I showed this article to a friend of mine who did a PhD in physics at Cambridge. Here's what he had to say:
The entanglement arguments against relativity are fairly silly. From that article, looks like Scientific American is going the way of the New Scientist. :( Absolutely no mention of Everett and his MWI (editor's note: multiple worlds interpretation) in the article I notice. Even though that's the most obviously straightforward way of keeping special relativity, locality, quantum mechanics and accounting for the Aspect experiment. Basically Bell's theorem that is supposed to prove non-locality makes a subtle assumption called "counter-factual definiteness", which implies among other things that experiments have definite outcomes. Obviously it's violated by MWI. Really it's only Bohmian mechanics that's non-local and arguably not consistent with SR. Though Bohm adherents often claim that Copenhagen must be non-local by Bell's theorem, they misunderstand the fact that the wavefunction in CI is really an epistemic device and wavefunction collapse isn't thought to be a genuine physical occurrence except by a very small minority. CI when viewed in this way doesn't satisfy counter-factual definiteness either.
The article doesn't say what's new about the authors' ideas. You'd expect it to mention the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics - it isn't news that the Aspect experiment can be explained if measurements affect things that happened earlier.
The entanglement arguments against relativity are fairly silly. From that article, looks like Scientific American is going the way of the New Scientist. :( Absolutely no mention of Everett and his MWI (editor's note: multiple worlds interpretation) in the article I notice. Even though that's the most obviously straightforward way of keeping special relativity, locality, quantum mechanics and accounting for the Aspect experiment. Basically Bell's theorem that is supposed to prove non-locality makes a subtle assumption called "counter-factual definiteness", which implies among other things that experiments have definite outcomes. Obviously it's violated by MWI. Really it's only Bohmian mechanics that's non-local and arguably not consistent with SR. Though Bohm adherents often claim that Copenhagen must be non-local by Bell's theorem, they misunderstand the fact that the wavefunction in CI is really an epistemic device and wavefunction collapse isn't thought to be a genuine physical occurrence except by a very small minority. CI when viewed in this way doesn't satisfy counter-factual definiteness either.