell claims not, but it's easy, altthough tedious. Here's how: Get a precise description of the equipment. Write down the matrix form of the tranfer function for each optical element. Multiply them all togeter in the order in which the beam(s) encounters them. Graph the result as a function of whatever variable(s) wind(s) up being independant, i.e., adjustable by the experimentors. Then compare that curve(s) with the reported results (NOT the interpreted results!) </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'>The Delft team will be want to describe the results in the usual (nowadays) sexy-mystical quantum palaver. Don't take it. Get the results as recorded from the final detector(s). 99% of the time this will be a voltage or current as a function of angles. Expect resistance! They may not give specific info on the equipment (make and model); They may give the final data either as "reduced" (which can include tossing contrary elemets) or in some raw form for which a propritary algorithm is required, etc.) Then again, they may not. </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'>Now, add your own classical story; which, I bet, will fit flawlessly.</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'>BUT, WARNING: If you need to get funding or tenure, praise their brilliance and drop the matter! </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'>I have been told that the link to my past papers is kaput. In fact, I just garbbeld it. Try: <a href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/" target="_blank">http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/</a> A couple papers there apply just the tactic mentioned here to past experiments. The main difference with this Delft experiment is likely no more than the long optical path length, giving enought time so it can be argued that the detectors could not on their own collude to trick us into believing in superluminal trasnmission. Notice the schizophrenic aspect: the point of the experiment is to show the reality of superluminial interaction of some kind in the first place! How's that for consitent logic? But then, those who take seriously that detectors might collude like like politicians ....! </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'> Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 um 15:10 Uhr<br><b>Von:</b> "Richard Gauthier" <<a href="richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_parent">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>><br><b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<a href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> "Joakim Pettersson" <<a href="joakimbits@gmail.com" target="_parent">joakimbits@gmail.com</a>>, "ARNOLD BENN" <<a href="arniebenn@mac.com" target="_parent">arniebenn@mac.com</a>>, "Anthony Booth" <<a href="abooth@ieee.org" target="_parent">abooth@ieee.org</a>>, "Ariane Mandray" <<a href="ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr" target="_parent">ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</a>><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><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'>This entanglement experiment in Delft (Netherlands) was reported in Time magazine “What Einstein got wrong about the speed of light" on 22 October at <a href="http://time.com/4083823/einstein-entanglement-quantum/" target="_blank">http://time.com/4083823/einstein-entanglement-quantum/</a> . Can anyone see any loopholes?</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'> Richard</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><br><br><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">Click here to unsubscribe </a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_parent">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">Click here to unsubscribe </a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>