This is just very confusing. Maybe you can try to clarify. @Morbert who isn't denying entanglement says
"That the photons have never existed in a common backward light cone does not pose any additional challenge to the question of locality beyond standard EPRB because, in the same way the...
Yes, I agree and I agree that technically that would not make my the model classical. If you want me to edit my original message and remove the word "classical" I am fine with doing that. Or I could just try to go for word salad to describe my model: realist, causal, cause and effect...
I agree that part is not classical, but I understood @DrChinese use of the term classical to mean classical thinking with cause and effect reasoning and not anything to do with entanglement. Here is the context of his comment:
" but I'll give you decent odds) if you can find a classical...
You are correct, I need to have some kind of remote action. So is ok to have remote action as long as it is impossible to use that remote action in any way to communicate a signal?
Does the following classical model seem accurate and acceptable for such a bet?
The state of photon 1 is...
Would you extend this bet for anyone? And would you extend it for my variant? Can I make the example myself or does it have to be something peer reviewed and published?
I don't deny entanglement. I don't deny entanglement swapping when the swap operation performed at 2 & 3 is performed...
The wave function ##\psi(t,\vec{x})## in your own words "describe some quantum states of a particle". ##\psi(t,\vec{x})## is a function about waves and waves have amplitude. How can amplitude from the equation ##\psi(t,\vec{x})## come from anything but particles?
There are two choices. Either the wave function for a system of two particles is the same as the wave function for a system with one particle or it is different.
Each particle contributes to the overall wave function of the system and so the wave function comes from the particles.
But it does make sense to talk about the contribution to the amplitude at a specific location from a wave source. If you have a particle in a system and then you add a second...
Why do we say that wave amplitude tells us where we are likely to find the particle versus where we are likely to find the wave from the particle? Isn't the later a more accurate description of the QM math?
What would you call the dependency between two entangled photons? Using the definition of "casual" from the Oxford dictionary I would consider this dependency causal. Measuring one photon affects the measurement of the other photon.
FWIW, I don't know if you are just saying this to make a point, but Bell is using the definition of locality used by everyone else outside of QFT (at least your version of QFT). If I read a QM paper and it used locality in the way you are using it and did not explicitly tell me, I would be...
No, they do. I am not sure why you are saying they don't, maybe you are using a different definition of causal than I am.
Where the measurements are done first:
Measurement at 1 causes 2 to receive information of the measurement via entanglement. Measurement 4 causes 3 to receive information...