### Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox

- July, 2010. Submission to Foundations of Physics
- Title: On EPR Paradox, No Entanglement Theorem For Separate Particles And Consequences.
- May, 2010. Submission to International Journal of Quantum Information
- Title: On EPR Paradox, Bell's Inequalities and Experiments That Prove Nothing. Submitted to the special issue
*Advances in foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Information*, as part of conference proceedings. The manuscript was rejected. Appeal was not allowed. - November 7, 2007. Submission to Concepts of Physics
- Title: On Epr Paradox, Bell's Inequalities and Experiments That Prove Nothing. The paper has been published in 2008 along with the referee replies.
- May, 2010. Submission to International Journal of Quantum Information
- Title: Quantum Scattering Theories, Their Contradictions And Attempts To Resolve Them. Submitted to the special issue
*Advances in foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Information*, as part of conference proceedings. - July, 2010. Submission to ArXiv
- As it turns out, ArXiv does not allow the reviews of the referees to be included verbatim. I received the following message:
*Your submission's status has been held upon notice from our moderators. Please note that it is inappropriate to directly quote from the referee reports. You may describe the referee reports.*My attempts to understand or overcome the reasons behind such barbaric rules were unsuccessful - the manuscript was removed from the ArXiv servers. - September 3, 2010. Submission to Physics Review Letters
- The outcome of the analysis of the paper by Dr. Siegman is a proposed experiment, where multiple reflections of gainy medium can be used to study ball lightning and other nonlinear phenomena.
- June 03, 2010. Submission to Optics Letters
- The article was forwarded to Dr. Siegman for review. This is partially due to our fault, since we did not exclude Dr. Siegman from the potential referees. Obviously, Dr. Siegman did not want the article from being published. However, the topical editor Timothy Carrig, and the deputy editor Brian Justus refused to dismiss his review, even though there is clearly a conflict of interests. I am not even sure if the editors even read the explanations in our appeal.
- February 12, 2010. Submission to OPN
- We found multiple errors in Dr. Siegman's article, even on the basic level. We listed them in a detailed manuscript, which we forwarded to OP. However since the OPN is not a peer-reviewed publication, they refused to accept the article. Instead, OPN published a short version of our comments.

### Quantum scattering theory

It is common in all the textbooks to describe the scattering process using spherical waves. It is logical to do so in classical physics, e.g. acoustics, because the spherical wave is a distortion of the medium. In quantum physics however, scattering describes the transformation of states of a free particle: from an initial state with momentum k into final state with momentum k'.

The free particle has a wave function in the form of a plain wave, which is a solution to the free Schrodinger equation. The final state after the scattering must be a superposition of free states, i.e. superposition of plain waves with different k'.

The Fourier expansion of a spherical wave contains evanescent, i.e. exponentially decaying waves, which are a feature of bound states. To get the correct asymptotical wave function after scattering we must subtract these evanescent waves from the spherical function.

The subtraction gives a good asymptotic of the wave function after the scattering, but creates a lot of problems which are very interesting and worth discussing. However such a simple idea is rejected by everyone whose mind is in tenets of textbooks dogmas since the times of their studentship.

### Total Internal Reflection from Gainy Media

This paper was written in the response to the article by Prof. Anthony Siegman in the Optics and Photonics News. It is in essence a direct criticism of his work. This fact is important to keep in mind.

This is a controversial paper - there is no doubt about it. It criticizes the well-accepted fundamentals in quantum mechanics.

First, I overview the problem of defining an observable, such as the momentum of a system. The accepted definition through the eigen value of the momentum operator makes it impossibility to even define the probability of the position.

Second, using the common sense logic and even the logic of the EPR paper, I show that the entangled states of separated particles do not exist.

Third, I show that all the experiments on nonlocality and violation of Bell's inequalities are in fact not credible. I raise doubts about Aspect's experiments, and about more recent experiments using parametric down conversion of photons.

Fourth, it follows from the absence of the entanglement that the widely discussed phenomena of quantum cryptography, teleportation and computing are unwarranted. These branches of science will forever remain as pure speculation with no implementation in the real world.

My goal is

notto overthrow quantum mechanics or prevent huge sums money invested into what turns out to be nonsense. My research is motivated only by the interest in, and for the sake of, knowledge.