Richard,
I agree no exact copy of a 'Bell type' experiment could find differently. (I'm replying to the string above, but let's now stay on this one!).
However the proposed set up DOES circumvent Bells actual Theorem as it identifies the false assumption made by Bell (and thus QM) of 'no structure' except 0,1.
The discovery of such a 'starting assumption' has been identified as a key to overcoming the theorem, and as I recall you've said yourself that it only needs a classical experiment to produce the same QM predictions to crack the nut.
If something isn't what's 'expected' then it normally isn't first recognised. I suggest that's what's happened here. But what were we 'expecting'!?
The real point for me is that the experiment derives from a real particle hypothesis that's entirely consistent with the latest quantum optics findings, (and still consistent with Maxwell's first conception of an orbiting entity also itself spinning). In QO we now know this also produces a non circular orbiting 'wave' path. The interaction and Fourier superposition with detector electrons can then produce the exact 'switch' set-up from the phase shift that the classroom experiment models.
The Bell assumption about spin and detection were then over simplistic. If Bohr were around now he's certainly agree we could "say" far more now than he could 90 years ago!
And can any other experiment predict the 'rotational invariance' found by Aspect and discarded? I suggest you'll find not. It just needs another good single photon experiment to falsify. (Weigh et al's 15,000 counts/sec and 20ns interval resolution didn't have the resolution as their focus was elsewhere). It'd probably need some interest from a recognised authority to encourage an experiment so I'm very disappointed by your lack of interest. Simon at Kalifa hasn't yet even 'seen' that it produces the 'A1/B1' correlation.
Peter
