Mikko wrote:Gordon Watson wrote:http://vixra.org/abs/1707.0322

Abstract: To be or not to be; that is the issue. Using (what we term) Bell's definition of true local realism — the union of true locality and true realism — we resolve Bell’s ‘action-at-a-distance’ dilemma in favor of true locality: ie, no influence propagates superluminally (after Einstein). As to Bell's realism, we prefer (what we duly term) true realism: ie, some beables change interactively (after Bell’s handy term for existents and Bohr's ‘disturbance' insight). Put simply: defining beables by properties and values, we allow interactions to yield new beables. (Thus, since observables are clearly beables, existing or not existing prior to an interaction, we reject the quantum/classical divide.) We then predict the probabilities of interaction outcomes by simply distinguishing between classes of beables. In this way, delivering results in full accord with quantum theory and experiment — in 3-space; and contra Bell — we also advance QM's reconstruction in spacetime with a new vector-product for geometric algebra. True local realism thus resolves Bell's dilemma, demystifies QM, etc.

Critical comments, questions, corrections, etc, most welcome!

PS: Especially in the context of -- or re any light it shines upon -- Joy Christian's disproof of Bell's theorem.

Tks; Gordon

Although Gordon Watson's long series of articles is more repetition than progress, there is a trend. The earliest articles attempted (but failed) to refute Bell's theory. The newest one instead states clearly that what the author calls "our theory" is not a counter exaple to Bell's theory. In the introduction the author presents two expressions, a local one (1) and a non-local one (2) and states that he prefers the non-local one. However, the article is about true local realism that does not follow this preference but requires Einstein's causality instead. The author's theory (mentioned in the article) is not described or identified so -- if it exists at all -- one cannot determine whether it is local or non-local. The theory is claimed to be equivalent to quantum mechanics, at least when restricted to experiments about spin. It is not clear what advantages over plain QM would be offered.

Mikko, with apologies; I missed the above from you. And it's coincidence [a happy one] that this reply follows my earlier "new thread" today re

the BIG Bell test:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586- ... UzMjI2MwS2(I hope you will there contribute your definition of local realism.)

SO, in reply to your comments on my draft essay here:

1. Equations (1) and (2) are both LOCAL.

2. My theory is local: (i) In Einstein's sense. (ii) In Bell's sense, but without Bell's subsequent error in analysis.

3. My theory's advantages over "plain QM" -- taking that to mean a collection of several widely-accepted but fraught/competing interpretations -- is that the mechanics takes place in spacetime. Or simple 3-space when time and gravity may be neglected.

4. My theory is not affected by your -- or any other -- critique of Joy Christian's work.

5. My theory arises from a single premiss [combining two axioms], that of TLR (true local realism): see

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3137 [which is another draft -- seeking critical comments -- on the way to my writing a more definitive paper combining the two now here mentioned].

Title: More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.Abstract: What is fundamental? In reply, we derive quantum theory from the premiss of true local realism, the union of true locality and true realism. (True locality insists that no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein. True realism insists that some existents may change interactively, after Bohr.) The truth of our premiss (its consequents agree with quantum theory and observation) advances modern science (and commonsense) by exposing more realistic fundamentals. Much remains to be done, but we are surely at the end of beginning.

6. So my theorising is not limited to refuting Bell's theorem: it is intended to be a new (truly local and truly realistic) theory representing the way I see the world.

HTH; and with my apologies again for the delay; Gordon