The results of experiments like GHZ are what they are — if you have a non-paradoxical explanation for them, go for it!
I gave my own interpretation of quantum weirdness in #18 above. That explanation is not novel: it was well-known to physicists like John Wheeler and John Bell himself. I am certainly not a physicist; perhaps one of the SDMB’s physicists could do a service by better articulating that interpretation.
John Bell was, of course, himself a staunch advocate of hidden variable models—in fact, it was his analysis of his favorite hidden variable model, Bohmian mechanics, that drove him to discover his famous theorem: he noticed that Bohmian mechanics was unavoidably nonlocal, and conjectured that any hidden variable theory would have to be—which he then was able to prove.
Bohmian mechanics remains as viable as ever, both in regard to Bell’s argument, and versions like Hardy’s or the GHZ one.
It’s a typo.
–OP
I learn, for example on page 13 of this pdf paper, that “Bohmian mechanics provides a very elegant explanation” of the paradoxical GHZ experiment. But my eyes glaze over. Does the “elegant explanation” just boil down to “experimenters don’t have free will”?
I think it would be a great public service to present the “elegant explanation” in naive layman’s terms. 
Perhaps that’s impossible.
No, it’s got nothing to do with that. Bohmian mechanics simply includes action at a distance: the measurements selected at A and B, and their outcomes, change what’s going to be observed at C.
Are you saying that the box is bigger on the inside than its appearance would suggest or that what is inside exceeds what is outside it? As a metaphor for scientific knowledge and pursuit, that is pretty zeno-intriguing.
The explanation that Bohmian mechanics put forwards for some of the conceptual problems of QM are very elegant. Of course on the other hand I would say other ways it is not so elegant. This is standard for an interpretation though (I call it an interpretation rather than alternative as it re-creates the predictions of QM) as often they are conceived to tackle certain sets of conceptual problems.
OK. But what is that interpretation, elegant or otherwise, in simple layman’s terms? Half Man Half Wit mentions “action at a distance.” If event A creates two photons which then encounter events B and C respectively, my comment in #18 suggests that the “causality” chain is C–>A–>B. How is this different from “action at a distance”?
There is “action at a distance” in Bohmain mechanics, specifically the movement of a particle depends on the current positions of all particles within the larger non-seperable system of which it is a part, including measurement apparatus.
Just found this. Poke around, see what you find:Traditions and Transformations in the History of Quantum Physics
Third International Conference on the History of Quantum Physics, Berlin,
June 28 – July 2, 2010
Shaul Katzir, Christoph Lehner,
Jürgen Renn (eds.)
Ebook or PDF free download.
I actually would love to hear any comments on the contents from anyone here.