William Briggs, "Statistician To The Stars" is one of my daily blog reads.
This is worth your time.
Alain Aspect, John Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger for their work in proving Bell's Theorem.
Of course, Bell's Theorem proves nothing, but that is beside the point.
Bell's Theorem ignores the probabilities of the outcomes happening, applying an equal probability to each - but only for the "classical" side of the argument. It therefore assumes it own conclusion, and then forces that to happen. When you assume that particles don't behave in the way they are known to behave, and then rigorously test them, of course they behave otherwise!
Let me make an analogy: I hold in my hand a rock. When I toss it up, it may:
1. Keep going up forever.
2. Slow down and eventually stop.
3. Slow down then accelerate downwards.
There are three possible outcomes, so each has probability 1/3. But wait! I imagine a fourth outcome.
4. Accelerate upwards ever faster.
Now there are four possible outcomes, each with probability 1/4. But wait! I imagine a fifth outcome.
5. The rock will disappear in a puff of purple smoke.
Now there are five possibilities, each with a probability of 1/5. That's logic! And if I test it by actually throwing a real rock, and any outcome happens more than 1/5 of the time, then the world is inherently random and illogical, and the underlying science is inherently unknowable.
Do you see the error in this argument? I sincerely hope you do. Because this lies at the very heart of Bell's Theorem, and is the entire basis for his famous inequality.
The YubTub channel 'Sixty Symbols' just did a video on Bell's Inequality. There are quite a few of these out there. They're all correct, as far as following the logic of Bell's Theorem goes. That logic, however, is ridiculously bad.
Bell's Inequality (the essential point of Bell's Theorem), by the way, is the "proof" that quantum systems are inherently random, that entangled particles communicate instantaneously, and a several other bits of nonsense.
I now create a parody of the argument that Bell makes, using the exact same logic he employs, to point out the rampant silliness:
Let us suppose that I am standing on a basketball court, ball in hand. I am at the three point line, and try to make that shot. Logic states that I will either score, or miss. This is a binary solution, with only two possible outcomes. A 50/50 situation. But when I actually try to do this, I only manage to score once in 50 tries. That's a 2% probability. 2% is much less than the 50% predicted. Contradiction! Paradox! Basketball is inherently illogical!
I'm not kidding. That is the essence of Bell's Theorem, one of the fundamental papers in quantum science.
Remember my post about how modern banking works? (Banks create money out of nothing, then charge you interest on the loan that has to be paid back with real money.) I'm not the only one concerned about this travesty of bankers profiting off us no matter what. Neil Oliver has something to say about it.
