This paper provides strong evidence that Hensen et al. postselected the experimental data to produce only an artifactual violation of CHSH. Read the last posts in this PubPeer thread for further discussion about it. In an arrogant and shameful display of antiscience, Hensen et al. refuse to release the full raw data of their experiment. Only their postselected subset of the data has been released, and Hensen et al. simply ignore requests for access to the raw data.
a. The quantum joint prediction cannot be recovered in an experiment with separated (marginal) measurements, just as for classical probability. Quantum mechanics correctly applied does not predict a violation of CH. b. Valid experiments properly interpreted do not violate the CH inequality and therefore confirm local realism.
c. That does not mean quantum mechanics is wrong. The correct quantum mechanics prediction for an EPRB experiment must use the marginals (via reduced density matrices) and not the joint distribution. The essence of quantum mechanics is just fine; we need only to be careful about separated measurement situations, just as we are in classical probability theory. Just as we would not blindly expect the joint prediction to apply in the presence of heavy decoherence, we should not expect it to apply in a case of separated measurement. d. The paper introduces a new, correct method for counting events in an EPRB experiment. The new method includes all the experimental events on
an equal basis. A previous method described by Larsson and Gill, and used by Christensen et al, is shown to produce a false violation of CH
due to systematic data discarding. A discussion of this discovery can be found in the PubPeer link above devoted to discussion of my paper, and
in the following thread devoted to the Larsson and Gill paper: PubPeer thread on the Larsson and Gill paper. e. John Bell's work is not challenged in any way. Even quantum theory must face the no-go results. It is only the misguided idea that a joint distribution can be sampled with marginal measurements that led to the mistake of thinking QM predicts a violation. f. This "rational interpretation" completely resolves the EPR paradox in the Bohm-Aharonov formulation. The original position-momentum formulation of EPR is easily resolved by Einstein's statistical interpretation. It has always been the nonsensical idea of quantum nonlocality that sadly blocked proper understanding.