New Scientist on a mission to rescue Quantum Theory from ‘spooky action at a distance’
The Editorial eulogy to quantum theory (22 January 2011) appeared to mark a reversal of previous sceptical and critical approaches, as eg. in reporting Afshar’s version of Young’s famous two-slit experiment (New Sci. 17 Feb. 2007). I challenged the Editor’s – the Editorial was written I guess by Michael Brook – calling quantum theory our “most successful model of the universe”. My letter cited the ‘splitting’ of photons and impulses less than one momentum unit in convergent laser light, but the magazine did not publish this challenge (see below Quantum Theory as Physics’ “most successful” ).
The latest “Uncertainty Untangled” feature (30 April) admits the latest work on inconsistency between Entanglement and Uncertainty comes to a similar conclusion to the famous 1935 EPR thought-experiment. The Bell inequalities were supposed to have found against EPR (Anil Ananthaswamy, 26 Feb. 2011, p.36). I informed that writer that the contrary view is alive and kicking on Wikipedia, but he dismissed this on 30 April with “that debate is now largely considered settled” (the only reference is his own article of 26 Feb.).
Einstein was very modest in saying EPR showed quantum theory is “incomplete”. The ‘fair sampling’ issue (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell’s_theorem) implies that ‘enhancement’ (by detectors) provides much of the explanation of quantum weirdness. The other part of Einstein’s “incomplete”, is attributable in our view to the Planckian zeropoint field (crisisinphysics.co.uk).
Einstein did of course give the more trenchant criticism of quantum entanglement as ‘spooky action at a distance’. Why are current New Scientist writers concerned to maintain such a mystical deviation from normal science? 1 May 2011