Sci.Physics.Foundations

[quote="Joy Christian" post_id=673 time=1643168786 user_id=63]
.
The article says: "The Bell ruling means that a particle can’t carry with it, locally, a “hidden variable” that determines measurement outcomes."

For how long is the physics community going to believe this complete falsehood? Why do so many otherwise smart people believe such nonsense?
[/quote]
Now, that is a [size=150]HUGE[/size] mystery! :roll:
.

.
The article says: "The Bell ruling means that a particle can’t carry with it, locally, a “hidden variable” that determines measurement outcomes."

For how long is the physics community going to believe this complete falsehood? Why do so many otherwise smart people believe such nonsense?
.

Another article that misinterprets Bell's junk physics theory but is interesting.

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v15/11

"So, what causes the particle to behave the way it does? Schmid and his colleagues are working on a new mathematical formalism that they hope will lead to a “quantum realism” that respects the Bell theorem while also appealing to our classical intuition."

LOL! :lol: That is not going to happen or work! Especially since we already have a classical local-realistic solution from Joy's work. The way I see the problem is that the math of quantum mechanics is a little bit messed up for the EPR scenario product calculation. Plus, QM can't predict the event by event outcomes of A and B. That is now fixed with the latest simulation in a classical local-realistic way. Sure, there is still a little mystery about the spinorial sign changes, but they are all local.
.