Dear Dimi Chakalov,
Thank you for pointing me to Conway-Kochen. They are mathematicians. While I was not yet able to carefully read their reasoning, I nonetheless got the impression that they took Hilbert space and what they called EPR phenomenon for granted.
In this case, I just suspect that the conclusion of EPR might be due to an inappropriate mathematical point of view. This suspicion of mine relates to
- apparent symmetries
- evidently careless use of complex quantities by Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Dirac, etc.
- Weyl's confession in 1931
- v. Neumann's confession in 1935,
- obviously unrealistic single photon counting by Gompf et al. in PRL 1997
- lacking ability of Nimtz to explain his measured superluminal propagation of signals
- so far unfulfilled promise for a quantum computer
- so far missing evidence for Higgs bosons
- non-convincing arguments by Schulman
- further murky matter
Of course, I am not familiar with quantum mechanics, and I do not exclude being wrong. However, what I looked at reminded me of Ewald's sphere of redundant complex wave numbers.
I reckon myself to those who do not doubt that lady moon is to be seen even if nobody looks at her. I do not even believe in Cantor's naive set theory. I used MATLAB as to demonstrate how uncertainty also affects real-valued time-frequency representations, see my M284, M285.
E. Blumschein