I'm aware that it is a great puzzle, which mountain is the actual Biblical Mount Sinai. I've looked at some photos on the Internet and the photos of Mount Serbal seem to me to be an exact match.
I can picture the Biblical Mount Sinai most clearly in my mind, the base encampment, the path Moses took, the rock cleft where he stood to view God's glory pass by, the place where he received the Commandments (not on the very top peak) and finally, where he is entombed. Lacking being there in person to see and relying on the photos I've seen, Mount Serbal is just as I would expect it to look as the Biblical Mount Sinai. Where God met with Moses it was not as "squished" and steep as modern people imagine, and how the other proposed locations look in their photos, which is all wrong compared to how I recall it in my mind's eye.
Just a note on what I see is a reference that the historian Josephus is said to have written that Biblical Mount Sinai is the "highest" mountain peak. If he said this (I'm not curious enough to look it up), then he was in error. He simply assumed, as most would, using human points of view that God would select the "highest" mountain. That is not Biblically correct nor how God has manifested on all other occasions. God, for example, appeared to Moses in a burning bush, not the "tallest tree in the land." God would select a place where the Israelites could safely encamp, and where Moses could reach him without incredibly undue strain. So it's a human flaw that they assume that God would pick the highest peak around as a reflection of his glory. I mean, even the highest peak in the world is less than a pimple to God in the fullness of his creation, no? So God selected friendly terrain to the Israelites, a mountain, yes, but one that was quite humble when it was not encased in the glory of God's presence. The tradition about Mount Serbal had it right.