1) Superluminal - I take it you are referring to what is more commonly called "non-locality" in quantum entanglement which lead to Bell's theorem, and the experiments by Alain Aspect & others which confirmed the theorem. What do you object to, the theorem or the experimental data?
I'm bothered with the same aspects of QM as Einstein. It's that simple.
You can quibble about language and style, but my mission is to continue supporting Einsteins strong objection to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
In Einstein's language "spooky action at a distance".
In philosopher's speak, "nonlocality".
I prefer "superluminal", because nonlocality has evolved over time to mean almost anything.
If you are familiar with the arguments between Bohr and Einstein back in the 1920's, Einstein came up with a brilliant thought experiment to disprove Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
I believe Einstein won the argument there and then, however the majority of the physicists of the day supported Bohr's view. The Copenhagen interpretation is born.
In Bohr and Einsteins day, no one ever thought an experiment could be devised to test their arguments.
In 1972, S.J. Freedman and F. Clauser, performed low energy photon polarization correlations, from calcium transitions. Bell tests of the form, known as the Freedman inequality and also the CSSH inequality were used in the experiment, disagreement with these inequalities was the result, therefore supporting the Einstein interpretation.
QM's not happy with this result suspected unspecified faults in the experiment and repeated the experiment many many times since. The experiments have used different physics(low and high energy photons, particles nonlinear parametric down conversion etc.) different forms of Bell inequalities. The score to date is Einstein 2, Bohr 30+, the experiments continue to this day. These experiments have free parameters as well quantum assumptions that invalidate them according to Popperian logic
It may come to you as a bit of a surprise, that the much revered (by QM's) John Bell, says these experiments prove nothing and are of little value, and that QM is a "dirty theory" that one day will be replaced. You won't find quotes like this, in new scientist or Scientific American, more likely "Bell proves Einstein wrong"
So now we have another bloke bothered by QM, Einstein, J. S. Bell, me and a few others.
I hope this was not interpreted as a rant, I can provide references for all of the above, if you're genuinely interested. There is a group that I'm loosely associated with, that dabble with an alternative theory to QM, called Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), Google them.
Trying not to rant.
Edited by bcgilbert, 30 January 2020 - 10:25 PM.