I'd like to find out more about A. Neumaier's interpretation of quantum mechanics.
In my view, particle nonlocality is explained by negating particles any ontological existence. Existent are quantum fields, and on the quantum field level, everything is local. Nonlocal features appear only when one is imposing on the fields a particle interpretation, which, while valid under the usual assumptions of geometric optics, fails drastically art higher resolution. Thus nothing needs to be explained in the region of failure. Just as the local Maxwell equations for a classical electromagnetic field explain single photon nonlocality (double slit experiments), and the stochastic Maxwell equations explain everything about single photons (see http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/ms/optslides.pdf), so local QFT explains general particle nonlocality.
My thermal interpretation of quantum mechanics (see the section http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/found0.html from my theoretical physics FAQ at http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/physics-faq.html, and Chapter 10 of my book http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0810.1019) gives a view of physics consistent with actual experimental practice and without any of the strangeness introduced by the usual interpretations. I believe this interpretation to be satisfactory in all respects, though it requires more time and effort (than I have at present) to analyse the standard conundrums along these lines, with a clear statistical mechanics derivation to support my so far mainly qualitative arguments.
See also the PhysicsForums thread
''What does the probabilistic interpretation of QM claim?''
Thank you very much. It is more than I expected. I've downloaded the materials. I feel that there is some hope I can get the idea, given sufficient effort.
Separate names with a comma.