Richard,
That 'ignorance is bliss' scientific method is common but keeps us and advancement halted inside the box.
Bells 5th possibility was in response to the pearl of wisdom, I forget from whom, that some hidden underlying assumption by QM may be false, so circumventing Bells logic. Finding such an assumption is then a valid circumvention of the ('so called') theorem which achieves the ultimate goal.
That false assumption is precisely what I've identified. It is the "collapse to a pure singlet spin state". I substitute; All spin is Orbital angular momentum (OAM) so has BOTH poles, but only 'ONE MEASURABLE AT A TIME'.
If a disc spins, and you show me that you can physically measure (OAM transfer) both the clockwise and anti clockwise spin at the same time with just one contact, then you've falsified my thesis. Otherwise I'm correct and Bell's logic does not describe nature, as he agreed was possible.
You're right, this is important, and the credibility of statistics is on the line. But the answer's outside your box. A good way to see what's there is to read the essay Richard. You'd enjoy it.
Nick
Judy's right, no paper of course derives what I derive so they're only 'consistent'. In Weihs it was only an aside, not properly 'analysed' (lol). Also look at Aspects French Thesis or Caroline Thompson's analysis, (or mine last year). Google http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/Papers/asymm.pdf . Aspect found the same, writing it off as a source defect for lack of a theory to fit! My theory predicted both.
Tom,
You suggest again I haven't got a theory. That's only true inside your head which won't study and assimilate it. (indeed Joy's admitted it's he who yet has no 'theory'). If you read the essay and do the simple sums for circumference and OAM at relative angles from the equatorial plane you should find the theory very simply and with logical consistency completes the DFM in the EPRs case by showing classical causality.
If your 'torsion' is equivalent to the multiple path helicity I derive in detail in last years essay then I may better start to understand Joy's dynamic. That anisotropy appears superfluous in my derivation, which produces the right result, so you'd have to show me where it's required.
Best wishes
Peter
