Perhaps it is interesting to add the following points to this discussion: Most of the time people defend the completeness of quantum foundations by quoting Bell's Theorem tested in experiments of Weihs and Aspect. Now why is it so that when a person seriously tries to question the validity of this 'Theorem' and the interpretation of the experiments that person is either called a crackpot or people start shouting at that person? It must be an embarrasing lack of proper argumentation. There appears no other reason to be found for (sociopathic) behavior of this kind. If science is Big Business then perhaps a somewhat business-like attitude could do no harm. In CHSH and Local Hidden Causality Adv. Studies in Theor. Phys. 4(2) 495-499 (2010) I challenge the correctness of Bell's derivation. You can read the paper on http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2010/astp17-20-2010/geurdesASTP17-20-20.... In order to provide some further background to the discussion I claim that Bell's expression contains a mathematical ambiguity. Take a look at the measurement functions A and B. They project in {-1,1}. Now I can model A and B with sgn(x-y) or with (x-y)/|x-y| like mathematical functions. They may look identical but they are not! For instance take the first derivative of sgn(x-y) to x and find d sgn(x-y)/dx = 2δ(x- y). Now do the same thing for (x-y)/|x-y|. In the evaluation of d/dx of |x-y| in the partial differentiation of (x-y)/|x-y| to x make use of the following expression |x-y| = (x-y)sgn(x-y). Then you may see: d/dx of (x-y)/|x-y| results in -2δ(x- y). This is problematic for Bell's expression because partial integration may introduce these differentiations in the evaluation. Please, do not try to escape with 'this is mistery math' because it isn't and if you really think it is then Bell's expression itself belongs to the mistery math domain. If not then arguments please, no shouting party or unfounded arrogance. I will skip the childish attack on Joy Christian's personal integrity. This behavior started the counter movement but I argued against giving too much attention to a childish silly act of lack of reasoning and a US-election like questioning the integrity of a persons scientific activities. I leave that to the Republicans and Democrats of the US to come with perfect slander campaigns against each others candidates. Instead I invite the, in my view, schoolboy behavior, of the Randi Challenge to come with a proper discussion with a friendly and thoughtfull exchange of argumentation. Only in this tradition of scientific practice a possible view on progress can be found. If not then science is as much the disease of our present day problems as its aim to being the cure.

And while the Randi Challenge anti-crackpotters are fighting about who will be the first to get his ass kicked, I happily refer to the following published papers: J.F. Geurdes, Wigner's variant of Bell's inequality, Austr. J. Phys. 51, 835-842, (1998). and e.g. J.F. Geurdes, Bell inequalities and pseudo-functional densities, Int J. Theor. Phys, Grp. Theor. & Nonl. Optics, 7(3), 51, (2001). J.F. Geurdes, Bell's theorem refuted with a Kolmogorovian counterexample, Int. J. Theor. Phys., Grp. Theor. & Nonl. Optics 12(3), 215-228, (2008). So I enter somewhat prepared. And please not that childish... the journals mean nothing or are very low in regard or whatever excuse you may find to save face. As if your Randi Challenge idea is such a elegant and top class claim.

if Alice’s spin is flipped, how does Bob’s spin flop?

• Alice's spin doesn't flip and Bob's doesn't flop. If Alice's and Bob's spins are measured (with respect to the same axis), then the outcomes are anti-correlated (supposing an initial singlet state).
• Weirdness is in the eye of the beholder.

You are right there mr Mohrhoff. Perception and its labeling go together. But in this case we could try (mind you) to make a point about the idea that wave-particle dualism, tunneling etc could be caused by the possibility (sic) that the experimenter did not control every aspect of the experiment. How can an experimenter be sure that he or she controls every relevant aspect of the experiment? That was the reason Einstein argued for the incompleteness of quantum theory. Perhaps ´we´ missed something that could explain. Then it is the question if quantum theory is a statistical theory (Borns interpretation already being statistical) or a theory of principle. Looking at the nonlocality explanation one can wonder what ´theory of principle´ means in that case.

hank i hink it wrong call people cranck and also allow character assasinations on physicists.