Dear Akinbo,
1. I trust you enjoy pondering experiment V, instituted as soon a I received your message above. For the benefit of others, V goes thus:
2. Challenging your sock example, I immediately arranged for 10 pristine pairs of very small socks to be sent to you, ex stock, direct from the manufacturer. In the parcel they put a sealed envelope with my 2-letter prediction re your answer to this question: Please, Akinbo, given these 10 pristine pairs of socks straight from the maker and routinely packed in pairs by them: Can you distinguish Left from Right? My point being: to show that smaller things may be trickier to assess, catalog and understand than bigger things.
3. Now, while we play as above, my technician has delivered to you the calibrated polariser-analyzer (Alice's D with printer) required for experiment T: a simplified version of experiment C1/2 (see Table A2 in my essay). And, as he told you, the principal-axis of D is initially oriented b and you can freely reorient it to any orientation a (or return it to b) as and when you choose. (To be clear, you are Alice here.)
4. At this point, please note that all my C-based experiments -- see Para. #A4.9 of my essay -- aim to build confidence: for they may be understood via the physics of Etienne-Louis Malus (ca.1812) and of modern undergraduates. NB: The Q-based experiments are wholly quantum. Also note that (unless stated otherwise or in error), my terminology, etc., is always meant to be specified and understood as in my essay.
5. Now, in that I am the inventor, designer and manufacturer of the black-box in this experiment,** I choose to use it on this occasion as follows: every particle sent to you will be U (= Up; signalled to you via a blink of the Ultramarine-coloured light on top of D) in relation to orientation b. Thus your Dandelion-coloured light (signalling D = Down) remains untriggered whenever D is set to b.
6. This latter fact can be checked by switching to b at will (seeking to catch me or my black-box out), and calling for my data (since I test, at b', the twin of every particle that you test). My data will show that, on every occasion, I have D (= Down: as signalled to me (and printed) via a blink of the Dandelion light on top of my D'). Clearly, the binary identifiers U/D are meant to correspond with the binary Left/Right of your original socks.
7. Now, since the particles come to you at the rate of one every second (let me know if that's too fast, etc.), you can now play around and determine the proportion of Dandelion blinks (signalling D-particles) as a function of angle (a,b) when you choose any arbitrary a. Checking against my essay, I trust you'll be surprised by your results. The point here being that you should now better understand Paras. #A4.5 - A4.8 in my essay: and now clearly appreciate the inadequacy of the naive realism associated Bell (who once used Bertlmann's socks in his argumentation) and d'Espagnat when they depart from Bohr's important insight in #A4.5.
8. Since your correlated pair of socks cannot be as you wished, I trust the above provides a satisfactory explanation of why that is the case. To be clear: though we and our socks live in a quantum world, a pair of wearable socks (no matter how small) does not behave like a pair of correlated particles (bound, as they are, by Bohr's oft-forgotten insight).
9. NB: Whereas the extension of your sock experiment to smaller socks produced difficulties: there are no such difficulties (it is in fact easier) to extend T to Q1/2 as defined in Table A2 of my essay; for we simply remove the black-box. It is the Q-based experiments that give Bellian nonlocality the flick.
10: I conclude: Though controversies generated by Bell's theorem cannot be fully addressed via things like socks, they can be adequately addressed and resolved (consistent with the principles of common-sense local realism) via the very small refinement of sock-like thinking in our Q-based experiments!
* To be clear: I ordered 10 pairs of standard socks for premature neonates.
** That is, the back-boxes are not mere "black-box" reformulations; they can be built.
With my thanks for your interest, and hoping the above helps somewhat; Gordon