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.
where is 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 and using the Robertson uncertainty relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertain ... _relations, and will post that proof in detail if someone would like to see it. So far I have simply asserted it without showing it, assuming that most will recognize this as a corollary of how in SG, a magnet reading aligns either parallel or anti-parallel to the z axis.
Jay