FrediFizzx wrote:So here you have it folks. There can be no further doubt that QM is in fact local for the EPR-Bohm scenario!
Using eigenvalues, Jay's manifestly local measurement functions are essentially equivalent to the following upon implementing the polarizer functions. := +\lim_{{\bf s} \rightarrow\, \text{sgn}({\bf a}\cdot{\bf s}){\bf a}}\Big[\lambda_{a, s\, h} \Big]=+\lim_{{\bf s} \rightarrow\, \text{sgn}({\bf a}\cdot{\bf s}){\bf a}}\Big[{\bf a}\cdot {\bf s}+i\,h\,||{\bf a} \times {\bf s}|| \Big])
 :=-\lim_{{\bf s} \rightarrow \, \text{sgn}({\bf b}\cdot{\bf s}){\bf b}}\Big[\lambda_{s, b\, h}\Big]=-\lim_{{\bf s} \rightarrow\, \text{sgn}({\bf b}\cdot{\bf s}){\bf b}}\Big[{\bf s}\cdot {\bf b}+i\,h\,||{\bf s} \times {\bf b}|| \Big])
whereis the hidden variable. This is more of the beginning of "The New Quantum Mechanics".
.
In view of what I just posted about Stern-Gerlach at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=412#p10375, I need to modify what Fred earlier wrote to read as follows:
Specifically, I do not think it wise to use the sign function, because in SG you to do not get a + click for certain unless there is a 100% alignment. Put differently, we are mixing apples and oranges if we put a classical result using the sign function, Bell (9), into a formula intended for quantum mechanics. This also requires me to modify my reply to Richard in viewtopic.php?f=6&t=412&start=20#p10322 insofar as I accepted the use of the Bell (9) sign function in what Fred wrote.
Additionally, again, I do not like the "lim" because I see no calculus here. I use "obs" to mean that "this is what happens upon observation." I am also refraining from using "collapse" because that too has some connotations about what happens when we observe, which are really not necessary. I can justify the obs with
Jay
