Stephen Parrott


picture of Stephen Parrott in Nevada
I retired in 2002.

Please do not send mail to the University, as it may be considerably delayed.
Email sent to my university account will probably be deleted unread;  there is too much spam to delete by hand, so I delete everything unless I'm expecting a message.

For contact information, click here.

Click on the next link for my  bibliography.

Here for pages of  reviews of  books and papers.  (The "papers" page has become a sort of blog.)

Following is a link to my personal website .

Recent revisions:   October 27, 2013.  An essay entitled "Restoring the quantum state after a measurement" was added to the
                                   October 23 entry on the "papers" page.
 The October 27 entry reports on the nearly final results of
                                   two years of effort to obtain correction in the literature of erroneous papers of Dressel and Jordan.

                     

                           December 6: 2013.  A recent paper of Emerson, Serbin, Sutherland, and Veitch is recommended for
                                     its transparent presentation of the Pusey/Barrett/Rudolph result.

                           February 9, 2014.  (1)  Reservations are expressed about a much-discussed paper   "Direct  measurement of the
                                    quantum  wavefunction" by Lundeen, Patel, Stewart, and Bamber.  
                                    (2)  It looks as if the Dressel/Jordan affair may finally be at an end.   The final results and how they reflect on
                                           the standards of three mainstream journals (Physical Review Letters, Journal of Physics A, and Physical
                                            Review A) are described.

                            July 25, 2014.   A statistical analysis is discussed of a famous paper of Grangier, Roger, and Aspect.  This paper
                                       is widely taken as establishing the existence of the photon.  It turns out that the data presented in the
                                       paper actually reject the hypothesis of the existence of the photon at nearly the 100% signficance
                                       level.  (Presumably, the problem lies with the data rather than the hypothesis.)