Peter,
sorry for having to say this to you, but your model is, in my opinion, just another bluff package amongst others (i exclude Joy's model here explicitly!).
You mess around with terms like statistical analysis, histogramms and astrophysics - without delivering a single statistical analysis, for example for your mentioned Aspect experiment. Where is this statistical analysis?
Your line of argumentation is grounded on claims over claims, combined with linguistical camouflage and contradictions in reasoning. Aspect may have made mistakes, due to deficient experimental apparatus 30 years ago or due to some other reasons. You repeatedly claimed the last months at other blogs to having covered with your model all quantum mechanical experiments. I even don't think you have fully covered the Aspect and Weihs experiment with your model - and as you mentioned above to Gordon Watson
"I'm sure your derivation is also correct but it had no explanation. I'm presently tracking down all relevant experimental results for consistency,"
you contradict your previous claims on yours and others essay pages having a model which covers all known QM experimental results yet.
I surely read your essay, but it, honestly, is just a nice story in the sense of a fairy tale to me. Its dramaturgy wants to suggest you have found something fundamental - but you haven't found anything in my opinion.
"A helpful aspect of the finding was.... Bob studied his hologram again. How clear it now was!"
Nothing is clear in your presentation of your vague ideas. And what is helpful by examining some 20-30 year old experiments, fitting some parameters of your hypothesis (what hypothesis?) to match with the results and then claim you have *predicted the results*? What you try to do here is suggesting to the reader that you don't fit your data/model to match with Weihs/Aspect data (if you ever tried this at all, nobody knows, you only claim again and again to having done so. Right?). The result should be some kind of retrodiction, but you like to have the reader to understand it as 'prediction'.
No additional data can be found in your essay to backup your claims. Only a questionable experiment with colours and a spectroscope. Christian is absolutely right, your model has nothing whatsoever to do with either Bell's concerns or quantum mechanics, but perhaps with colour measurements. By the way, the idea to prove or disprove non-locality by testing subjective colour sentience is the most crazy idea i ever found on the web. Especially in alliance with examinations of experiments which use twin pairs of particles. I am more than sure that John Bell didn't had this in mind when he wrote
"new way of seeing things" which "will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us."
Not because he couldn't imagine it, but he would have considered it as nonsense.
"Yes, the data of the definitive Aspect and Weihs experiments is reproduced, both from time resolved pairs. I see you didn't read my essays explaining how."
Are you kidding me and the other readers here at fqxi? Nowhere in your essays you have explained 'how'.
"Why do you suggest the model doesn't physically explain the matching probability of 70% spin up? Why don't you ask? That's a specific aspect which it derives very simply as both 'absolute' findings are independent. Also remember that gedanken predictions are different to real data."
Your whole model is just a gedanken experiment, one that wants to match real data, but can't. Therefore you can't explain even a single case in the EPR-Bohm correlations, except maybe the trivial ones. Try it, you will loose.
"I'm disappointed you still haven't yet rationalised the conceptual 'leap' needed to comprehend my derivation."
There is no leap, there is no derivation. I regret having spent that much time in trying to understand your claims. The result is, they are only claims, smoke and mirrors.
As of late you try to confuse the reader by labeling the whole experimental field of quantum entanglement by the term 'weak measurement'. Yet another claim. What does come next from you?
Stefan
