Sci.Physics.Foundations

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! 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.
.

.
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?
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:46 pm .
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?

Now, that is a HUGE mystery!
.