FrediFizzx wrote:Gordon Watson wrote:...
In my view you should have no reference to cross-products at all: which means, I suppose, no need for chirality??
I'm sure that "...no need for chirality" is not the right thing to say. Please read the section in Jay's long paper that talks about that. The notion that singlets have chirality has nothing to do with cross products. And we successfully demonstrate that QM is local in the EPR-Bohm case if the singlets do have chirality. Cross products or not.
.
1. Please: What do you mean by Jay's long paper? Chirality is not mentioned in Jay's paper of 31 pages.
2. Also: I'm suggesting that cross-products have no place -- whatsoever -- in the analysis of EPRB. Since spin-half requires only 2 basis-states, it can be addressed in a 2D vector-space containing a and b and trig-functions of the angle (a,b).
3. Note that, in my experiment, the angle (a,b) is constant: but no 2 detector settings are the same.
4. So -- it seems to me -- your demonstration needs to be generalized to include EPRB and Aspect (2004) in the same analysis: and to handle the deliberate "twist" in my experiment.
5. That twist being there to encourage you to drop all reference to cross-products and any need for chirality.
...