A mysterious daredevil who goes by the web moniker of complexplanel2 challenges me in email over my latest QM rants. It's an interesting discussion which forces me to summarize my agenda, which is the exposition of the following hypothesis:

1. Any infinitely subconstituent physical system (an ocean, a weather system, a galaxy) is a quantum system (discussed in The Distribution of the Solar System is Quantized).

2. Since the quantum states that are measured are artifacts of our perception or interest, they can't be used to rule out local realism (discussed in The existential irreality of quantum state).

3. Bell is a straw man since particles aren't golf balls, they're vortexes in the ambience of an infinitely subconstituent universe (discussed below).

4. Informed by QM and yet having accepted local realism you arrive very quickly at a unified field theorem (tbd)."And know that if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you," said Nietzsche. The very high-level, abstract statistical questions we ask with QM, e.g, spin, can only be determined in interaction with the observable. It's easy to see how observation can assist in latching state.

Bell's Theorem says, effectively, that there exists no set of vectors of motion which could be imparted to a sphere which would result in the shading of the odds for complementary observation of spin by observers separated by 45 degrees from an expected 50/50 to an observed 71/29 for.

However, in a model of infinite subconsituency, there can be motion within the motion ad infinitum. Think whirling gaseous nebulae instead of golf balls. Such motion within motion can impart a measureable degree of spin isotropy with respect to observational techniques and yet remain locally realistic.