Special Issue: Ever New "Loopholes" in Bell’s Argument and Experimental Tests

Contradictory results, arising from great theories of science and their experimental tests, have been the focus of intense discussions and seeds for progress of past and present scientific research. Perhaps one of the clearest examples for this fact has been presented by discussions of Einstein and Poincaré related to Euclidean geometry [1] and the apparent contradictions to its results by Einstein’s general relativity (which was confirmed by measurements of deflection of starlight by the sun during the 1919 total eclipse). How could Euclidean geometry be wrong as a mathematical-logical framework? The solution of this conundrum by Einstein and Poincaré is as follows. Any framework like Euclidean Geometry seen as a mathematical framework has as such nothing to do with nature. The axioms can be seen as definitions and, therefore, such a framework cannot contradict the experiments, because it has (in principle) nothing to do with the experiments. As such it also cannot contradict other mathematical-logical frameworks as long as these are only considered as such with axioms that again can be seen as definitions. A link to experimentsneeds tobe established that then extends the purely logical-mathematical theory to the objects of the physical reality and, therefore extends it to a physical science. This extension of Euclidean Geometry had been achieved by the introduction of the abso-