The violation of the EPR thought experiment
The passages you cited all are reinterpretations offered by various authors of the results of Bell's experiments, and these are interpolation coming from authors holding onto the principle of complimentarity. This doctrine holds that that there are two levels of reality: The fundamental quantum describing the quantum microscopic world through quantum physics and the atomic macoscopic world describing the macroscopic world, which from the perspective of quantum physics is indeed described as classical physics:
Wiki: Classical theory has at least two distinct meanings in Physics:
In the context of quantum mechanics, "classical theory" refers to theories of physics that do not use the quantisation paradigm, particularly Newtonian mechanics (which is also known as classical mechanics). General relativity and special relativity are also considered to be "classical" in this sense.
1) A number of the books which I have cited are
adamantly stressing that the quantum world is not limited to the microscopic realm. Actually, most of them are precisely concerned with demonstrating this.
2) Wikipedia, as useful as it may be, is not authoritative in any way whatsoever, and as its accuracy depends upon how well it reflects the academic literature, using it to contradict that literature doesn't demonstrate anything other than that wikipedia just a starting point (if that).
GR is also considered classical from the perspective of QM, because GR includes Newtonian mechanics as a special case of relativity.
GTR doesn't "include" Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics is fundamentally based on a 3-dimensional reality in which time is distinct from space. Just as one can approximate reality in most cases with classical mechanics, so to can one treat space and time seperately in most instances, because the effect of movement through spacetime for anything occuring on earth doesn't change the frame of reference enough to make a difference. However, for astrophyicists and cosmologists, GTR is essential. Everything from the curvature of space to understanding how and what we can observe in distant space and when we can observe it comes from GTR. Like QM, it is has continually been confirmed by every experimental result performed.
In other words, we have just as much reason to reject QM as we do GTR. The only possibly "contradictory" evidence for either theory is the other theory.
The QM does not operate with the assumptions held by classical physics: space-time geometry, fundamental forces, particles and objective reality, locality, causal determinism.
It absolutely does operate with most of these. And where it doesn't, this is simply a matter of the mathematical descriptions used, not observation or empirical evidence. In other words, the fact that an equation which models a quantum system holds up wonderfully under observation as a model, but I can mathematically rearrange things such that time
seems irreleveant, doesn't mean it is. That's the reason for so much disagreement concerning QM. The experimental evidence depends upon the mathematical formalisms and is determined by the experimental design (after all, the fundamental notion here is that observation changes things). The reason physicists seek to unite QM and relativity isn't because they're clinging desperately from realizing the implications of QM. It's because most of what QM really
is for all intents and purposes is math.
The fact remains the EPR was set up as originally as a thought experiment to challenge the predication of non-locality by quantum physics and its challenges to the laws of physics.
It wasn't. It was to
prove that Bohr's interpretation of quantum formalism and its relation to physical reality
entailed nonlocality. EPR
began the idea of nonlocality; they didn't challenge it. The attempt was to prove that the current interpretation of QM formalism meant that nonlocality was part of physcial reality. The hope was that proving this would show that QM was flawed, or the interpretation was.
Bell was attempting to do the same: prove that EPR was wrong and that nonlocality was as well. Both EPR and Bell failed to do what they intended and succeeded in setting up the ability for empirical investigation via measurements, which Aspect and others carried out.
However, the problem about interpretation and in what way (if any) relativity is "violated" remains open because
1) experiments like those of Aspect are too closely tied with theoretical frameworks within quantum field theory and the accompanying formalism (the specifications on the system are set to begin with by transcribing them into a probability function (wavefunction), which means that it's very difficult to seperate the mathematical models and what's actually happening
&
2) GTR is just as successful (and in far more measurable ways) at describing physical reality and has just as much empirical support as QM.
It was maintained by its proponents of classical physical view as direct proof against quantum physics by logically showing through reductio-ad-absurdum that quantum physics was absurd(flawed or incomplete) Well, the violation of Bells experiment has proven them wrong: The classical view has been falsified. There are no two ways of thinking of this: Einstein was wrong, period.
You clearly haven't read enough about this. Einstein (or EPR) were the first to show that QM entailed nonlocality.
That was their "reductio-ad-absurdum" proof. The "absurd" result was nonlocality. Bell also tried to prove that locality underlay all realigy, and ended up (like EPR) showing the opposite (more or less).
The results we now understood is there is no separability actually in reality i.e., no space-time geometry and no discreet particular entities and probably no reality either.
You've asserted many times that this (and things like it) have been demonstrated over and over again. You haven't, however, said
how they have been demonstrated. And, as you asserted that Einstein was wrong (when it was his thought-experiment which first demonstrated that QM entailed nonlocality), I wonder if you actually know how.
So, here's a rather fundamentally important thing for you to demonstrate, given your claims (and how much at odds with the work and opinion of physicists they are):
We have certain experimental evidence which supports that nonlocality of some sort is in some way entailed in quantum field theory. We have at least as much evidence (and evidence which is far less dependent on the mathematical models used) supporting relativity. The
only evidence we have that the relativity is flawed or wrong comes from the results of measurements taken at a level at which nothing can be measured directly and any measurement determines the result. This is not true of the evidence for relativity.
So, given that:
More tests have been devised and conducted
which in some way support nonlocality, but these again are all intricately tied to the mathematical formalism and theoretical framework used by the researchers, and meanwhile GTR continues to be supported by every other method of experimentation and observation we have,
why do you suggest it is relativity which should be discarded? What about the QM experimental results has you (rather than physicists) convinced that all the support for relativity is spurious?