Peter,
since there is no interference pattern if you take a photo plate instead of D2, you are simply wrong. Interference only shows up as two-particle interference, means in the case of coincidence measurements. These interferences cannot be viewed as just correlated by an observer via the proper subsets of some measured (or unmeasured) data.
The two-particle interference is a result of the correlation of particle 1 impinging on D1 with particle 2 impinging only on certain areas of the detector plane D2.
The detector plane was in the case of no interference an area where many particles impinged, is in the case of two-particle interference and area where almost no particles impinge. All measurement devices are at the same positions in both cases. Except D2 is scanning the x-axis for the interference pattern instead of the photo plate scanning this axis all at once.
You can't explain this, even if you refer to D2 as only scanning a subset of what the photo plate does scan. Because if you would, you would contradict what you wrote so far. At D2, the photons must somewhat know that they only belong to interference pattern x, but not to its inverse. They can't know with your mechanism, and you stated that the lenses let them take arbitrary states.
Moreover, you had 10 pages to explain it all in your essay. Instead you wisely switched in your current essay to explain that the reasons why your approach is not capable of meeting reality is due to the readers mind/brain/evolutionary deficits.
"You seem to want it easy Stefan. Research takes time. I can point where to look but I can't do it all for you! All I CAN tell you (in advance of you checking and understanding how) is the findings and implications, which I've done.
I've spent much time answering your questions but you seem entirely unappreciative and unwilling to follow the research trail as needed. That's a shame, but I'm not surprised or upset as it is complex and not an abnormal response in mans' current condition."
You confirmed me. I was not the one who wrote
"OK, that one's real simple." This was you.
You can easily tell your findings and implications, as every other scientist also can. 10 essay pages should be enough to outline all the ingredients and link them physically to each other. You didn't and you didn't also in your previous essays. I showed more willingness than every other participant to understand what you wrote. Regularily refering to what others wrote does not help you. You must give the precise linkages between what you assume to be fomerly overseen physical interactions. You can't blame others to having overseen them, until you lay down the full picture, means, show that *you* at least see it clear. But you don't, you only repeatedly claim it. That's, if at all, is the real shame. Look what i have asked in the above posts and how you camouflaged your answers to precise questions.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach