[WillieB]

Greg:

Sorry about the delay. Family matters and other distractions have kept me away from my computer for some time. Meanwhile, while I was frittering away valuable time, you have done a magnificent job of setting out your interpretation of the classicists’ interpretation vs. that of the enlightened quantum crowd. I do envy you your computer skills for I could never have produced that magnificent illustration of post #19. By the way post 19 was a marvelous reproduction of the results that Mulder and Scully obtained in Brian Greene’s book and you duplicated that logical presentation in your last post.

I don’t want to create the impression that I am continuously tooting the horn of my own thought pattern but I simply cannot apply any reasoning in this arena without resorting to that contained in my own thread at “Keep it Simple.” I certainly don’t know the mechanics of the design of the devices that are used to detect the spin orientation of any of the subatomic particles but I would bet my life that they rely on electrical or magnetic field forces in some way. If I look upon the photons or the electrons that are being studied as being composed of my increments, as they enter into the influence of these fields they will immediately become polarized so that their spin axes are parallel to the flux lines of the field. Thus their spin orientation will always be read as a multiple of ½. Further this would explain why, in the quantum world, this spin is read as being either clockwise or counterclockwise 50% of the time.

Your participation here has been a joy. I certainly will not stop contemplating any revisions that should be made in my thought patterns but, for the moment I am going to remain in EPR’s corner.

Thanks again. And I certainly hope that we will be engaged in many future conversations.

Regards, Bill