Are you always this highly strung?
Drach, that's Invitation to Flame War. This forum isn't moderated anymore, so you can get away with it here, but throw that question on another forum, and you'll draw an infraction.
"Entanglement was derived by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen 70 years before it could be tested, in 1935."
The Aspect experiment was carried out in 1981, so that would be only 45 years.
Also, I wouldn't call it a 'loophole', but rather a 'major yet previously unexplored feature'.
An experiment by Freedman and Clauser in 1972, following on the 1964 paper by Bell (which is itself an answer to the (in)famous EPR paper), was the first experiment testing these hypothesis. It showed evidence for the invalidity of local hidden variable theories. The Aspect experiments were much more famous though, especially the third one (of 3).
I'd like to mention that Einstein first developed general relativity without immediate evidence to back it up. He worked out (new) math for his theories and was convinced that it was right, using mostly intuition and a sense of esthetics. It was an extension of his special relativity, which was based on experiments -- it was a theory explaining observed fact, whereas general rel was not. He turned out to be right, except most notably for the addition of a 'cosmological constant', a mistake he made due to his intuition that he wanted a static universe. His intuition made him investigate QM, and he just plain believed that there was something wrong with the way it was set-up in the theories. He used a lot of his personal esthetic taste to make judgement calls in physics, being often right, and famously wrong in the case of QM. It's interesting to point this out, reminding us that no matter how you develop theories, they are as right as what they can predict, not how they look or appeal to the scientist.
Anyway, on a completely unrelated note I wanted to chime in on -
And that's confusing to neophytes. They don't know enough to understand what you mean. Math hasn't changed in hundreds of years. It's Physics' theorems that have changed. Physics will change: the methods it uses to derive the equations to describe the universe will not.
Indeed, Math theorems are forever. The practice of Mathematics has changed significantly at least twice in the last 300 years.
(Spoilered, because tangential at best to the H-K discussion.)
The first comment, about questionable word choices, was fine. The second was not.
This is exactly my point about QM. It strikes human beings as fundamentally wrong. Things are not in two places at once. The cat can't be both alive and dead. The world is certain, not probabilistic. That's what we instinctively believe. But the world is probabilistic, and that's why QM stuck around. Because it was correct. As strange and counterintuitive and bizarre as it is, the equations make successful predictions time and time again. And since that is what science is for, accurately describing the behavior of the world we see around us, QM succeeded. Because aesthetics don't matter. Being right does.
If something changes you might have a reason to turn back, but without a good reason, it won't happen.
We don't know much about how Fate decides things besides will of the author, but Delphie mentioned a debt that had to be repaid. In all likelihood, Fate probably wanted Wanda to work for Olive for a while. A better loophole might have been to find some way to cripple Olive somehow. It's not like loyalty and duty would have stopped Wanda, given what Olive's like. Quite the contrary, those would have encouraged it.
Man, talk about croakamancy.