Peter,
I looked for your paper using the link but finally read it on vixra. I didn't read in detail because 1) I take the subject of QM as far from complete and full of rabbits. 2) I was put off early by a claim you and your co-author made early in the paper which appears untrue.
You said, "The problem for that classical view is this; At the same settings, if Alice has 'up' (so Bob = 'down'), then Alice decides to switch to an 'opposite' setting at the last instant, Bob's possible 'state' finding is reduced to 'up' to match Alice's, and so we must assume his has instantly switched! So there is the paradox, "spooky action at a distance" or even faster than light signalling. Such 'non-local state reduction' is mathematically predicted by quantum mechanics (QM) and experimentally verified.(ref.8,9)".
When I now checked this BOLDLY MADE claim of experimental verification, this is what I could freely access from the abstracts of ref. 8 and 9.
Ref.(8).Ibañez-Azpiroz, J. A. Eiguren, A. Sherman, E. Bergara, A. Spin-flip transitions induced by time-dependent electric fields in surfaces with strong spin-orbit interaction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 2012. arxiv.org/abs/1210.4506
"We present a comprehensive theoretical investigation of the light absorption rate at the Pb/Ge(111) surface with strong spin-orbit coupling. Our calculations show that electron spin-flip transitions cause as much as 6% of the total light absorption, representing one order of magnitude enhancement over Rashba-like systems. Thus, it is demonstrated that a substantial part of the light irradiating this nominally non-magnetic surface is attenuated in spin flip processes. Remarkably, the spin-flip transition probability is structured in well defined hot spots within the Brillouin zone where the electron spin experiences a sudden 90 degree rotation. This mechanism offers the possibility of an experimental approach to the spin-orbit phenomena by optical means".
Ref.(9). Aharonov, Y., Albert, D.Z., Casher, A., Vaidman, L., Surprising quantum effects, Phys. Lett. A 124 1988(?1987), 199
"We consider circumstances wherein a quantum-mechanical system is subjected to
a varied sequence of measurements, some of which are substantially more precise than others. Such systems are shown to exhibit paradoxical behavior. The resolution of this paradox turns out to involve bizarre interference effects in the measuring apparatus. The possibilities of observing such behavior in the laboratory are briefly considered".
You will therefore understand my loss of appetite. How can 'possibility of experimental approach' and 'possibility of observing such behavior' change overnight into 'experimentally verified'?
I think till I have more knowledge I prefer John Prytz account of the entanglement and superposition story, which he posted recently.
But regarding the 3D ellipticity you mentioned that may be agreeable, if we mean the same thing. In such 3D ellipticity is the nucleus of the hydrogen atom at one focus following Kepler's laws?
Regards,
Akinbo
