You're misunderstanding his point, I think (or I'm being overly generous in interpreting him!). Though I admit he over-eggs it to a confusing degree. The two c

You're misunderstanding his point, I think (or I'm being overly generous in interpreting him!). Though I admit he over-eggs it to a confusing degree. The two coins metaphor illustrates the anti-correlation of two particles and why that doesn't allow faster-than-light communication. By observing one, you can deduce the other. Of course it isn't a metaphor for the whole process, such that you can derive implications from the metaphor that will hold in the quantum case. But the point of the 'spooky action at a distance' is that there is no metaphor based in classical physics that can do so. So physicists, and lecturers (in my limited experience) use metaphors to explain certain parts of the behavior. It's like when a physicist talks about a quantum being a wave or a particle. Both are metaphors from classical physics. It is neither, and both metaphors only illuminate very specific properties. The approach of saying 'that metaphor has been proved wrong', just leaves us with no way of explaining stuff. It is worth keep reinforcing that all metaphors are wrong, but your response seemed overly-negative to me.