FrediFizzx wrote:I think they are barking up the wrong tree. As soon as you say "loophole" then you are expecting that the experiments don't truly validate the predictions of quantum mechanics.
On the contrary Fred, they say explicitly that they reproduced the experimental results in full agreement with QM through an event by event simulation without using any QM concepts. So the point is not that QM is incorrect but rather that there is nothing mystical in the QM predictions/experimental results.
Since we know that Bell's theory is simply due to a mathematical trick, then there are probably not any real loopholes at all and the predictions of QM are correct.
I agree partially. I say partially because I don't agree that it is a mathematical "trick" (as in a conniving magician who knows what they are doing). I think it is a mathematical "error" (due to ignorance or incompetence). Also, I think there are loopholes -- in the logic of Bell's theorem, and in the logic of all those making mystical claims on the basis of it. It is not a loophole in the experiment but in the interpretation of the implications of the results.
One big problem is that people expect Nature to behave a certain way in a classical sense but QM itself is a big clue that Nature doesn't necessarily behave that way even in the classical sense.
You are right. What you describe is a symptom of a bigger problem IMHO: The "mind projection fallacy". There is nothing wrong with nature behaving as we expect, so long as we are using sound reasoning. In fact, if nature behaves differently than you expect, then your logic is suspect and you need to identify the error in it. The problem nowadays is that most people in the field do not re-evaluate their logic. They simply shrug and say "nature is weird" and then they invent alternate logic or mystical explanations.