>>10315748Please read what I wrote more carefully. I fear you are a bit lost in the sauce when it comes to the math.
I take back what I said about spinors being a construct made by physicists. However, it's still just a mathematical analog. What the spinor really represents is a different type of rotation besides just plain old orbital. An example of such a rotation is this:
>>10314894If you take a rotating spherical magnet, you could model it's angular momentum in with a 3 dimensional unit vector in the direction of it's axis of rotation, just like you can with an electron. Is the angular momentum some magic variable? No, it represents how fast the bowling ball is spinning. The mathematical difference with an electron is it has half-integer values of the Casimir(or J^2) operator. All this means physically is that it takes two rotations to return to it's original state as opposed to one. There's nothing abstract, that shit is still spinning bro.
>So why should I continue taking you seriously?Because all the bell inequality shows is that either causality was being violated OR there must exist hidden, non-local(within the scope of known variables, but ultimately local themselves) variables. Because causality being violated was such a preposterous proposition, Bell himself ORIGINALLY meant the bell inequality to prove the existence of these hidden variables. However, because this couldn't be proven, physicists decided to go with the copenhagen interpretation, which since then has been more and more misunderstood as actual physical reality. When in fact it was basically meant to just mean shut up and calculate.