SciPhysicsForums.com

[quote="gill1109"]

I believe that there is a "measurement problem" in quantum mechanics.[/quote]
Here, then, is a key difference between "local QM" and my classical model. Because "local QM" is supposed to be just QM, it has a measurement problem, whereas my GA model does not.

***

We did use Joy's classical model as a guide to formulate the local QM model. And that was Jay's original idea. To see if Joy's model could be put in the math of QM.

Well, as Heine correctly noted that with the addition of the polarizer functions, the local QM model works without Joy's hidden variable. But it also works with the hidden variable which is in fact necessary for the correct physical picture of the singlets having a handedness. So... so far QM is in fact local with regards to EPR-Bohm either way.

And thanks to the feedback we have received here, we have been able to fine tune the formulas for the local QM model. But Jay is working on even more fine tuning so to speak so we will see what comes of that.
.

***
You are not wrong to assert that I have only *one* model, namely the 7-sphere model of [url=https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392]the RSOS paper[/url]. All the rest of my results can be viewed as special cases of the 7-sphere model.

Now this may annoy both Jay and Fred (two of my most valuable supporters in the public eye), but I have always had, and probably will always have, reservations about QM being local, as claimed in our joint draft paper. But, having said that, I am quite happy to wait and see what Jay eventually produces after months of hard work.

For now, it is safe to say the relationship between "local QM" and my GA model is unclear. But, as we have always said, the work on "local QM" is a project that we would like feedback on.

***

I start with a quote from another thread.
[quote="FrediFizzx"]Off-topic. We are doing local QM here. Not Joy's classical model.
.[/quote]
I would have liked to respond to Fred, but with the danger of being judged off-topic, as follows:
[quote]when you say [b]local QM[/b], do you mean Joy's GA calculations with quaternions, bivectors, and all that? I agree that in principle you should be able to implement them by any computer package that can work with the Pauli matrices. And that seems to be exactly what you have done (in Mathematica). I like it! I can see that it is correct and therefore, of course, it gets the right answer. [/quote]

So, on a new thread, I ask the questions: what is [b]local QM[/b], what is [b]Joy's classical model[/b], and what is the relation between the two?

AFAIK, Joy has asserted that he only has *one* model. The one in the RSOS paper is some kind of generalisation of everything he did before, right? Please correct me if I am wrong!