Dear Peter,
Thank you for the explanations. I understand how it is to have an idea which makes you feel enthusiastic, and to want to communicate it, and how it is to hit that wall when you feel that specialists don't seem to appreciate it. I am happy that you already followed that advice, which I am sure I was not the first one to offer to you. So I will tell you how I do to break that wall, which as I said I have to break it too, and I could break with my first papers not having yet a PhD and at some point also no affiliation. My claims were by no means as revolutionary as yours, but they were still contradicting some dogmas, so I had to do it as rigorous as possible. Without this is impossible. I want to apologize for not being able to invest more time in this, but my situation forces me to have two jobs, and I know from previous experiences that such discussions can be endless. So please decide if you are willing to hear my terms, and if so, please do it. But if you are not, I can't negotiate them, but I hope you will find that are reasonable.
I will explain what you have to do for the case that you have a classical explanation of the EPR and want to communicate it to the experts. Now that you have a team, this may help you to do it. What I will tell you applies to both the case that you want me to understand your idea, and to the case you want to submit it to a journal, or to present it at a conference. You will have to write a paper which contains the following. Don't get me wrong, I understand that for this contest the essay had to be simple, and not filled with technicalities, but for such a claim you make you have no possibility but to go fully mathematical.
(1) An introduction, in which you state the problem you want to solve. It has to be clear that you know exactly what the problem is, so for this you'll have to explain it. For the EPR, you will have to explain EPR, so describe the initial state, which is a singlet, and describe the evolution of this state when goes to Alice and Bob, and how Alice and Bob are free to choose the orientations of their Stern-Gerlach devices. With equations. It is OK to use as model the description of the experiment in a standard book like this one. But it is essential that (i) you understand everything, (ii) you show it in your text.
(2) I advise you to avoid expressions that trigger the reader, such as "quantum mechanics is a so called 'pillar'" etc. This would trigger the reader into believing that you are biased against quantum mechanics, and they will consider you unprofessional or even crackpot. Just use a neutral language.
(3) You have to do what you did at (1) for Bell's theorem: that is, to explain it rigorously. Hints: like any theorem, it has a hypothesis, a proof, and a conclusion. Bell's argument is that since the conclusion is violated in the real world, then the hypothesis must be wrong. The hypothesis contains two assumptions: (locality) and 9statistical independence). Since the conclusion is violated, one or both of the assumptions have to be violated.
(4) Now your model. You have to describe your model for the electron's spin. If you think it is like a classical tennis ball, you have to state this, but also give the relevant equations. Then describe what is a singlet state. Then describe what happens in your model with the electron, when it is measured by Alice or Bob. What exactly is the mechanism that makes it become aligned along the axis Alice choose, either in one sense or the other.
(5) Now, that you have a model of the initial singlet state, and of the measurement, apply it to two measurements done independently by Alice and Bob. Compute the correlations.
If your model is local, once the electrons are separated and heading towards Alice and Bob, they are not allowed to exchange information or anything. Also Alice's and Bob's devices are not allowed to communicate. See if you obtain the correlations. You can also draw the results, you can use the javascript code I wrote in 2011 and modify it at will, or Florin's version based on my code, but I suggest you to attach it to the manuscript or to give a link to your code, so that the reader can check it.
Note that there is a simple case when the classical correlations become the same as the quantum, namely when Alice and Bob measure along the same direction. So if your two tennis balls rotate along the same axis in opposite directions, and the axis chosen by both Alice and Bob is common and not perpendicular to the spinning axis of the two tennis balls, you will get it. Reproducing the quantum correlations classically for this case is not enough, because everybody knows that in this case they are the same with the classical ones. You need to make this work for the general case, when Alice and Bob are free to choose different axes.
(6) Physical interpretation and conclusions. This should contain a honest description of the limits of your model, if there are any, and the open problems. Also the implications. Go back to Bell's theorem and explain how your model works around it. Is there an error in Bell's proof? Prove it. Is your model violating one of the two assumptions in the hypothesis? Show which of them, and how by violating it you get the violation of Bell's inequality.
(7) I will make a separate point for this, because it is essential: all the steps have to be derived rigorously, and it is not enough to give explanation using words and pictures, calculations have to be there to prove each and every claim you made.
(0) You have to be prepared for the possibility that by the end of the above steps you may change your mind. This is common, and no matter how much it hurts, it may happen.
You may think that your model is ridiculously simple and there's no need to go through all this effort, but I will repeat that this is the only way to make it convincing for other researchers. I'm sorry, but I think that without these done there will be no way somebody will even understand what you mean. I hope this helps.
Best wishes,
Cristi
