# A. Logically Non-locality makes no sense.

For many years now (since 2006) I have been studying spin 1/2 that has structure. People think the idea is crazy because spin is firmly established by the Dirac Equation. Recently I found that the two dimensional structured spin I have been advocating is just as firmly based in its own Dirac equation with a different algebra. I will come back to that later.

Non-locality, going back to Isaac Newton, has always been unacceptable, at least until modern times. Instantaneous action-at-a-distance is physically unpalatable and always belies a deeper theory. So why does almost every physicist believe in it?

To be clear, I do not suggest that Bell’s Theorem is wrong. Bell gave a way of distinguishing classical from quantum correlation, and although there are dissenters, they are few. According to quantum mechanics, to agree with the 2√2 violation of Bell’s Inequalities, the separated spins must remain entangled, and therefore have non-local correlations. No one can explain how particles remain entangled after they have separated.

The point is, I cannot accept that Nature is non-local and not deterministic. So there must be a way, even though most have given up and just accept it. Resolving the EPR paradox is one way to get rid of non-locality. When I found that my spin carries all the correlation that violated Bell’s inequalities without being entangled, it convinced me, but few others. More and deeper arguments are required.

Since the whole concept of non-locality is based upon one experiment, called coincidence photon experiments, if one can explain that data without entanglement, the problem is solved.

Question

1. How do we know that when spin is not measured, it remains in the same state that was observed when measured?

I believe it goes into a different state.

2. How would we know?

I do not think there is any experimental way to know. However the structured spin I found makes a lot of physical sense and each EPR pair carries all the quantum correlation without entanglement. So you have a choice.

3. Since usual spin is firmly established in quantum field theory and the Dirac equation, how can a spin we cannot observe have a hope of being accepted?

As for the fundamental basis of the structured spin, all that is needed is to change the usual Dirac Algebra from,

γ^{0}, γ^{1},γ^{2},γ^{3}

to

γ^{0}, γ^{1}, *i* γ^{2}, γ^{3},

where “*i*” is the imaginary number. Anyone who knows the Dirac equation should easily see that this different Dirac algebra leads to a two dimensional Dirac equation and this has two spin Lorentz invariants which are exactly my structured spin. I will show this in the few entries.

Therefore the 2D structured spin is as firmly based in Physics as usual measured spin.

4. If the 2D spin resolved the EPR paradox and solved the Double Slit experiment, would that be enough?

## 0 Comments