I am sure the reviewer is knowledgeable about the EPR paradox and the foundations of quantum mechanics but he missed or dismissed a departing point of my approach: quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement and I find states that exist only when not measured. These undetected states account for the quantum correlation usually attributed to non-locality. Although the reviewer’s comments are easily answered, I was not allowed a rebuttal:Read More
HOW do we know the other particle “magically assumes” the opposite state, rather than it just had the opposite state all the time?
The answer is “nobody knows because it makes no physical sense”. When a physicist is asked how this happens, they indeed invoke the word “magic” as in quantum magic or quantum weirdness.Read More
But if the model does stand up, what have I accomplished? There is presently no experimental way to distinguish between one or two axes of quantization. Including counterfactual coincidences can be rejected out of hand and quantum mechanics still viewed as complete. The mechanics of applying quantum will not change. Having the option to accept local reality might have a salving effect on those generations of physicists who have been brought up believing the Copenhagen Interpretation and Bell. One can sigh a sigh of relief that non-locality is history and Nature is both real and deterministic, at least for spin. That would make a lot of people happy.Read More
When there are nagging doubts about something in my work I worry about them until they make sense. Experience shows me that if I brush something aside, it comes back later to bite me. So I feel that those in the field of quantum information must have the same uneasiness about non-locality. and a stubborn, even defensive, acceptance of Bell’s theorem. So there must be a sense of paranoia about this inexplicable property. Local realists are a thorn, and I will only shut up if I am shown to be wrong, or some other viable local realistic explanation comes along.Read More