Quantum Mechanics vs. Quantum business in Physics
I did not get endorsed to post my paper on the quantum ArXiv, so I will just forget about it. I gave XXX, whom I had asked to endorse me, a short summary of my results. His latest communication is:
I am afraid I cannot follow, but then I haven’t read your paper and won’t be able to do so in the near future.
The two simulations / quantization axes make no sense to me on first glance.
Apathy and skepticism are common responses to anyone that believes in local realism. Most think it impossible. I am concerned that the referees will similarly reject my paper without trying to understand it. We will see.
Censorship in quantum information
There is a movement to talk about quantum mechanics as quantum information. I agree with this because it emphasizes that quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement from which we get information. I view this as a limitation because Nature does not care what we know or measure. So I conclude, and my work shows, that in the absence of measurement new states exist. John Bell called these beables.
Those in quantum information rest a lot of their work on the completeness of quantum mechanics so that entanglement and non-locality are used as resources to exploit. The problem with that is non-locality cannot be explained; is an absurd concept and is brushed aside as “quantum Weirdness.” When there are nagging doubts about something in my work I worry about them until they make sense. Experience shows me that if I brush something aside, it comes back later to bite me. So I feel that those in the field of quantum information must have the same uneasiness about non-locality. and a stubborn, even defensive, acceptance of Bell’s theorem. So there must be a sense of paranoia about this inexplicable property. Local realists are a thorn, and I will only shut up if I am shown to be wrong, or some other viable local realistic explanation comes along.
Please do not conclude that I am saying all physicists are paranoid, only that it is pervasive in quantum information. I cannot really talk about the rest of physics, but since a large amount rests upon the completeness of quantum mechanics, I believe that most physicists would be happy if some resolution of EPR were found.
Three types of Entangled blogs: Don’t understand; Re-telling the story; New Experiments
I visit various blogs and leave comments. In fact there are three types of EPR or entanglement blogs:
1. Those that ask a question because they are confused about non-locality. Here is an example from
ok all, we know that entanglement of particles happens. a phenomenon in which two entities are inexorably linked no matter how far away from each other they may be. so far there is no explanation as to why or how this phenomenon occurs. my question is, has anyone got any theories as to how entanglement works as it does, and how it seems to skip the distance problem in space. i dont care how whacky your theory sounds, as nothing is as strange as entanglement anyway.
I see many of these like from, for example,
“I find this subject interesting, yet at the heart of quantum theory. If anyone has any eureka feelings about ” spin” at the quantum level please could you share them ! “
These questions are usually answered by people trying to explain the impossible. I answer too and of course from my point of view. Frequently my comments get deleted. Here is an example of censorship form the Physics Forums:
“Reason: General Warning
Please do not post links to your personal webpage or refer to unpublished papers.”
Hey they gave me a demerit point too, :). How are new ideas communicated if we have to follow the (in this case erroneous) notions that have made it to press? I am not promoting my webpage but trying to explain something in a different way. Of course I refer to my work.
2. Then there is the group who have discovered the rich EPR history and blog about this. Here are a few promoting the party line of non-locality;
There are many such blogs. They are pedagogical and like to say the EPR lost and Bell won.
3. Then there are blogs with new fantastic experiments, like teleporting to the International Space Station
or others that like to close loopholes in the EPR experiments. Loopholes are supposed to show the EPR experiments fail to vindicate non-locality,
This type of blog presents data that is supposed to be more nails in the coffins of EPR and local realism. I commented on this site only to have it removed: a colleague, who dares to challenge non-locality wrote to me saying:
“Looks like physicsworld deleted your comment. At the moment my reply is still there.
Quoting you. So I don’t think it will remain.
There’s an awful lot of propaganda and censorship in physics. Far more than the public appreciates.
These along with many others, such as quantum erasures and other coincidence experiments, like to point out their work supports Bell and shows the Copenhagen interpretation correct (that is the wave-particle duality).
So why are my comments deleted? I am not nasty, rude or belligerent. All I do is call a spade a spade and ask how non-locality works. I then offer my explanation. I guess that some editors do not like my point of view, so ding, delete comment.
Censorship and ridicule have no place in Science
Censorship, intimidation and derogatory remarks are common if you are a local realist. At its very worst consider the personal and indefensible attack on Joy Christian of Oxford University. I studied Joy’s work and it is quite close to mine. Many do not like it, for example,
I have several blogs about that, but because Joy is against Bell, Sascha Vongehr decided to launch the following iniquitous web site:
to belittle and castigate Joy’s work and him personally. Vongehr and some of his supporter sarcastically challenge Christian to prove local reality and any comments that supported Joy are not only deleted but sometimes modified to make the commentator look bad. When I jumped in supporting Joy I got pilloried by Luboš Motl, who describes himself as a
“Czech physicist who left the Academia, Harvard and similar stuff.
Here are his comments about my posts supporting Joy:
“The whole idea of yours that one should be searching for “something new” when it comes to the foundations of quantum mechanics is a misguided source of your crackpottery. People like you just refuse to learn basics of physics – they refuse to read any paper, book, or PDF file that makes any sense, just like what you did now once again – and they try to sell this clear defect as an advantage – oh, you’re so intellectual and original. Well, you’re not. You are just ignorant about basic physics and under proper circumstances, you should have never received a PhD, not even in chemistry.
So all your basic statements about all these things are just wrong. You should be ashamed of your failure to understand anything about the essence of the most important scientific breakthrough of the 20th century, instead of being as strikingly arrogant as you are. Pompous fools like you is something I simply cannot stand.
This group launched a concerted effort against Joy Christian who had been at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo Canada. The Perimeter institute removed his website and deleted his comments. Lubos said:
In the final paragraph of a March 2012 blog entry, I encouraged the Perimeter Institute and Oxford University to cut their ties with an anti-Bell-theorem activist and the author of repetitive and smug, yet almost uncited (if you remove self-citations) and nonsensical papers irrationally assaulting this important theorem in particular and quantum mechanics in general, namely with Joy Christian.
They have listened – either to me or someone else who gave an equivalent recommendation.
There is a lot more to all this, and you might Google Joy Christian to see how different ideas are viewed in Physics and the unprofessional and malicious way his ideas have been received.
Well let us forget about these Crackpot sites and those that run and comment on it. It is physics at its worst.
Not only does anyone who supports local realism get ostracized and attacked, but also their papers are rejected. I once submitted a short paper with an idea against non-locality and the next day I got the refusal from Phys Rev. Letters. I asked the editor for the referee comments and he replied:
“Our editorial policy is to reject, without external review, any paper that questions the veracity of non-locality.”
In conclusion, two points:
I hope it is now clear why I am apprehensive that my paper submitted to Physical Review A will not be fairly reviewed. The Journal editors are very helpful, efficient and I imagine understand the politics involved, so I am not worried about them. I am worried about the those blinkered physicists of the world who might review my paper from a biased point of view. Imagine if Luboš Motl was a referee!!
Institutions, governments and organizations censor when they are paranoid. The field of quantum information is paranoid because many recognize the absurdity of non-locality yet believe that quantum mechanics is complete–there is no way out of that. Many grants are given for research based upon entanglement and non-locality which proffer fantastic consequences like quantum teleportation and other commercialization based upon non-locality. A colleague once said to me:
The trouble with you, Bryan, is you are doing quantum mechanics and your critics are doing quantum business.