Richard said:
"QRC assumes nothing" and "Bell's theorem. It's a mathematical theorem that the job cannot be done. "
Bernard d'Espagnet said ("The Quantum Theory and Reality", Scientific American, Nov. 1979, page 166):
"These conclusions require a subtle but important extension of the meaning assigned to a notation (such that what) was merely one possible outcome of a measurement made on a particle, it is converted by this argument into an attribute of the particle itself."
That not only sounds like an assumption, it is an assumption that is OBVIOUSLY false, for a simple classical object like a coin. You can make as many measurements as you like of a coin, floating is space, but it will never actually "BE" a heads or a tails, in the same sense that a red or green ball or left or right glove will BE that and ONLY that. Attributes of your perceptions of the coin, are not the same as attributes of the coin per se.
White balls do not become black balls, when merely observed from a different angle.
Right-hand gloves do not become left-hand when viewed from a different angle.
But coins that were "heads" suddenly become "tails", when viewed from a different angle.
Coins also behave differently from dice.
And they behave differently than all other classical objects, except those that "encode" a single bit of information - like so-called qu-bits.
If you want to beat the QRC - then simulate observations of entangled coins.
But as Richard noted several days ago, via a quote "Rutherford famously said, anyone who needs statistics did the wrong experiment." And as I have noted earlier, an INDIVIDUAL observation of a coin violates QM dogma - no statistics required.
Rob McEachern
