> I'm not sure you're clear on what we're actually disagreeing about. To be clear, I disagree with your claim that the QM description is not correct because i

> I'm not sure you're clear on what we're actually disagreeing about. To be clear, I disagree with your claim that the QM description is not correct because it leads to FTL communication. If you stand by that, you're wrong. If that's not what you meant, then there is no disagreement. Now, if I understand your latest comment, you say that it's "Only in a hypothetical case [...] where Bob has chosen N/4 particles at random and those just happen to coincide with the particles that Alice measured." This is like saying that two standard 52-card decks can be used for FTL communication, in the hypothetical case where Bob picks the same card that Aliced picked. If you think that is FTL communication I cannot agree with that. This kind of "FTL communication" doesn't present any problem at all for the QM description. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see in your description of the experiment any trace of potential FTL communication. You're not even trying! I would like to see something like the following (but I understand you cannot provide it, because it's impossible): 1) N EPR pairs are distributed 2) Bob does something ("selects N/4 particles at random and tests for first-order interference relative to P" or whatever) and concludes that "Alice has done something to her particles" or "Alice has not done anything to her particles" depending on the result of his measurement. [The prediction is done at this point, the verification step follows.] 3) Alice tells Bob if she did or not measure her particles before he did. Or Bob tells Alice his prediction. Or Alice and Bob tell Charlie and he performs the check. In any case, this requires slower-than-light communication. This experiment can be repeated several times to see if Bob's prediction is right every time or if at least there is some correlation between what Alice did and what Bob guessed. Your description has additional steps involving communication between Alice and Bob before there is any result or prediction. It is not in any way incompatible with the standard QM formulation that you reject, as far as I can see. It looks like if, in the card-picking example, Bob picks a card and then compares his card with Alice's card. If the card is the same they announce that FTL communication had been achieved. If the card is not the same, they try again. If you think this is not a fair characterisation, please make clear what prediction is Bob doing before communicating with Alice. To make my point as clear as I can once again: according to QM, Bob cannot tell if Alice has performed or not a measurement on her side. For any measurement that Bob can do on his particle, the predicted distribution of outcomes conditional on "the entanglement is broken, the particle is now in an unknown pure state" is exactly the same as the predicted distribution of outcomes conditional on "the entanglement is intact, the particle is not in a pure state (the pair A/B is still in the pure state E)". Whatever the outcome he gets out of his measurement, it cannot be evidence for one or the other.