Lawrence
Laura et al's paper was very recent and well respected. I've seen no refutation of her sound mathematical proof though of course some with inflexible brains are shocked so wave their arms and complain!
Thanks for your comments on mine. My first few finalist papers of course unravelled implied paradox in SR. Testing that 'fermion re-emission at local c' Discrete Field model against QM led simply to the compatible classic derivation, both consistent with all findings! (please do challenge that with specifics.) I copy my response there below;;;
Thanks for the comments. You did what the essay suggests most do; make an assumption the model contravenes the (familiar) Bell inequality (so the others too) without using analysis. It doesn't. There are no 'hidden variables'. It simply uses different starting assumptions, of the type and in the way Bell specifically anticipated would solve the problem; "..lattice fermion numbers.." (see the key Bell quotes in my post yesterday in Jack Sarfatti's string).
The problem is most don't understand QM well enough to dare any 'Kings new clothes' challenge, and those that do understand the theory have 'bought it' flaws and all. Bell knew circumvention must be possible; Q;"...the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded." Ch3 p27, and "...the 'Problem of Interpretation of QM' has been encircled. And the solution, invisible from the front, may be seen from the back.." (J Bell 'Speakable..." Ch20 p194)
I identify precisely that 'astonishing' leap of visualisation, simply hiding before our eyes; TWO state momenta in OAM, with orthogonal complementarity at the pole and equator, producing 'QAM'.
But we should be entirely scientific; The undeniable fact is that these momenta and the detection process precisely reproduce the full predictions of QM! - which are as the Dirac stacked 'Spinor' pairs; two Cos2 curves inverse and offset by 90o. That is repeatable by anybody with a dynamometer and pair of photomultiplyers!
Just a wet finger can give a rough approximation. Is a pole going up or down?, and; is any point on the equator 'rotating'. ...No. Both = Zero, but go to max at 90o.
Have you watched the video? All 'spooky' effects emerge classically. OK 'Astonish' was about right - human brains just don't seem capable of conceiving, so bothering to check, if 2+2 equals 4 if they've been told and believed for decades it equals 3!
Is yours?
Best
Peter