Sir Peter L. Knight, Emeritus Professor, Imperial College London
South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK
ArXiv: Bell’s Inequality Test with Entangled Atoms, 2001
Homepage(s): National Physical Lab (NPL) Royal Society
inSpire: A Multiparticle generalization of entanglement swapping, 1997
Royal Society, Senior Fellow in Residence, The Kavli Royal Society International Centre
YouTube: Dec 18, 2017 Quantum Optics, Sir Peter Knight and a Faraday Medal
Second email: 2 August 2022 at 3:20 PM
Dear Sir Peter:
A couple of years ago I sent you an email (uninvited)* because I was impressed with your article about Bell’s inequality. I had worked with Bell, Shimony, Costa de Beauregard, and Vigier back in the 1970s before I threw in the towel. It has been fascinating to follow its path to this day.
Did you happen to take a moment to look at our little walk back through the tetrahedrons-octahedrons to the Planck scale? How far off are we? https://81018.com/as-above-so-below/
First email: 6 January 2020 @ 10:20 AM
Dear Emeritus Professor, Sir Peter:
Academia seems to be digging itself into a deeper and deeper hole, defending core constructs yet ignoring a more simple, basic understanding of light, space-time, and matter-energy.
Could Isaac Newton and his absolute space and time be misleading us?
Might a finite space and time serve us better?
The Lucasian Professors have a daunting history. Could that history possibly have limited the debate about the first moment of time? …and the very nature of inflation?
Rather naively our high school geometry classes explored the simple relation between tetrahedrons and octahedrons: https://81018.com/tot-2/ We walked back inside both by applying base-2 notation only to discover in 47 steps within, we were at the CERN-scale of measurement and within another 67 steps within Planck scale. Quite unlike Zeno, we hit a wall. Yet, both George J. Stoney and Max Planck were there to advise us. We couldn’t go further within, so with a little help, we multiplied Planck Length by 2, virtually retraced our steps, then went an additional 90 steps to the age and size of the universe.
It is a simple model. Too simple and too logical for most, the numbers, I believe, are worth a little time to explore — https://81018.com/chart/ Even our sixth grade class of savants understood these simple progressions.
Might you take a look and advise us? Where does our simple logic fail us? How do all those simple numbers, all multiples of the Planck units, fail us? Thank you.
PS. Thanks for the introduction to the Millennium Prize at the TAF, Finland. Also, I will further study the work of the UK’s Quantum Metrology Institute.
References and Resources:
KNIGHT PL, 1986, QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS AND SQUEEZING IN THE INTERACTION OF AN ATOM WITH A SINGLE FIELD MODE, PHYSICA SCRIPTA, Vol: T12, Pages: 51-55, ISSN: 0281-1847
KNIGHT PL, 1980, THEORY OF NEAR-RESONANT SPONTANEOUS RAMAN-SCATTERING SPECTRA, JOURNAL OF PHYSICS B-ATOMIC MOLECULAR AND OPTICAL PHYSICS, Vol: 13, Pages: 4551-4565, ISSN: 0953-4075
Knight PL, 1997, Quantum fluctuations in optical systems, Quantum Fluctuations, Vol: 63, Pages: 1-+
Knight PL, 1997, Dynamics of spontaneous emission, PHYSICA SCRIPTA, Vol: T70, Pages: 94-100, ISSN: 0031-8949
Knight PL, 1998, The construction and detection of non-classical states in quantum optics, Singapore, 5th Wigner Symposium AUG 25-29, 1997 VIENNA, AUSTRIA, Publisher: World Scientific Publ Co Pte Ltd, Pages: 409-409
Knight PL, 2005, The observation of matter wave fluctuations, SCIENCE, Vol: 310, Pages: 631-632, ISSN: 0036-8075