>Quantum entanglement is different though than the classical case you describe. There is no classical correlation that is as strong as the quantum correlations.

>Quantum entanglement is different though than the classical case you describe. There is no classical correlation that is as strong as the quantum correlations. That's what Bell proved in his theorem: if you only have local interactions and assume that the two systems are correlated and actually already have the states really and we are simply ignorant of them, then the amount of correlation you get between the two systems is smaller than the amount of correlation that quantum mechanics predicts, and the amount verified by quantum experiments. First of all, I kind agree with you. After all, the experimental observation of the violation of the Bell inequality is a landmark win for the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and it is undeniable. Also, the gloves example is just a particular case of "Bell's theorem experiment" with sensors aligned along the quantization axis of the conserved observable being measured (Measuring Sz in superposition of |+>z and |->z, for example). Second, I used this example to simply say that "there can be correlations without the need to transfer information" at superluminal speeds. That is, entanglement either quantum or classical is not incompatible with general relativity nor non-local. >I don't see what the measurement problem has to do with locality. In the way I understand Bell's theorem (keeping statistical independence), it mainly tells us that i) if there is a hidden variables theory that explains QM results, it needs to be non-local. And, ii) if there is not a hidden variables theory, the state prior to the measurement is truly indetermined in the sense that we are not simply ignorant of the true state. For me, ii) introduces non-locality in the sense that measuring one entangled particle will change the state of particle 2 irrespectively of time-space separation. You can say that there is no such a thing "state of particle 2" there is just the "entangled state". But this, in turn, invites the discussions of "physicness", "realness", etc of "states" and "wavefunctions". Which seem to be sidestepped due to the overwhelming success of the theory. >The problem with measurement is more that it is non-unitary. I am not aware of the consequences of this. If not too bothersome, could you discuss possible (EDIT: possible consequences that impact) experimental results of this? Thanks