This question expands on a specific detail of this previous question:
Why would classical correlation in Bell's experiment be a linear function of angle? I would have commented on/answered that question but I am not allowed to as I have just joined and this is my first question.
Question: Can the interpretation offered here to save locality be invalidated?
The first answer given to the question linked says
"Note that it is important that this is the probability to detect the quantum particle - if we were just talking about continuous field strength, as your projection argument would imply, the following probabilistic argument would not work. It is, however, experimentally shown that you indeed measure single incident photons."
So if we can show that a continuous field strength consideration is appropriate in the classical correlation, we can discount the probabilistic argument of Bell's Theorem.
Now it's true that we measure single incident photons experimentally, for example in the double-slit experiment; we fire single photons and get a wave-interference pattern, the same goes for single incident electrons. So we know that single incident particles over time produce (so far inexplicably) a wave interference pattern.
But wave-particle duality has never been argued to be a definitive rejection of locality. If it was, we wouldn't need to invoke Bell's experiment to reject locality.
So, might not the appearance of the cosine correlation in Bell's experiment be simply the manifestation of the wave-particle duality of the single incident particles? The single incident photons in Bell's experiment thus produce over time what appears to be a continuous field strength in keeping with a wave-like nature and so explaining the cosine relationship that we detect in the projection.
Thus couldn't Bell's experiment be nothing more than a demonstration of wave-particle duality and not a definitive rejection of locality?