Quote by wm
Sorry Doc, but I'm lost and confused again. Beyond belief!
<<<Here is my assumption: LEFT BLANK.
Please, dear Professor, Do not confuse my assumption with the definition of my assumption.
Ah (light dawns): perhaps you DrC are relying on nonlocal transmission of my assumption.>>>
My problem! But to say ''a lot of people reject realism'' without in any way qualifying the realism of which you speak ... well that continues to be beyond me.
For now, I think it best that I find my old maths ... and maybe become (with hard study) a mathematician.
Believing, as I do, that: Maths is the best logic; and I've much to learn = comprehend.
Respectfully, [B]wm

This is a preliminary draft from
wm, for critical comment, please. It responds to various requests for a classical derivation of the EPRBohm correlations which would nullify Bell's theorem. It's off the top of my head; and a more complex denouement might be required (and can be provided) to satisfy mathematical rigour:
(Figure 1) D(
a) <
w(
s) [Source]
w'(
s') >
D'(
b')
Two objects flyapart [
w with property
s (a unitvector);
w' with property
s' (a unitvector)] to respectively interact with detectors D (oriented
a, an arbitrary unit vector) and D' (oriented
b', an arbitrary unit vector). The detectors D (D') respectively project
s (
s') onto the axis of detectororientation
a (
b').
Let
w and
w' be created in a state such that
(1)
s +
s' = 0;
say, zero total angular momentum. That is:
(2)
s' =
s.
Then the lefthand result is
a.s and the righthand result is
s'.b'; each a dotproduct.
To derive the related correlation, we require (using a recognised notation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_vector ), with < ... > denoting an average:
(3) <(
a.s) (
s'.b')>
(4) =  <(
a.s) (
s.b')>
(5) =  <[(ax ay az) (sx, sy, sz)] [(sx sy sz) (bx', by', bz')]>
(6) =  (ax ay az) <(sx, sy, sz) (sx sy sz)> (bx', by', bz')
(7) =  (ax ay az) <
s.s> (bx', by', bz')
(8) =  (ax ay az) <1> (bx', by', bz')
(9) = 
a.b'
(10) =  cos (
a,
b').
Let
s and
s' be classical angularmomenta. Then (to the extent that we meet all the Belltheorem criteria) the result is a wholly classical refutation of Bell's theorem. [It is Bell's constrained realism that we reject; thereby maintaining the commonsense locality clearly evident above.)
E and OE! QED?
Critical comments most welcome, (though I'll be away for a day or so),
wm