Dear Vladimir,
Further to your comments on my page, I very much appreciate your work (and your initiatives) and happily provide the following feedback as requested. The starting point to notice is that my own work is focussed on making small gains in areas where my intuition bristles -- versus the extraordinary breadth of your work -- so I am not qualified to comment in detail.
In essence we have physicist/artist (the sky is the limit) meets engineer/mathematician (my planes must land safely). Broadly, however:
1. It is nicely clear to me that we are both committed local realists. I therefore welcome the full paragraph in your BU essay (p.27 in Ref #3 of the above essay) that begins: "In (BU) all of these suppositions reduce to this simple scenario: the two photons emitted by the same atom start out in opposite directions having identical polarization, which is retained intact when they arrive at the sensors at their respective distant locations. ... ."
However, as you'll see in my essay -- equations (27)-(28) -- polarised photons give (in theory and in practice) an expectation E(AB | C1) equal to one-half of that for E(AB | Q1). For this reason you need to distinguish the correlations that apply in "my classical experiments" versus the more highly correlated quantum experiments. See the sub-paragraph at the end of my para. #A4.5.
Thus, with the generalisation that I propose in one unified experiment (citing the correct form of correlation in each case), your local-realistic conclusion goes through. Further, the associated analysis employs little more the high-school maths and logic: so this section of your BU essay can be readily corrected and THEN your beautiful diagrams can be used to illustrate your case (in this instance) for local realism.
2. In the above way (it seems to me), you need to check that your other generalisations are correct and that you address any mainstream objections by relating your work to experiments, wherever possible. Otherwise small niggles like mine will distract the reader from the breadth of your proposal.
You might be better writing smaller (and beautifully illustrated) essays on specific topics: so that specialists are motivated to respond in detail to your focussed and detailed claims; you can then address them essay by essay.
3. In relation to your 2015 FQXi-essay, there is again much that we agree about. It certainly serves as a beautiful introduction to your work. Thus, supporting your positive views, the focus of my 2015 FQXi-essay was to let Nature do the talking; to thereby eliminate the "hodgepodge" of explanations and tricks that abound in the Bellian literature; especially any to do with nonlocality!
In the same way you have additional segments where Nature does the talking; segments that I suggest be expanded into single essays on viXra.org; etc.
4. In short: I am delighted to be acquainted with your work (see email).
With best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.
