Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Quantum Entanglement = Attraction?

Hi Durante:

All the key ideas have been published in peer-reviewd journals, albeit not the most prestigious. Even conference proceedings are exposed to a certain amount of filtering. All the numbered papers on my web-page have gotten some critical review, or otherwise exposed to the possibility of rejection.

I have submitted to PRL, Science, etc. but at these journals the "peer" is reviewed, not his paper! (The system is broken, in fact.) I'm not good at self abuse, and so, refuse to play at the pecking order games. I stand on my results. If that ain't enough, ta' hell with it.

Anyway, the moral rigor of scientists is no higher than that of the population from which they come, and I am not going to spend my time battling egos. Moreover, I would never expect those whose whole reputation is built on Bell-mythology to collaborate in their dethronment. It is more important for me to see to it that those who want to understand get the responce from me they want. So, if you have any questions or whatever, shoot! In the end, some recognized authority may endorse it, and then my problem might be the opposite: celebertization!

BTW, antiBell and anti nonlocality stuff is more sociologically significant than good, new physics. The "Steerage" paper discusses my best positive contribution to the trade. I do the former to support the latter, actually.

---AFK

A. F. Kracklauer wrote:
" I have been promissed (threatened?) by now about 70 renowned "experts," that as soon as they found time, they were going to write a devastating critique. After 15 years, none have found time! Is that credible?"

I've yet to make it to the library so don't take this as a value judgment. But what you write here at SAGG sounds a lot like:

Points 1, 16, 17, and 21
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

In short, if you are legitimate, you are not doing yourself any favors with the attitude and it is little wonder you are being treated as a crackpot. Nor do your explanations, above, explain anything.

I read two of your papers, #18 and #19 from your link, and to say I am wholly unimpressed would be a statement of fact. My first impression is lots of sound and fury signifying nothing.

How long has it been since you've been in a university research lab? If an absence of non-locality is to be proven it is not with a pencil.

OK Mr. Morgan:

1. Let's agree: credentials are incidental (I'v had plenty, but likely you do not have the clearances to verify.)

2. Ad hominum stuff is unscientific. Waste of time for serious people (although I can have as much fun as anybody throwing rocks).

3. While #18 and #19 are ok, a better choice might have been #20. In it I present exactly what "Bell's theorem" says does not exist. A MODEL of EPR-B experiments that shows exactly how the data points individually arise without nonlocal information.

Since the issue is on paper, so to speak, i.e., pertains to what kind of models exist, the solution must be on paper. I do not dispute experimnents or any of the data taken. Rather, I explain it without reference to or use of quantum or any other nonlocal information---just Malus' Law.

In the thread somewhere you jumped all over your friend Extrasense for failure to do a calculation. Well, without wishing to take up his cause, I submit that I provide such calcualtions, models, simulations for all the generic EPR/GHZ entanglement experiments. If you are still unimpressed, may I expect your responce in the form of a paper explicating my errors?

Being proud of your PhD, I presume you can contribute to the arXiv, if not PRL, where your paper would get some professional attention and give me an opportunity to digest it and respond without the falderrol of journal editorial disputes. [If you can't submit to the arXiv, you can send your paper directly to me. In addition to putting it on my web page, I'll colaborate to get it on the arXiv---if I can't deflate it, that is.]

BTW, I have been in LOTS of labs. Last 2 weeks ago, in fact. Been in even more computing facilitites---earned my spurs decades ago computing shuttle navigation for NASA, for example. Forget about intimidating me; focus on my "sound and fury" for its content. Re: my attitude and the scientific community, let me quote Einstein to you: "In order to be a faultless memeber of the flock, first you must be a sheep."

"Entanglement" (& nonlocality + projection hypothsis) puts QM in contradiction to SR. Thus, the views I espouse should be seen as the more solidly grounded, not those of (you-?) who champion QM mysticism, and therfore contradictions at the foundations of science! This stuff should have been seen as symptoms of error, not wonders for X-files!

---AFK

A. F. Kracklauer wrote:
"but likely you do not have the clearances to verify."

If ever there were words equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot those were them. Had you bothered to research me, even here at SAGG, you'd have noted that I have lectured at Argonne, Batelle, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.

I stopped reading after your condescending pomposity. I know now why the physics community ignores you. I know not what you thought you were going to accomplish. What I do know is that you failed most miserably.

YOYO

Great! Then verify.

Now that my foot is wounded, I won't be able to get very far if you ever get off your trip and actually focus on something other than credientials and write that devistating analysis of the real topic here. If you'll reread your own postings, you will see that you put all your weight on who agrees with whom (as if you never heard Planck's lament to the effect that the only way a contraian notion can prevail is with the death of the generation in the sattle!). Sorry if I offended your pride. It does seem that you are more comfortable in the frat-house mode than at technical disputation---after all, without having made a single technical criticism, you saw fit to reference a cite on cranks, as if it pertained to me (for a moderator, this is unconscionable). Great way to invite underevaluations. My arXiv search on 'D A Morgan' also yielded nada. So, presumtiousness on my part is at least a little understandable, even if not justified.

BTW, the "physics community" does not ignore me. There is a substantial fraction of VERY reputable people in Q. Opt., who champion the views I support. That's how I do get published. Those who reject my stuff are mostly those who will lose face if nonlocality is rejected. This includes a very large number of people who bought on to it just to get through school and do not want to think they were easy.

See if you can't forget for a bit where you or I have left foot prints in the past and actually take a shot at some substantial physics point, like: why do the classical formula for high order correlations (Mandel & Wolf, Opt. Coherence & Q. Opt., Chap 8.) predict exactly the results of EPR/GHZ "quantum" experients?

Where exactly does nonlocality. or "entanglement" actually pertain to lab-type QM? Who needs it? (Don't tell me: Q. crypto. There the vital info goes over the telephone! Everthing else comes from prearranged sources.) If you understand Shor's algorithm, tell me why the parallelism in a Fourier decomposition will not suffice---if there is a difference at all with Q. superpostion multiplicity.

Let's return to the thread: EPR-B/GHZ experiennts give results in accord with Malus' Law. Why should this be taken as support for nonlocality? Bell did not mention nor take into account Bayes' formula for correlated events. Jaynes criticized him for this while both were still alive. Where is Bell's definitive responce? LLL has a very good library. But, I bet, you cannot find answers to these questions in it. If you do, I will eat my shoe---the one with the bullet hole in it!

---AFK