The three papers presented below address key issues of the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of quantum mechanics (QM). The Copenhagen school accepts the probabilistic model, the principle of nonlocality and the duality of quantum particles. On the other hand, physicists of the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) school regard QI as an incomplete theory. It is through the experiments described in these papers that one can prove which of the two schools gives the correct description of quantum mechanics. It should be noted that the three articles are logically related, but each can also be considered independently.
The essence of the so-called solving experiment consists of the following: the four laser pulses received (cloned) are simultaneously located in the second interferometer (see Fig. 4.3 of „Interference experiments with coincident and time-delayed laser pulses“). Both the location of each of the four pulses and the time at which the pulse reaches the screen can be determined experimentally. Additional semi-transparent mirrors can be placed in each of the two arms of the interferometer to direct light to a second screen to observe (or not) an interference pattern (IP). These mirrors do not affect the main IR observed on the screen of Fig. 4.3.

Thus, it is clear that the uncertainty in the CI, which is considered mandatory in IC monitoring, does not actually affect the results. Furthermore, Paul Dirac's claim that the photon interferes with itself is refuted. This is because an interference pattern is observed only for the time-coincident second and third pulses, while it is absent for the first and fourth pulses. Since the conditions are exactly the same for all pulses and for every photon in them, the fact that the IC appears only for the second and third pulses shows that CI's requirements for indeterminacy, a probabilistic model, nonlocality, and self-interference of the photon are untenable.

In this way, the low-budget experiment under consideration proves which of the two models of interference discussed in the paper is workable, i.e. Einstein is right „God doesn't play dice“. See The animation OPTION - 4.5 on our personal website or on an alternative address in our YouTube channel, where the essence of the dynamic processes under consideration is clearly shown.