Thanks! But I mentioned 12 dimensions, which, of course, was from the F-theory.

Akhmeteli, can you be so self-critical to point out the major "but" of your approach? As you can see, I have given such a "but" for all the approaches I've mentioned, including my own.

For example, from Sec. 5 of the first paper I suspect that the major "but" of your approach could be the following:
... but the theory, unlike QM, predicts that Bell inequalities cannot be violated, provided that both the detection and the communication loopholes are closed.
Would that be correct?

Or, from the end of Sec. 4:
"... (but) it remains to be seen whether (the theory is) compatible with experimental data ..."

- consistent histories - objective reality exists and is local, but classical propositional logic is replaced with a different logic (Griffiths, http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1110.0974, http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1105.3932 )

I would agree that the Born rule is the only serious trouble with MWI. Some hold the opinion that the non-existence of reality in the 3-space is even a more serious trouble, but I don't agree with such an opinion.

The Norsen's theory is not a local theory, as he himself explained to me at one occasion.

Namely, the theory is "local" only in the sense that the wave function in the configuration space is eliminated. But it is still nonlocal in the sense that there is an instantaneous action at a distance between the particles.

To understand what weak measurement is, the following analogy from everyday life is useful.

Assume that you want to measure the weight of a sheet of paper. But the problem is that your measurement apparatus (weighing scale) is not precise enough to measure the weight of such a light object such as a sheet of paper. In this sense, the measurement of a single sheet of paper is - weak.

Now you do a trick. Instead of weighing one sheet of paper, you weigh a thousand of them, which is heavy enough to see the result of weighing. Then you divide this result by 1000, and get a number which you call - weak value. Clearly, this "weak value" is nothing but the average weight of your set of thousand sheets of papers.

But still, you want to know the weight of a SINGLE sheet of paper. So does that average value helps? Well, it depends:

1) If all sheets of papers have the same weight, then the average weight is equal to weight of the single sheet, in which case you have also measured the true weight of the sheet.

2) If the sheets have only approximately equal weights, then you can say that you have at least approximately measured the weight of a single sheet.

3) But if the weights of different sheets are not even approximately equal, then you have not done anything - you still don't have a clue what is the weight of a single sheet.

But what if you don't even know whether 1), 2) or 3) is true? Then you have different interpretations of your weak measurement. And that is precisely the case with quantum mechanics: We don't know whether particles have even approximately equal velocities at the same position (with the same wave function), so we have different interpretations. Bohmian interpretation says they have exactly equal velocities, which corresponds to the case 1), while Copenhagen interpretation corresponds to the case 3).

A minor correction: It should be 2.4 children, not 2.6.

"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."
Niels Bohr

"If delayed choice quantum eraser shocked you more than the rest of quantum mechanics, you haven't understood the rest of quantum mechanics yet."
Hrvoje Nikolic

Careful, why do you think that I have a new concept of entropy? What that new entropy would be?

Life is an organized disorder.
Hrvoje Nikolic

http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2700