Dear Declan,
As a fellow Aussie, I give top marks to all those (from anywhere) who have-a-good-go. It is thus, for me, so good to see you having-a-real-good-go to understand reality -- via your many publications -- and to find that we share this interest: "in re-constructing ... Quantum Mechanics into a Classical framework that can be understood and visualized using a universal set of principles." So I am certainly here to appreciate and encourage your work in that direction: even in the hope that we might collaborate. [nb: the principles that my theory advances are validated experimentally.]
It also seems that we agree on this, though we offer different solutions: that many physicists, philosophers and mathematicians "claim that particles can become entangled such that there is a correlation in the detected results from EPR type experiments that cannot be explained by Classical Physics."
Alas though: perhaps due to my own misunderstandings, there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding in your research. Thus, perhaps I misunderstand your claim: "This paper shows that the result can be fully explained by Classical Physics [sic: what happened to classical energy conservation in each and every interaction?], and that the correlation curve for different angles between the two detectors can by reproduced when modelled this way." ?
In my view, energy conservation holds in each and every interaction (quantum or classical), and formalism beats modelism. So some questions follow:
1. In Figure-1 you claim the blue line to be the classical prediction. But isn't the classical prediction simply one-half of the green line?*
* 2. In other words, if we seek to model Aspect's experiments (or EPRB), and we allow only that the paired-particles are weakly correlated via their polarisation: then the consequent correlation (perfectly classical) delivers one-half the correct correlation. Thus, in that the blue line in Figure-1 is not supported by any classical model known to me: please, what is your basis for it?
* 2a. Do you see that the EPRB particle-correlation (via the pairwise conservation of Ang. Momentum), thus delivers twice the correlation of simple classical model offered in Q.2?
3. You are correct, in Figure-2, that the QM correlation can be modelled by means of non-detect events (which can be quite ubiquitous). But is it not the case that your model must reproduce the QM result repeatedly, as the non-detect events diminish with improved detectors, etc?
4. Further, in GHZ, would it not be the case that one complete 3-particle detection would be a counterexample to your modelling?
5. Are you aware of the history of the use of the "non-detection loophole"?**
** As I recall, the "non-detection loophole" emerges early in the history of Bell's theorem (BT): and was properly dismissed then. I suspect that the late Caroline Thompson (from Wales) might have documented this history, and attempted to advance it. Alas, in her case, she believed BT would be vindicated experimentally.
In conclusion, at the risk of it being my understanding: I currently reject your Conclusion on the grounds that you are using the "non-detection loophole" -- when no loophole of any kind is required.
To support my tentative conclusion, I would welcome you comments on my own theory. More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.***
*** My essay has a serious defect: I expected my readers to follow some elementary math and draw some interesting conclusions without prompting. [nb: to partially remedy my defect, and to help you, I will add a brief BACKGROUND note to my thread. I'll let you know when it's up.] You might also be interested in my comments on Luca Valeri Zimmermann's and Ken Wharton's essays.
Also: have you seen the "two computer" challenge that Anthony Garrett puts to Peter Jackson? [When you have programmed two unconnected computers to reproduce those stats in a situation where the question put to each computer is from a random number generator, let me know!] My theory refutes such challenges; including this next one from Anthony Garrett: "Bell's theorem is about logic, not quantum mechanics; would you tell me where that same logic fails in its application to the interrogation of two persons in adjacent rooms, please, and the inference that they must have been overhearing each other's interrogation when answering their own questions?"
PS: Declan, if/when you reply to my post, please copy it to my essay-thread so that I'm alerted to it. I will do likewise. Which (if/when) then gives a final question: Please, will you let me know what in my theory you disagree with?
Many thanks; Gordon More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.
