Chaos theory eliminates quantum uncertainty
&gt; <i>Of course, this is such a startling conclusion that physicists have looked for other ways to explain Bell’s theorem. There is indeed an alternative interpretation, but it is too weird to be plausible. It assumes that the settings for the apparatus that measures the spin of one of the entangled particles somehow influence the measurement outcome for the other particle. It is a weird explanation because it implies what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance” – the idea that what happens to one particle can instantaneously influence another, distant particle. Einstein didn’t like spooky action at a distance, and neither do I, nor indeed most physicists I know.</i><p>I agree, nobody likes any of the current explanations.<p>&gt; <i>But to understand this, we have to think big, very big indeed. We have to suppose that the whole universe, and literally everything there is in it, is collectively a chaotic system evolving precisely on some cosmic fractal geometry. In this picture, there is no guarantee that hypothetical counterfactual worlds that you simply cooked up in your head, will lie on this fractal geometry. If they don’t, then these counterfactual worlds will be inconsistent with the assumed geometric laws of physics.</i><p>So the proposal is even worse. There are some universes that are possible and some universes that are impossible in spite they locally look good and you changed just a tiny thing from a possible universe. It&#x27;s even more unintuitive and horrible that all the current proposals. It looks like a hidden global variable theory, but I&#x27;m, not sure.<p>I don&#x27;t understand all the digression about chaos and fractals. If you assume that the possible universes is a dense subset of the imaginable universes (like the rational numbers in the real numbers), it will make the trick. Also any manifold would be probably fine.