Here I present a paper with nothing new. It simply follows the steps of non-local collapse of the wavefunction which leads to the wrong result. Hence we reject non-local collapse as a feasible process. Bell’s Theorem predicts non-local collapse, so we must reject this theorem

## 4 replies on “Wait-a-second Bob!”

The paper seems to have gone!

Yes, that material was better expressed in subsequent papers.

Bell’s theorem says that a classical explanation of the EPR-B correlations is doomed to be non-local, when we are talking about correlations between well separated measurement outcomes. You seem to say that those correlations indeed won’t be found in that situation. Hence you agree with Bell. On the other hand you are arguing for a new quantum formulation of spin. I don’t see that that helps clear up quantum mysteries, though it might be really important new quantum physics. Already, Dirac argued for a dramatic reformulation of Schrödinger’s equation, with now four complex components to the wave function instead of just one. And that turned out effective in quantum field theory. Are you reformulating or are you changing Dirac’s theory? In that theory there is still a measurement problem. We see correlations, we see relative frequencies of events. We don’t see waves. We only infer waves (or use them merely as part of a mathematical description).

I re-formulate Dirac under the quaternion group rather than SU(2)