>>10907468okay, i quickly read the relevant parts of that article. he seems to be trying to construct some plausible "epistemic" explanation for single-particle QM phenomena one might conclude are genuinely quantum, but in his construction, one might understand it classically with some handstands and duck-tape. but then he goes on to state pretty clearly that he is just doing this for single-particle phenomena, and that it doesn't explain states multiple particles that are entangled. here is what the article says
> our modelis an illustration of the idea that careful distinction betweenthe epistemic aspect of the description and the underlying on-tological account provides a way towards understanding weirdquantum phenomena as an effect of incomplete knowledge—which is tenable, at least for the single-particle frameworkas the model demonstrates. This gives support to the beliefthatunscrambling the quantum omeletteshould in principle bepossible, albeit it is not yet evident how to construct such atheory. It seems that nonlocal effects should play a role in thefull reconstruction—as Bell’s theorem suggests—however, itis not clear to what extent and in what form (see [61]forsomehints). The presented model points to multiparticle behavior asthe real source of the quantum mystery in comparison to single-particle phenomena, which are less problematic in this respect.In particular, we have shown that a single-particle frameworkin itself is not enough to establish quantum nonlocality, sincein this case “spooky action at a distance” could be understoodas an epistemic effect due to a lack of knowledge, with theunderlying ontology being local from the construction.so basically you either have crap reading comprehension are are just shilling bullshit
