Is action at a distance possible as envisaged by the EPR Paradox.

[RUTA]

But... even if we cannot use entanglement to send usable information FTL, the particles must clearly be 'communicating' in some way to present the opposite random property, right? And Bell showed there are no local hidden variables involved... or did I miss something?

MWI is the only 'way out' of this is, as I understand...?

There are other interpretations, as Frame Dragger points out in post #9 of this thread, to include the view where there are no particles (or any other quantum "entities") to communicate between one another in the first place. So, there are many ways people have devised to deal with "the greatest mystery in physics."

 

[Frame Dragger]

There are other interpretations, as Frame Dragger points out in post #9 of this thread, to include the view where there are no particles (or any other quantum "entities") to communicate between one another in the first place. So, there are many ways people have devised to deal with "the greatest mystery in physics."

Of course, as you aptly pointed out in another thread, the entire exercise of Interpretations is somewhat, if not entirely, fruitless. In fact, it can be distracting and the resulting agendas make life... difficult.

 

[RUTA]

Of course, as you aptly pointed out in another thread, the entire exercise of Interpretations is somewhat, if not entirely, fruitless. In fact, it can be distracting and the resulting agendas make life... difficult.

I'm sorry if I gave you that impression with something I wrote in another thread. In fact, I agree with Smolin (The Trouble with Physics, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 2006) that the foundational problems of quantum mechanics probably constitute “the most serious problem facing modern science,” and this problem “is unlikely to be solved in isolation; instead, the solution will probably emerge as we make progress on the greater effort to unify physics.”

“In the past, fundamental new discoveries have led to changes – including theoretical, technological, and conceptual changes – that could not even be imagined when the discoveries were first made. The discovery that we live in a universe that, deep down, allows for Bell-like influences strikes me as just such a fundamental, important new discovery. … If I am right about this, then we are living in a period that is in many ways like that of the early 1600s. At that time, new discoveries, such as those involving Galileo and the telescope, eventually led to an entirely new way of thinking about the sort of universe we live in. Today, at the very least, the discovery of Bell-like influences forces us to give up the Newtonian view that the universe is entirely a mechanistic universe. And I suspect this is only the tip of the iceberg, and that this discovery, like those in the 1600s, will lead to a quite different view of the sort of universe in which we live.” Richard DeWitt, Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science, Blackwell Publishing, 2004, p 304.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I'm sorry if I gave you that impression with something I wrote in another thread. In fact, I agree with Smolin (The Trouble with Physics, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 2006) that the foundational problems of quantum mechanics probably constitute “the most serious problem facing modern science,” and this problem “is unlikely to be solved in isolation; instead, the solution will probably emerge as we make progress on the greater effort to unify physics.”

“In the past, fundamental new discoveries have led to changes – including theoretical, technological, and conceptual changes – that could not even be imagined when the discoveries were first made. The discovery that we live in a universe that, deep down, allows for Bell-like influences strikes me as just such a fundamental, important new discovery. … If I am right about this, then we are living in a period that is in many ways like that of the early 1600s. At that time, new discoveries, such as those involving Galileo and the telescope, eventually led to an entirely new way of thinking about the sort of universe we live in. Today, at the very least, the discovery of Bell-like influences forces us to give up the Newtonian view that the universe is entirely a mechanistic universe. And I suspect this is only the tip of the iceberg, and that this discovery, like those in the 1600s, will lead to a quite different view of the sort of universe in which we live.” Richard DeWitt, Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science, Blackwell Publishing, 2004, p 304.

You do realize that everything you just said is in accord with the statement of mine you're disagreeing with? I'm saying that experiments, research, and theory are needed, not attempts at "Interpretations" of a theory that is clearly incomplete. I am, and have in the past here, argued for a semi-Instrumentalist approach, but with curiosity. I don't like the idea of these endless attemts to provide an ad hoc framework into which QM can be crammed.

I thought I made that clear in that other thread where I mentioned the need for an understanding of what occurs at and below the Planck Scale.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... So, there are many ways people have devised to deal with "the greatest mystery in physics."

Agree. The important thing is maybe for now to accept that there are "grapes" out there that we can’t reach, but not act in absurdity to deny their existence.

And Smolin is very true.

Edit :) It’s very late here... I don’t know what I’m typing anymore... good night everybody...

 

[pallidin]

Interesting thread. Hard to grasp at times.

 

[zonde]

Are you saying that John Bell was totally wrong, and Alain Aspect was totally stupid spending all this time & money in experimentally verifying that Bell's inequalities are physically violated??

No, I am not saying that.
Derivation of Bell inequalities is mathematically sound. And how else you would find out to what extent mathematical construction is applicable to physical situation without performing experiments?

Anyways if we allow the possibility that unfair sampling is justified assumption then Aspect experiment demonstrates that photon ensembles can have QM type properties that individual photons can't have. And finding that out wouldn't seem like waste of time and money.

 

[DrChinese]

I would add, Thomas, that a thread such as you describe exists... you were in it, and I believe you and DrChinese et al couldn't come to an agreement. If we're going to continue that discussion, lets, but starting from square one seems silly.

I seem to remember twisting around on this for an extended period of time. I think I got dizzy in the end.



So I am not sure I can survive another round. To sum up some of my comments quickly:

Please think of Bell's Theorem as a roadmap rather than a Bible. Bell charted the way for us. Once he showed us the way, we can accomplish all kinds of things with entanglement - all of which are completely consistent with garden variety quantum mechanics.

If you try to analyze Bell semantically, you will miss the point entirely.

 

[RUTA]

You do realize that everything you just said is in accord with the statement of mine you're disagreeing with? I'm saying that experiments, research, and theory are needed, not attempts at "Interpretations" of a theory that is clearly incomplete. I am, and have in the past here, argued for a semi-Instrumentalist approach, but with curiosity. I don't like the idea of these endless attemts to provide an ad hoc framework into which QM can be crammed.

I thought I made that clear in that other thread where I mentioned the need for an understanding of what occurs at and below the Planck Scale.

Many in the foundations community believe attempts to interpret quantum physics are a good way to look for a theory to complete quantum physics. For example, what makes you believe there's something relevant to completing quantum physics "at and below the Planck Scale?" You must have some implicit metaphysical "interpretation" of quantum physics that suggests the importance of this scale.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... Anyways if we allow the possibility that unfair sampling is justified assumption then Aspect experiment demonstrates that photon ensembles can have QM type properties that individual photons can't have. And finding that out wouldn't seem like waste of time and money.

With all due respect, this is almost an even worse insult to Alain Aspect...

Would a member of the French Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Technologies, and professor at the Ecole Polytechnique, awarded with 2010 Wolf Prize in physics, spend all this time & money to find out that the detection efficiency is always less than 100% in optical experiments...!?

A high school student can figure this out by asking his teacher...

This is not a sound debate. To me, it seems like a classical example of "not seeing the forest for the trees"... among some.
This is not a question whether we can trust physical experiments involving photons; it’s a much bigger question.


Let’s take a step back - To clarify the background
(for pallidin et al.)

Albert Einstein was not perfectly happy with the non-causal nature of the new quantum physics, and he had an ongoing debate with Niels Bohr about this matter. Both were Nobel Laureates in Physics, and considered the brightest minds of their time (and history!).

To keep it short: Einstein favored 'real' particles like photons – Bohr was only interested in the wave function, or to be precise, the equations describing wave function.

In 1935, Albert Einstein published a paper, known as the EPR paradox, with the title; "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?". So far Niels Bohr, almost in triumph, had dismantled every argument from Einstein swift and easy. But this time it was different, Bohr’s reply was published five months later (with the exact same title as the original), and the paper implied he had misinterpreted the profound analysis of Einstein.

According to Einstein the EPR experiment yields a dichotomy, either:

1) A quantum system has a non-local effect on the physical reality.
2) Quantum mechanics is incomplete in the sense that some extra variable is needed to account for it.​

In 1964, John Bell showed (theoretically) that quantum mechanics predicts much stronger statistical correlations between the measurement results, than the theory of hidden variable is ever capable of.

Bell's theorem proves that every quantum theory must violate either locality or counterfactual definiteness (i.e. Heisenberg uncertainty principle; one cannot simultaneously know the position and momentum of a particle).

To make things even more 'contradictory' – we know that quantum mechanics and the predictions of quantum field theory (QFT) are the most precise in all of physics!

John Bell knew that there where theoretical escape routes from his theorem, e.g. Superdeterminism in which we (and the particles) lose our free will by the predetermined laws of physics, and become 18th century Laplace's demons.

And as discussed here, there are other interpretations of QM, like Many-worlds (MWI) where we split the whole universe for every particle in EPR, etc.
​

Now, with this in mind, it seems almost silly with all this focus on photons!? The brightest minds in history knew that EPR was an important and profound aspect of quantum mechanics.

And we are discussing unfair or fair sampling assumption of photons??

Well, that approach to EPR is certainly unfair to all the effort that has been made by a lot of very intelligent people, in nearly a century.

But, as I mentioned earlier, there are different kind of Bell test experiments performed – and to quit the discussion about 'unfair sampling', once and for all, we can point out the fact that in 2001 M. Rowe et al. conducted an experiment that used detection methods that were almost 100% efficient, thus avoiding the 'unfair sampling loophole', using two trapped ions:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/abs/409791a0.html"

Fair sampling is a reasonable assumption and is therefore not a loophole.

Time to rethink.

"It is difficult for me to believe that quantum mechanics, working very well for currently practical set-ups, will nevertheless fail badly with improvements in counter efficiency ..." -- J.S. Bell

 

[Frame Dragger]

Many in the foundations community believe attempts to interpret quantum physics are a good way to look for a theory to complete quantum physics. For example, what makes you believe there's something relevant to completing quantum physics "at and below the Planck Scale?" You must have some implicit metaphysical "interpretation" of quantum physics that suggests the importance of this scale.

You are diverting my point, by raising another. Tit for Tat RUTA... "A cat for a hat, or a hat for a cat, but nothing for nothing."

As for the rest, why do you feel I have a metaphysical interpretation? I don't see that as a logical conclusion from the standpoint of wanting to see the two major theories of physics AGREE (i.e. GR/QM). As for believing that interpeting QM will lead to breakthroughs... I'm yet to see that. It DOES provide people with something to say other than, "we don't know"... a notoriously bad phrase to place in a grant request. Please don't assume what I "must" or must not believe.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

the standpoint of wanting to see the two major theories of physics AGREE (i.e. GR/QM)

YES! That 'gang' is definitely on my supporter-list!

 

[Frame Dragger]

YES! That 'gang' is definitely on my supporter-list!

Heh, thanks DA. I always was under the impression that, while it seems to always be an elusive goal, that having these two amazingly useful and predictive theories NOT dovetailing is... unacceptable. Perhaps that would be my "metaphysical" reason for wanting to understand the Planck scale...

Btw, great last post!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Heh, thanks DA. I always was under the impression that, while it seems to always be an elusive goal, that having these two amazingly useful and predictive theories NOT dovetailing is... unacceptable. Perhaps that would be my "metaphysical" reason for wanting to understand the Planck scale...

Well, as we all know – It takes two to tango!
And it’s not always that bad move your a*s around in space-time to see what we’ll find!

Btw, great last post!

Thanks!

 

[hmm.max]

I would add, Thomas, that a thread such as you describe exists... you were in it, and I believe you and DrChinese et al couldn't come to an agreement. If we're going to continue that discussion, lets, but starting from square one seems silly.

As a reader of this thread, I would personally rather that ThomasT wasn't discouraged from participating in the conversation. As someone trying to understand the current state of affairs with "hidden variable theories", his comments were the only part of this thread that peaked my interest, i.e. the only statements that I had not already come across numerous times on this forum already.

Obviously, everything in this thread has already been discussed elsewhere. It seems very strange to me to suddenly single out someone who is drawing a very subtle distinction, and tell them to stop, in the midst of advanced discourse such as

"Are you saying that John Bell was totally wrong, and Alain Aspect was totally stupid.."

Not trying to be inflammatory, I just mean that this thread doesn't seem so sacred that shutting someone up is warranted.

 

[zonde]

Now, with this in mind, it seems almost silly with all this focus on photons!? The brightest minds in history knew that EPR was an important and profound aspect of quantum mechanics.

And we are discussing unfair or fair sampling assumption of photons??

Well, that approach to EPR is certainly unfair to all the effort that has been made by a lot of very intelligent people, in nearly a century.

This is unfair in respect to Many-worlds interpretation, right?
MWI is so exciting and how can it be compared with something as dull as unfair sampling.
But bear in mind that success of QM is actually success of "shut up and calculate" interpretation and the closest interpretation to this approach is Ensemble interpretation.

But, as I mentioned earlier, there are different kind of Bell test experiments performed – and to quit the discussion about 'unfair sampling', once and for all, we can point out the fact that in 2001 M. Rowe et al. conducted an experiment that used detection methods that were almost 100% efficient, thus avoiding the 'unfair sampling loophole', using two trapped ions:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/abs/409791a0.html"

To consider this experiment as an EPR paradox test is a bit of stretch. EPR paradox considers separate measurements of two systems that are not interacting at the moment of measurement. But in this experiment there is only one joined measurement of both systems.

Fair sampling is a reasonable assumption and is therefore not a loophole.

Yes, in most cases fair sampling assumption is considered reasonable. But in this case fair sampling assumption necessarily comes packaged with one of the not-so-reasonable speculations like MWI, superdeterminism or nonlocality of Pilot-wave.
And in that light fair sampling is as reasonable as most reasonable one of those alternatives.

Time to rethink.

As you say

"It is difficult for me to believe that quantum mechanics, working very well for currently practical set-ups, will nevertheless fail badly with improvements in counter efficiency ..." -- J.S. Bell

When Bell said that? Definitely it was quite some time ago. And still there is uncomfortable lack of experiments that explicitly test what happens when counter efficiency is changed above usual ~10% level even when there is constant improvement in photon detection technologies.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Please hmm.max, you are commenting Frame Dragger, but quoting me...

I would personally rather that ThomasT wasn't discouraged from participating in the conversation.

I have never discouraged ThomasT from participating in the conversation, in fact the contrary:

Time will definitely tell – and I hope I’m free to have my own view in the meantime.
You are free to have yours.

As someone trying to understand the current state of affairs with "hidden variable theories", his comments were the only part of this thread that peaked my interest, i.e. the only statements that I had not already come across numerous times on this forum already.

I do think you have misinterpreted ThomasT, he does not support "hidden variable theories", but he replaces it with his own version of "entanglement" (as far as I understand):

It's important to keep in mind that the entanglement correlations in Bell tests have to do with the relationship between the entangled entities. This relationship isn't the same as the hidden variable. It's a hidden, constant parameter that's assumed (in the QM treatment as well) to have a local cause.

It seems very strange to me to suddenly single out someone who is drawing a very subtle distinction, and tell them to stop, in the midst of advanced discourse such as

"Are you saying that John Bell was totally wrong, and Alain Aspect was totally stupid.."

I’m afraid you’re mixing persons, quotes and arguments into an unrecognizable clutter. The quote above was from me addressed to zoned, and not to the very subtle drawings of ThomasT.

that shutting someone up is warranted.

Wrong, but I think Frame Dragger can speak for himself.

 

[DrChinese]

As a reader of this thread, I would personally rather that ThomasT wasn't discouraged from participating in the conversation. As someone trying to understand the current state of affairs with "hidden variable theories", his comments were the only part of this thread that peaked my interest, i.e. the only statements that I had not already come across numerous times on this forum already.

I don't think anyone is trying to shut anyone up, but to be fair some of the discussion with ThomasT has been had multiple times previously. I for one don't want to repeat the exact same debate with the same person.

On the other hand: if you are interested in discussing any element of EPR/Bell, I am sure we would all be interested.

 

[DrChinese]

Well, as we all know – It takes two to tango!
And it’s not always that bad move your a*s around in space-time to see what we’ll find!

Thanks!

Just adding to what was said already: you had some great posts above... good stuff.

 

[DrChinese]

I do think you have misinterpreted ThomasT, he does not support "hidden variable theories", but he replaces it with his own version of "entanglement" (as far as I understand):

ThomasT has indicated previously that there are definitional issues with entanglement. I don't see those particular ones and neither do most folks. So it gets hard to have a discussion because his vewpoint hinders that. There is a generally accepted common ground to discuss these issues, and that usually goes all the way back to EPR.

 

[Deepak Kapur]

ThomasT has indicated previously that there are definitional issues with entanglement. I don't see those particular ones and neither do most folks. So it gets hard to have a discussion because his vewpoint hinders that. There is a generally accepted common ground to discuss these issues, and that usually goes all the way back to EPR.

I think that the real issue is with the definition of 'Local Realism'.

'Local Realism' assumes (as I feel about it):

1. Certainity is inherent in all the objects of nature (big or small). They always tend to 'possess' properties if someone tries/does not try to measure them.

2. Things/objects that are great distances apart (say light years apart in case of our Earth or say 100 feet apart in case of sub atomic particles, no proportion intended) don't get affected by other entities (especially when it come to the measurement of their properties).

In other words if we conduct any kind of measurement related to Earth, the effect of a star (say that is in the farthest corner of Andromeda galaxy) will not have any effect on this measurement.


I have a faint inclination that 'this star' will certainly have an influence on our measurement related to Earth (however small this effect may be). If an instrument could be formed that is (hyper)ⁿ sensitive, we may be able to gauge the effect. And it would depend on the (refinement)ⁿ/nature of our measurement wheter we take this effect to be of any consequence or not.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I think that the real issue is with the definition of 'Local Realism'.

'Local Realism' assumes (as I feel about it):

1. Certainity is inherent in all the objects of nature (big or small). They always tend to 'possess' properties if someone tries/does not try to measure them.

2. Things/objects that are great distances apart (say light years apart in case of our Earth or say 100 feet apart in case of sub atomic particles, no proportion intended) don't get affected by other entities (especially when it come to the measurement of their properties).

In other words if we conduct any kind of measurement related to Earth, the effect of a star (say that is in the farthest corner of Andromeda galaxy) will not have any effect on this measurement.


I have a faint inclination that 'this star' will certainly have an influence on our measurement related to Earth (however small this effect may be). If an instrument could be formed that is (hyper)ⁿ sensitive, we may be able to gauge the effect. And it would depend on the (refinement)ⁿ/nature of our measurement wheter we take this effect to be of any consequence or not.

That is a very long way of saying that you believe in Hidden Variables, but with the addition that you're speculating in a manner that has nothing to do with physics.

@hmm.max: I would respond, but DrChinese has done so quite nicely, as has DevilsAvocado.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Just adding to what was said already: you had some great posts above... good stuff.

Thanks a lot DrChinese! I’m fairly new here, but I do understand you are the 'grandmaster' of EPR here on PF; therefore I’m now feeling something like this... + + + +

Thanks! ;)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

ThomasT has indicated previously that there are definitional issues with entanglement. I don't see those particular ones and neither do most folks. So it gets hard to have a discussion because his vewpoint hinders that. There is a generally accepted common ground to discuss these issues, and that usually goes all the way back to EPR.

Right, I cannot see how his 'local constant' can ever help him (even if entangled)... Maybe I misinterpreted ThomasT, or he has maybe misinterpreted some of EPR...

 

[DrChinese]

'Local Realism' assumes (as I feel about it):

1. Certainity is inherent in all the objects of nature (big or small). They always tend to 'possess' properties if someone tries/does not try to measure them.
...

There are 4 closely related terms, sometimes used interchangeably, sometimes used in the specific:

a. Realism - a la EPR's "elements of reality".
b. Hidden Variables - Essentially a deduction from realism.
c. Non-contextuality - the context of an experiment does not matter to the realism of an observable.
d. Counterfactual Definiteness - you can speak meaningfully about unmeasured observables.

I don't like to discuss the implications of the differences in these terms when discussing Bell or Aspect, because I think it leads to semantic arguments. For MOST purposes, I consider these terms interchangeable. So do most writers based on my readings, although there are a few who attempt to distinguish among them. Funny thing, the math is pretty much the same regardless. So too the predictions of QM.

 

[DrChinese]

Thanks a lot DrChinese! I’m fairly new here, but I do understand you are the 'grandmaster' of EPR here on PF; therefore I’m now feeling something like this... + + + +

Thanks! ;)

Between you, RUTA, FrameDragger, SpectraCat and a number of others (sorry if I left out your name too), I think we have seen some great additions around here. I consider the quality of the discussions to be inversely proportional to the number of ZapperZ posts! That meaning, in my book, that he does not need to pop in as much with his wise and informed comments.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

This is unfair in respect to Many-worlds interpretation, right?

Well... no, that’s actually not my point. To me it’s almost clear that EPR must be some kind of "gun smoke" of the next 'paradigm' in physics ('smoke' without 'fire'!? ). It’s a clear sign that we do not know everything there is to know, yet.

And I’m almost stunned by the numerous attempts to run "business as usual" – stating "well, this doesn’t mean anything... it’s a matter of QM interpretation", or "it’s hard to measure photons, therefore EPR is most probably misleading".

I don’t think that’s fair to all the intelligent persons that spent a lot of time working on this problem.

And if we look with some 'perspective' on the criticism of Bell test experiments – What are they saying? Well, most agree that Bell's theorem is correct and sound, but there is some "magical entangled loophole" that exposes itself in different ways, in different experiments!?

Yet we know that the 'overlapping effect' of all performed Bell test experiments, together with Bell's theorem is very convincing. And over time it will be definite.

I’m not an explicit supporter of MWI, it could be the correct solution, but I can’t get the 'pragmatic workings' of MWI into my head. Therefore I’m (for now) anticipating some hardnosed evidence from another 'branch'...

To consider this experiment as an EPR paradox test is a bit of stretch. EPR paradox considers separate measurements of two systems that are not interacting at the moment of measurement. But in this experiment there is only one joined measurement of both systems.

This is exactly what I’m talking about – the "magical entangled loophole"!

Yes, in most cases fair sampling assumption is considered reasonable. But in this case fair sampling assumption necessarily comes packaged with one of the not-so-reasonable speculations like MWI, superdeterminism or nonlocality of Pilot-wave.
And in that light fair sampling is as reasonable as most reasonable one of those alternatives.

Agree. It’s maybe not wise to deduce the problem of explaining EPR as an immediate proof of even weirder 'things'...

As you say

Welcome to the club!

When Bell said that? Definitely it was quite some time ago. And still there is uncomfortable lack of experiments that explicitly test what happens when counter efficiency is changed above usual ~10% level even when there is constant improvement in photon detection technologies.

Again, we have a very solid theory in Bell's theorem, and the experiments are improved day by day.
Where are the theories proving that it’s impossible to ever prove Bell's theorem? Any equations? Anything? Except opposition, and the "magical entangled loophole"...??

How would science look if we apply this 'approach' to everything else? Did the Big Bang really happen? Well, apparently not! No one was there to make the 'proper experiments', and the CMB is just a bunch of photons that we don’t know how to measure with 100% efficiency! Conclusion: Big Bang is not true, and we can explain everything we see with the "Turtle Interpretation"!

(to be drastic )

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... I consider the quality of the discussions to be inversely proportional to the number of ZapperZ posts!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I think that the real issue is with the definition of 'Local Realism'.
...
I have a faint inclination that 'this star' will certainly have an influence on our measurement related to Earth (however small this effect may be). If an instrument could be formed that is (hyper)ⁿ sensitive, we may be able to gauge the effect. And it would depend on the (refinement)ⁿ/nature of our measurement wheter we take this effect to be of any consequence or not.

Deepak Kapur, I think the possibility for EPR to ever prove Local realism is almost zero, since it requires local hidden variables (as Frame Dragger & DrChinese already pointed out), and Bell has shown that quantum mechanics is not 'compatible' with LHV, and QM predictions are the most precise in all of physics.

Still, we can be pretty sure that the Moon is "out there" even when no one is observing it...

Or put it this way – if observations are required for distant stars and galaxies to be 'real' objects – we could today only observe galaxies as they appeared < 4.5 billion years ago, which of course is not true.

The farthest galaxies in this picture (the very faint red specks) are seen as they appeared more than 13 billion years ago.

It’s more than 'tough' to put macroscopic objects in superposition or entanglement, and this probably has something to do with the observed facts above... (= my speculation)

 

[zonde]

Well... no, that’s actually not my point. To me it’s almost clear that EPR must be some kind of "gun smoke" of the next 'paradigm' in physics ('smoke' without 'fire'!? ). It’s a clear sign that we do not know everything there is to know, yet.

And I’m almost stunned by the numerous attempts to run "business as usual" – stating "well, this doesn’t mean anything... it’s a matter of QM interpretation", or "it’s hard to measure photons, therefore EPR is most probably misleading".

To me it seems like you are contradicting yourself.
From one side you say that we do not know everything there is to know, yet.
From the other side you do not accept neither indirect modifications of QM - interpretations nor direct modifications of QM - position that QM is incomplete.

Or do you imply that we should modify anything but QM?

I don’t think that’s fair to all the intelligent persons that spent a lot of time working on this problem.

And I do not understand this completely.
Are you saying that if all those intelligent persons spent a lot of time working on this problem we shouldn't work on this problem any more and abandon it?

And if we look with some 'perspective' on the criticism of Bell test experiments – What are they saying? Well, most agree that Bell's theorem is correct and sound, but there is some "magical entangled loophole" that exposes itself in different ways, in different experiments!?

Yet we know that the 'overlapping effect' of all performed Bell test experiments, together with Bell's theorem is very convincing. And over time it will be definite.

I’m not an explicit supporter of MWI, it could be the correct solution, but I can’t get the 'pragmatic workings' of MWI into my head. Therefore I’m (for now) anticipating some hardnosed evidence from another 'branch'...

This is exactly what I’m talking about – the "magical entangled loophole"!

Interpretation of Rowe's experiment rests on assumption that photons scattered from two ions can not possibly interact (locally) as to change the count of photons that ends in detector. This assumption contradicts with results of double slit experiment not speaking about anything else.
There is no "magical entangled loophole" in Rowe's experiment just plain wrong assumption (even from perspective of QM).

Again, we have a very solid theory in Bell's theorem, and the experiments are improved day by day.
Where are the theories proving that it’s impossible to ever prove Bell's theorem? Any equations? Anything? Except opposition, and the "magical entangled loophole"...??

How would science look if we apply this 'approach' to everything else? Did the Big Bang really happen? Well, apparently not! No one was there to make the 'proper experiments', and the CMB is just a bunch of photons that we don’t know how to measure with 100% efficiency! Conclusion: Big Bang is not true, and we can explain everything we see with the "Turtle Interpretation"!

Science in general does not depend so much from "no go theorems" as Bell's theorem. There are quite different rules for theories that state "what can be" contrary to "what can't be".
If a theory states "what can be" given this and that it can be quite usable. And actually every theory has limited domain of applicability and still the science provides usable results.