http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5290v2.pdf I'll just highlight some stuff " "We submit: Doesn’t quantum theory itself, which is a local theory, account for its own predictions? As the authors of this quote know very well, experi- mental data contradict Bell’s theorem [22,23], which im- plies that — as a statement about physical systems — the theorem is wrong. Since there is no error in the reason- ing that establishes the theorem from its assumptions, the flaw must be in the assumptions. Specifically, it is the as- sumption that a mechanism exists that determines which detector will click for the next photon registered by an apparatus of the kind depicted in Fig. 1. There is no such deterministic mechanism — quantum processes are fun- damentally probabilistic, events are randomly realized — and the violation of Bell’s theorem by actual data confirms that. ........... Find- ings of an inadequate nonquantum formalism are irrele- vant for quantum physics. If the findings are at variance with the experimental data, as is the case here, we are reminded of the inappropriateness of the reasoning. It fol- lows that common sense of that sort does not apply in the quantum realm. Rather disturbingly, though, it has become acceptable to turn the argument into its opposite. It is taken for granted that quantum physics should obey such common sense, but then that inadequate nonquantum formalism needs nonlocal features — or so it seems."