julien

That's almost true (I begin to believe the reality always is a superposition of true/false...this is brain aching)...but i suppose it is just a hypothesis for calculation and simplification, since : let's play and imagine a toy model : a coin falling in a kind of jam...(this could for exemple modelize a sort of magnetisation response to a certain medium)......then the coin will be no more balanced for the next trial, favorizing one side...more balanced for the next time if falling on the defavorized side...so in this case the outcome modifies the "balanceness" of the coin, and hence the probability..... starting with a balanced coin (as hypothesis), one could deduce the new probabilities knowing the history of outcomes...u agree with this toy model ? (a bit naive I admit, but this is not to win money at lottery, just a mind game) Hence in this model the probabilities have memory, but nothing is told about the results...

I thought a coin could be taken as similar to a spin 1/2 particle (in the sense there are only 2 possible outcome), then, the probabilities given by QM are for example [math] p(+)=cos(\alpha)^2[/math]...which is 1/2 on average, but how can alpha be found...? Maybe all the parameters (gravity, wind, momentum, starting kick ....) can be but into only one real parameter (alpha)....but QM does NOT give the result knowing alpha (unless p(+)=0,1 of course, but this happens with measure 0)....at least at my knowledge of QM... But I also get stuck on that : let throw N times a +/- coin, getting statistical results like s(+)=N(+)/N, s(-)=N(-)/N (surely near to 1/2).....if s(+)>s(-), does that imply that for the next time p(-)>p(+), p(-)=s(-) or does there exist an analytical link between the statistics of the last N coin's result, and the probability for the next one ? Thanx

I obtained [math]P(Z\in[z,z+dz])=\frac{4}{\pi a^2\sqrt{1-\frac{4z^2}{a^4}}}dz[/math] with [math] z\in [0;\frac{a^2}{2}][/math] what about your solution ?

Yes...this is espcially true when considering the Bohm version, where there the wavefunction does not depend on space-time....In fact this comes out of the [math]\otimes[/math] product : [math] A\otimes B [/math] is a vector, or operator, which components are at both places, whereas A and B are well defined in space... but I don't know it this is what you mean

QM is nonlocal by looking at the correlation function, and Bell's inequalities But since the full correlation is simultaneously local and non-local (superposition) : C(A,B)=<AB>-<A><B> then QM is in a superposition of locality and non-locality... Taking only the non-local part of it (<AB>), not the complete definition of it, leads then naturally to a non-local result In fact one can show that the local part of the correlation gives rise to a spooky variable...hence in agreement, QM is probably complete in that sense too.