On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 3:13:52 PM UTC, Jos Bergervoet wrote:   
   > On 20/03/15 12:18 PM, ben6993 wrote:   
   > > ... Ben's earlier words are snipped ...   
   > You could also take a fine-grained sandpaper-like mosaic for your   
   > "+1 and -1 outcome pattern". Such a mosaic might follow the precise   
   > cos(theta) probability of QM, and still be deterministic (formally,   
   > that is.. not practically predictable of course. But in principle   
   > still free of 'chance').   
   >   
   > Doing that for another direction as well (use the same jig rotated   
   > to another axis or use an independent one) gives you exactly the QM   
   > outcome distributions. Of course it doesn't give the QM correlation,   
   > Bell's theorem is proven mathematics, after all!   
      
   I have in fact been thinking along such lines. I think one has to assume a   
   uniform, in some way eg on-a-sphere, distribution of hidden variables sent   
   from the source.  Unless .... and this is anathema to all bona fide   
   physicists, but I am currently wondering if time for an antiparticle is   
   travelling backwards, as nominally shown in a Feynmann diagram.  So a Bell   
   test starts at say Alice's measurement and ends at Bob's measurement.  Or   
   vice versa.  The only way that I can see this helping is by allowing a non-   
   random distribution of hidden variable values. So I am working on what the   
   distribution of hidden variables looks like after a measurement.  There are   
   clues found in S-G results and I have been working on this. (Well I have had   
   a break from physics to work on arranging home deliveries of food to keep me   
   out of shops etc etc etc)   
      
      
   >   
   > > I hope I never need to resort to a multiverse to bring chance into the   
   > > calculations.   
   >   
   > You are mistaken. The multiverse *removes* chance from QM. The chance   
   > concept only appears if you insist that one 'true' reality is at some   
   > point selected instead of all the others. The multiverse never does   
   > that.   
   >   
      
   Well, my wording was poor, but there is a lot of chance IMO that a   
   multiverse is not real.  And there is no control over which multiverse   
   'reality' is chosen nor any listing of available multiverse 'realities'.  I   
   am not ready to think about that kind of multiverse just yet.  I have my own   
   version of a multiverse as IMO every particle has a universe within it,   
   beginning at a creation event and ending with a measurement event /   
   interaction.  Similar to Penrose's CCC but applied to particles.   
      
   > [*] PS: Transmitting real numbers by sending only 2 bits is also very   
   > poorly described by 'collapse-based' QM pictures. It requires a kind of   
   > 'complete universe collapse' where this collapse is in fact transferring   
   > the information needed from one place to the other. And since the   
   > collapse is exactly the part of the time evolution in QM *without* any   
   > exact description, this is in fact a total non-explanation! The more   
   > correct descriptions omit the measurement by describing the 'classical   
   > transport' also by QM (where the complex numbers only decohere to one   
   > real number per particle, but not to one single bit!)   
   >   
   > --   
   > Jos   
      
   Thanks for all your help.  I will need time to try to understand this para.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)