Fredifizzx wrote
Unfortunately, this derivation is suspect also since the results are after the polarizer action. That means eq. (B3) is crashed already so how can it still be used?
There is a very good related question, which is 'what is the effect of polarisation on the (say) electron'? For me that is a third good point to tell us something about the structure of the electron.
Assume the electron spin direction can be represented by EITHER a static arrow OR a dynamic arrow. Which is it to be?
1. Bell's Theorem [assume it is true, for the moment] rules out a static arrow in normal R3 space.
I have never obtained -0.707 for the Bell correlation in a simple simulation of static, fixed vector spin arrow directions. And that does not disagree with Bell's Theorem.
2. The Quantum Randi challenge is anathema to some here. But it does reinforce that using static arrows for spin vectors cannot give the Bell correlation of -0.707. It implies that there is some randomness in the measurement outcomes of A and B. That could fit in with the use of a dynamic arrow rather than a static one.
3. What is the effect of polarisation on the (say) electron?
For the static arrow model, if Alice measures the electron as UP and then measures it again at UP then the measurement has always the same outcome. That is true in the laboratory. It is also true for a dynamic arrow as long as the randomness is confined to always point within one hemisphere.
But what if the second measurement by Alice is made at 45 degrees to UP? Using a static model, the second measurement would always agree with the first measurement. But this is clearly not what happens in the laboratory. A dynamic model allows some variation between first and second measurements and this is what happens in nature.
.....
Think of a dynamic electron spin as represented by an unfurled umbrella.
See:
http://www.grandvoyageitaly.com/uploads ... a_orig.jpgfor an image of electrons polarised in the UP direction.
A furled umbrella would represent a static model with just the cane or handle showing. To polarise an electron as UP requires the cane to point upwards. But the fabric of the open umbrella shows all the possible spin directions still allowed in the dynamic model depite the overall UP polarisation.
I think that Fredifizzx's question is along the same lines. That is if you polarise first and then make a later measurement, then that measurement must agree with that polarisation if using a static model. With a dynamic model, however, polarisation never enforces a single static spin direction on an electron.
A dynamic model would overcome a number of issues with Bell and Randi and polarisation but is not enough on it own to give the Bell correlation.
......
The details are in my retro-model paper so I will not repeat in full here. But to get the Bell correlation needs Alice to measure an electron pre-polarised in the spin direction used by Bob when he measured the partner positron.
It is also tempting to think that entanglement is a magic ingredient to take you from (abs) correlation 0.5 to correlation 0.7 by an input of extra precision. And somehow linking that extra precision to their exactly opposite spin vectors. In fact, the Bell correlation is exactly dual to the Malus intensity formula, and entanglement plays no role in the Malus formula. So in an experiment one ought to need a lot of pairs to get an exact Bell correlation using the Law of Large numbers.
It is also odd to think that adding randomness can somehow increase precision from 0.5 to 0.7. Yet entanglement as the procurer of 0.7 is a red herring. The solution is an exactly correct pre-polarisation (via retrocausality) which overcomes the fuzziness induced by randomness in a dynamic model of the electron.
The photon can be modeled by a ladies' umbrella which does not cover a full hemisphere.