Status Updates From The Cellular Automaton Inte...

Is this approach offering something new, or just a kind of magicians trick creating an illusion of a new approach to quantum mechanics? I tend to the latter, but I will give the book a chance and see. Initial concern is that by invoking "non-local information" and "hidden information about the future", the typical approach is just being smuggled back in, or perhaps a variation on the pilot wave approach at best.

Our theory comes with a firm prediction:

Yes, by making good use of quantum features, it will be possible, in principle, to build a computer vastly superior to conventional computers, but no, these will not be able to function better than a classical computer would do if improved to the Planckian limit (one memory element per Planck area, one operation per Planck time).

When we solve a Schrödinger equation we thought we were following an infinite set of different worlds, each with some given amplitude, and the final events that we deduce from our calculations depend on what happens in all these worlds. This, according to the Cellular Automaton Interpretation, is an illusion. There is no infinity of different worlds, there is just one, but we are using the wrong basis to describe it.

The way this argument is countered is that correlations between the photons from the decaying atom and the settings chosen by Alice and Bob have to be amazingly strong. A gigantically complex algorithm could make Alice and Bob take their decisions, and yet the decaying atom, long before Alice and Bob applied this algorithm, knew about the result. This is called ‘conspiracy’, and conspiracy is said to be “disgusting”.

Our starting point will be extremely simple and straightforward, in fact so much so that some readers may simply conclude that I am losing my mind. However, with questions of the sort I will be asking, it is inevitable to start at the very basic beginning.

I discovered that it's available from arXiv - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1548.pdf

I'm found of the methodology so far. When writing about a topic that so clearly defies what we know from experimental data, it can be hard to communicate and highlight what you feel is valuable as worth exploring without making also making false assertions about it being more valuable then what we already have. The author is walking that line quite well.