Never heard of it. Looks like it has never been published. I looked at it briefly, and so far I am unimpressed. First, it is not obvious for me that entanglement necessarily implies violation of Einstein-Bell locality. Second, it looks like they start with plane electromagnetic waves and prove that the Bell inequalities are violated for some states constructed on the basis of such waves. However, violations of the Bell inequalities do not necessarily imply violation of Einstein-Bell locality - you need an extra condition: some events must be outside of each other’s light cones. I cannot imagine how this can happen for plane waves. So it looks like their proof may have a “locality loophole”:-) But again, I did not look into details of the article.
I agree. But these are two different things: 1) proving that QM and QFT can be replaced by some classical formalism, and 2) proving that some features of a specific phenomenon believed to be an epitome of quantum can be reproduced in classical mechanics. I think 2) was done in Couder experiment for the two-slit experiment, but, as I emphasized earlier, maybe not much more. Nevertheless, the experiment seems very interesting and useful.
I think we should make a distinction between a precise physical law and an approximation (and maybe this is exactly what you’re doing). Is the Coulomb law flawed as physics? No, as “we use [it] successfully in many varied applications.” But it is just an approximation and fails for fast processes. We cannot imagine physics without approximations, but typically we know they are just approximations, although they can be good, or very good, or excellent approximations. So we have a crucial question: is standard quantum theory a precise law or an approximation? One may ask: does it matter, if it works so well? I think it does matter, as physics is important even beyond any applications, as it is a basis of philosophy (certainly, not the only basis). For example, we make philosophical conclusions about fundamental locality or nonlocality of Nature based on physics. But I cannot understand how nonlocality can be approximate. Nature is either local or nonlocal. So is standard quantum theory a precise law? I don’t think it can be a precise law, as it contains mutually contradicting postulates (unitary evolution and the theory of measurements). Furthermore, it is shown in http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2138
(accepted for publication in Physics Reports) how the Born rule can be derived from unitary evolution in some cases, but as an approximation (maybe an excellent approximation). If (standard) quantum physics is indeed flawed mathematically, as you think (and I agree), it cannot be a precise law. That does not mean that I don’t admire quantum physics as one of the best achievements of humanity.
Again, you are talking about (prevailing) opinions, not about facts. I agree that “sociology” of physics is important, but it cannot change the facts. As we seem to agree that standard quantum physics is indeed flawed (“strictly speaking”, in my wording, or “mathematically and conceptually”, in yours), maybe we should not delve on this issue any further? It is not our task to convince everybody.
As for Many Worlds … (I know about quantum information theory even less than about Many Worlds:-) ) On the one hand, I am no fan of this interpretation, on the other hand, it is my understanding that it puts more emphasis on unitary evolution, whereas the status of the theory of measurements is somewhat lower there than in Copenhagen. And that may be a strong point of Many Worlds, in my book, as I think the contradiction between unitary evolution and the theory of measurements should be resolved in favor of unitary evolution.
I am not sure I agree. Mermin’s article is not a proof. Furthermore, even in that article, after the phrase "If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be "Shut up and calculate!", we find the following words: “In the intervening years, I've come to hold a milder and more nuanced opinion of the Copenhagen view”. John Bell wrote somewhere (cannot find the reference) that we owe deep respect to the Copenhagen interpretation. A primitive interpretation could not dominate physics for decades.
I am not sure. I am afraid my contacts were not representative, but your assessment seems fair.