What will the referees say about my local realism paper?

I finally did it.  I submitted a paper to Physical Review A entitled “A local realistic reconciliation of the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox.”  It took me sixteen years!  Back in 1997, when I was moon struck in India, I decided that I could not accept non-locality.  It made no sense to me. Recently I came across the 1693 quote of Isaac Newton whose shoulders I gladly stand upon.  Newton realized that non-locality (Instantaneous-action-at-a-distance) was absurd, and that his theory of gravity must be incomplete:

That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.

and so I believe that quantum mechanics is incomplete.

In 2006 I got the idea that perhaps spin has structure: two dimensional.  I tried it out thinking the idea was crazy, but everything worked out easily.  That encouraged me. Now I am 100% certain that my spin model is correct, but I also know that the easiest person to fool is me.

I will be on tenterhooks until I hear from the editor because of past experience. My concern is that the paper will be rejected because the referees will “not like it”.  I have heard that before and my response is that I do not like the colour green, so what?  I do not mind objective comments, but subjective rejections are inappropriate in my books.

What a lot of physicists do not like is local realism even though it makes physical sense.  I think that the majority would accept it, but this has been going on since 1925 with no resolution, so most have given up. One cannot blame them; quantum mechanics works so well.

Not only have my papers been rejected, but also I am blacklisted on the quantum archives, ArXiv where so much junk is posted. Why I asked? And the reply from the anonymous moderator was to submit the paper for publication and see what the referees say.  I did, they said they do not like my results. Also presentations at conferences are refused and if you mention local realism, you get pilloried. There is a lot more negativism, even hostility, and my conclusion is that physics is a highly censored and controlled discipline.  Maybe Sheldon on Big Bang Theory epitomizes how physicists view themselves, well not all physicists.

I am, by the way, an interloping chemist. I actually think that not being brought up in physics has helped me see through the EPR paradox, but I can actually concur with the earlier negative responses I got as I blundered onto the field and asked stupid questions like, “What is the mechanism for teleportation?”.  I like David Wick’s book, “The Infamous Boundary”. He stated something like: when you ask a question physicists cannot answer, they look at you in a funny way and make a mental note not to talk to you anymore. That is my experience. Yes, and I moved my grant applications from chemistry to physics in the hope of getting objective responses, but I was told the work was pseudo-science and I lost my grant.  Luckily theorists do not need much money to think.

At the beginning of my obsession with the EPR paradox, I was certainly naïve and had an enormous volume of reading to do. However first impressions are lasting but now my earlier ideas have crystallized and I have an answer that satisfies me.

I do not know how the review will go, but I will post the referee comments here.