I'm going to be honest, and say that I have no idea if this comment on that page is relevant to the article in the OP. But if it is, it's hilarious: > OK, poin

I'm going to be honest, and say that I have no idea if this comment on that page is relevant to the article in the OP. But if it is, it's hilarious: > OK, point taken. But if one has any experience with experiments in the foundations of QM, one knows full well what’s going to happen next. Namely: some experimental group will do a slightly souped-up test of Hardy’s Paradox, of course getting just the results that QM predicts, and will then market it in Science or Nature as “the first experimental probe of the logical contradiction at the heart of QM … who could’ve imagined that the ‘impossible’ outcome would occur with probability 1/12?” And then the science journalists will wet themselves with excitement. It’s all nearly as predictable as QM itself!