bangstrom

In one observation, we can know that one quantum property of particle B, has gone from indeterminate to determinate. If you have two entangled electrons A and B, the first observation is random, spin-up or spin-down, and the quantum properties of both electrons are indeterminate (superimposed). If particle A is observed first as spin-up that simultaneously and non-locally fixes the spin of particle B as spin down. With repeated experiments we can determine that the observation of particle B has also gone from random to fixed by the observation of electron A and the loss of entanglement.. The FTL nature of the transaction can not be discovered until a later analysis of the timing has been made. That doesn’t mean that there was no FTL transaction between the particles just because we can’t observe it as FTL until a later time. The no-communication theorem says you can not clone quantum properties but you can ‘clone’ or copy a single property but not all so QM allows for more probabilities than the classical model. I see Bell’s explanation as similar to the coin toss example. In the classical view, a coin can be heads on one side and tails on the other. It can also be heads green and tails red. So, if the heads side is is up, the green side is up also. The Bell test rules out the classical model because it allows for more probabilities than the classical model. A coin colored red and green can land heads-red or heads-green or tails-red and tails-green. In QM, each quantum property is random when observed and not necessarily fixed from the start or directly connected with all the other properties. Also, Einstein died in 1955 roughly a decade before Bell and Aspect' experiments invalidated the EPR effect so Einstein's view and the EPR do not serve as guides for understanding modern QM. This is exactly like the old saying, ‘It hasn’t happened until it is reported on TV.’ The classical communication channel needs non-local teleportation to come first or there would nothing to observe. Invalidated? Yes, the EPR effect certainly was invalidated. The EPR effect was Einstein et al.’s hypothesis and the EPR was invalidated by experiments involving the Bell test. The EPR was Einstein’s objection to non-locality- “Spooky action at a distance”. So what you said is true but contrary to your claim, “The QM depiction of the world that Einstein thought was too absurd to be true, turns out to be true.” Einstein and his EPR effect with no “Spooky action” were demonstrated as wrong and non-locality that Einstein found absurd was demonstrated to be true. In Zeilinger’s book ‘Dancing’ chapter “Atomic Sources of Entanglement and Early Experiments”, Zeilinger said, “The results of Clauser and Freedman’s experiment, published in 1972 , clearly showed that Bell’s inequality was violated. The world is nonlocal, concluded most physicists. But that, as we discussed already, is not the only possible interpretation.” He goes on the mention an experiment at Harvard that showed there was no violation of Bell’s inequality. Clauser later repeated the experiment hoping to demonstrate that local realism was valid but his results demonstrated that the Harvard experiment was in error and local realism was indeed violated. Zeilinger then goes on to explain how later more precise experiments confirmed that local realism was violated confirming non-locality. So the EPR effect was violated, dead and buried. Realism and locality are parts of the same thing. Zeilinger gave up local realism and locality and accepted the existence of non-locality. Quoting passages serves two purposes. It allows me to reexamine my personal views to see if they actually conform to what I think author says and it allows the reader to do the same and clear up any misconceptions that may arise. I find that better than the practice frequently used here of repeating unsupported personal opinions as if they were fact. That only means you have an opinion. In Zeilinger’s book ‘Dancing’ chapter “Atomic Sources of Entanglement and Early Experiments”, Zeilinger said, “The results of Clauser and Freedman’s experiment, published in 1972 , clearly showed that Bell’s inequality was violated. The world is nonlocal, concluded most physicists. But that, as we discussed already, is not the only possible interpretation.” He goes on the mention an experiment at Harvard that showed there was no violation of Bell’s inequality. Clauser later repeated hoping to demonstrate that local realism was valid but his results demonstrated that the Harvard experiment was in error and local realism was indeed violated. That is Zeilinger’s argumentation for non-locality. Sigh... Using 'action' again. "Action" was Einstein's word and often repeated by others. It has become a well understood cliché . Einstein et al. found non-local interaction at a distance too absurd to be true but the experiments of Aspect Clauser and others demonstrated it's reality. That was fifty years ago so it should not be news to anyone.

I would say we still have local reality for non-entangled particles but non-locality and instant action at a distance for entangled particles. I have no problem with your use of math and others might appreciate it. I have studied a lot of math but always found it difficult and tedious. I never had any use for it and I have largely repressed the experience. Perhaps non-locality is not implied, but non-locality is the best alternative and it works when needed. Relativistic causality works in most instances but not for quantum entanglement. The violation of local realism and relativistic causality when non-local entanglement is involved leaves us with non-locality where a local change can instantly result in a change at a remote location. “Spooky action at a distance”. Probability amplitudes may be the heart of the problem. The violation of local realism and relativistic causality when non-local entanglement is involved leaves us non-locality where a local change can instantly result in a change at a remote location. “Spooky action at a distance”. That is what happens with Zeilinger’s quantum teleportation except that it does not make anything disappear but it does make something instantly appear ‘over there’. The indeterminate state of an entangled particle instantly becomes determinate, but in this case it is not random, The quantum identity of the remote particle becomes identical to that of the particle inserted into the ‘teleporter’ to use a familiar but incorrect word. For example, if you have two entangled particles AB and particle A is then sent far away to a remote location while B remains at home, then a second entangled pair CD can be created and particle C can be entangled with particle B so you have a three-way entanglement. At Alice’s location D-(CB) ----------------A Bob’s location If Alice observes the quantum state of particle D, the indeterminate properties (superposition) of all the particles instantly be determinate in a cascade of anti-correlated states. If D is +, C is -, B is +, and distant A is -. The observation of D is random and not fixed from the start. If Alice observed the quantum state of D as - , the entire cascade would be in reverse. The thing to note here is that the later entanglement of C with B to create the entangled state (CB) makes (CB) a sort of ‘teleporter’ such the the quantum state of C also becomes the quantum state of A. To a naive observer of the events, it appears that particle C enters the (CB) ‘teleporter’ and instantly appears at the remote location A. This sort of identity swapping violates both local realism and relativistic causality which are based on macro level observations but they do not apply to what is observed with entangled particles. We know from local reality that the Eiffel tower is in Paris and the leaning tower is in Pisa but in QM we never know which of an entangled particle is where until it is observed. Their ‘location’ is indeterminate and random until observed.

The no-communication theorem deals with FTL communication at the macro level but not at the quantum particle level. That is a different issue. We can’t observe the wave function but we can observe the changes that appear after the wave function is lost. This is hubris. Swansont knows more about QM than you, me, and Joigus together. Swansont’s claims like those of joigus may be logical and consistent with the EPR effect but they are 50 years behind what we now understand about QM. The EPR effect was invalidated long ago by the Bell test and has been repeatedly invalidated ever since. Most notably by those who just won the Nobel. The two are necromancing with the EPR and that is what I can't accept. Again you do not understand quite what Zeilinger is saying here, and his viewpoint later in the chapter. I italicized the words. Zeilinger does not talk about events 'influencing' events in the past. He is saying that our interpretation of the experiment is different. Alice's measurement occurring before Bob's measurements, or after his measurements are different experiments, i.e. we need different interpretations of the experimental situation. Agreed, it is interpretation- not influencing- but that still that makes Alice an agent of change whether the experiment involves going forward or backward in time. Locality still applies in QM but quantum entanglement is an exception. Experts in any field rarely discuss the long established basics of their work so quotes from experts are hard to find. That job is left to the second tier experts and science journalists.

Where does Zeilinger dismiss #5? From my reading he appears to be leaning in favor of actions to the past. That is, excluding actual EM signals to the past. We can send signals to the future but not the past. "Another logically possible position would be to presume that the individual particles act back into the past, From that point of view, they would influence the the source, back in the past, with which properties to emit each particle. It is again obvious that such a position would mean a very radical rewriting of our views of space and time." Also, quantum entanglement extends both forward and backward in time. The instant loss of entanglement can appear as being either forward or backward in time depending upon from which end you are acting as an observer. How do we know quantum states are correlated if they can't be measured? Also, can you define what you mean by non-locality?

With a single particle, entanglement of course plays no role at all. I think of locality as a single particle responding to its local environment. Another particle remote from the first can also respond to its local environment. But, if an event in one location instantly changes an event in a distant location with no apparent connection, the action is non-local. For a little history, as I recall Feynman mentioned in QED that a single photon can not interfere with itself but when a single photon passes through a double slit it unexpectedly produces an interference pattern. Feynman’s explanation was that it was able to interfere with photons that passed through the slit in the past and photons that that will pass through the slit in the future. Feynman’s explanation was too strange for popular consumption but a better version survives in other present day theories such as John Cramer’s TIQM (not my favorite) with advanced and retarded waves that must make a non-local connection between one charged particle in the present, usually an electron, and a similar particle in the past before a quantum of energy called a ‘photon’ can be transacted into the future This means we can send a light signal to the future but not to the past, however a connection extending back to the past is a necessary prerequisite for sending a message into the future. A bit of speculation about this from the 1920’s was that a universe containing nothing but a tea kettle of hot water could never cool because there would be nothing to receive its energy. Zeilinger appears to be open to the idea of present influencing the past and Wheeler and Feynman agreed that the usual quantum theory can be interpreted in terms of direct interaction between an emitter and absorber. These views require a non-local connection ‘instant’ between the past and present. From p. 234 of Zeilinger's book "Dancing of the Photons" REALITY VS INFORMATION First Alice made an observation on her end of an entangled state and later Bob made an observation on his end. From Bob's view, his observation was the first and Alice's came later. ”The interesting point is that in the end we will, for Bob’s results, present a different interpretation depending on what Alice at a later time decides to do. She may decide to do a Bell-state measurement, or she might decide to do a measurement on each photon on its own, there is even an infinite zoo of possibilities in between. Depending on what Alice decides to do, the results registered earlier by Bob, the events that already happened, acquire a very different meaning." Or from p. 287 “Another logically possible position would be to presume that the individual particles act back into the past, From that point of view, they would influence the the source, back in the past, with which properties to emit each particle. It is again obvious that such a position would mean a very radical rewriting of our views of space and time." I find this radical view of space and time to be what is known as ‘Block Universal' time. For one thing, Block time conforms what Minkowsky said about about the inseparability of space and time. I like to think of the little squares in a Minkowsky diagram as little ‘time zones’ where moving through space is simultaneously moving through time. Anything distant from our perspective is also distant from us in time. This view is also consistent with SR where simultaneous events separated by space are always observed as separated by time at the constant rate of one second for every 300,000 km of distance. This is why, non-local events of quantum entanglement can never be used for FTL signaling. We only see events separated by distance as also separated by time.

The interaction is instant and non-local. I explained before how they interact, and if you found my explanation unsatisfactory, I agree that it was. I can also explain how I really think it works but that would just be just another speculation about the un-observable. This is the mainstream explanation again and you can take it or leave it, or better yet, look it up for yourself. It is easy to find. Entangled particles are in a state of superposition prior to the first observation. That means that they both share the same quantum properties and they can’t be considered as separate. With the first observation the quantum state of the observed particle randomly becomes determinate and the quantum of the state of the other particle instantly becomes both determinate and anti-correlated with its formerly entangled partner. There is no need for a communication or signal to pass between the particles. When entanglement is instantly lost the quantum properties of the particles on both ends instantly appear and the action is non-local.

Not so fast. He says "abandon local realism." Abandoning faithful Stalinism does not imply abandoning faithfulness, does it? I have never taken “abandon local realism” to be a statement about anything beyond quantum entanglement. Entangled particles interact non-locally while observed particles behave locally. There is a possibility that the quantum world is far more chaotic and non-local for us to make any sense of it but three billion years of bio-evolution have trained us to be selective in our observations and to see only the parts of this chaos that pertain to our survival. To find food, avoid danger and reproduce. I am not bothered that Hilbert space does not allow for non-locality as long as it stays away from my space. Quantum teleportation is not like Star Track in that only quantum identities are transported and not the particles themselves. ‘Quantum identities’ is the term I find commonly used, possibly, because only single identities are being observed and ‘quantum properties’ refers to the whole shebang. Also, quantum teleportation is not the same as qubit teleportation. Quantum teleportation involves a difficult to obtain three way entanglement involving four entangled particles. Like A-(BC)-D.

We can both agree that quantum entanglement can not be used for FTL communication. I think we have both agreed on that from the start and I have never stated otherwise. I see several minor points of disagreement with your previous post but there is one major misunderstanding that I was slow to pick up on because I thought it was too apparent to need clarification. It is in the quotes below. (Zeilinger again, with my boldface.) This is not correct. I think I've proved it. People who don't (or didn't) think quantum mechanics forces you to give up on locality: To say that QM is non-local means that it includes the possibility of non-locality as an explanation for observations at the particle level. It does mot mean that anyone is "forced" to give up on locality. That doesn't even make sense. This is not an either-or situation where to recognize non-locality at the particle level means that there is no locality anywhere. QM works perfectly well at the local level for most circumstances I understand that to mean that that we can abandon locality at the single particle level. Obviously that does not mean that we are forced to abandon locality altogether. Zeilinger to recognizes non-locality at the particle level and he is not ambivalent about it.

Did you read your own quote? I underlined the part you failed to understand. Classical information, that is person to person type of communication, can not be faster than light but quantum transactions among particles are the exception. This is the level where non-local interactions take place. Here is a quote from Anton Zeilinger's book. " Nearly all physicists agree that the experiments have shown that local realism is an untenable position. The viewpoint of most physicists is that the violation of Bell's inequality shows us that quantum mechanics is nonlocal. This nonlocality is exactly what Albert Einstein called "spooky"; it seems eerie that the act of measuring one particle could instantly influence the other one." From "Dance of the Photons" p. 286 Quantum teleportation involves measuring one particle and instantly teleporting the quantum identity of one particle to another particle that may be a considerable distance away. This involves a difficult to achieve three way entanglement among at least four entangled particles but it is a real life, repeatedly demonstrated experiment. And the fact that it can not be used for human FTL communication does not detract from the fact that it is a real effect. Yes, but this has nothing to do with quantum teleportation.

This was helpful because, if you knew anything about quantum teleportation, you would know that Zurek's work was not quantum teleportation. I have been trying to explain how quantum teleportation gives real life experimental support to the speculation behind the Bell Test and its violation of the EPR effect and how it clearly demonstrates non-locality. I even explained how Zeilinger’s quantum teleportation works in case there was anyone not familiar with the experiment itself. Apparently you were one of those who knows nothing about quantum teleportation which is why you were so confused by my explanations. Quantum teleportation and the Quantum Eraser Experiment have been large in the news about advances in QM in both technical journals and the pop-sci press for many years but you apparently have no awareness of either one. Your statement about how nobody believes in non-locality anymore was surprisingly out of touch with the present day reality. Quantum teleportation is one of the most appropriately named experiments because the name itself tells what it is about. When you said quantum teleportation was a misnomer, that made me suspect you didn't know what quantum teleportation was. Now that Zeilinger has won the Nobel we will all be hearing a lot about non-locality and quantum teleportation so this is your chance to become better informed.

I am not familiar with Ctrl+F and I did read through the entire transcript of the video and the quote wasn't there. It was six feet down in the comments which I didn't bother to read. I found the origin of the quote and Sabina's quote, "Wot? The correlations are greater than those allowed by a deterministic, local theory, not by quantum mechanics." and that did confirm my suspicion that the comment was in reverse of her claim in the video. Unfortunately, it was not clear from the original post who was saying what. Of course, you don't. How could you? I followed the video, What is your excuse? You must have an entirely different definition of 'non-locality' from mine which I defined earlier. So I will ask again, How do you define 'non-locality'? Also, you said quantum teleportation is a misnomer from what it is "actually" So I will ask again, What is quantum teleportation "actually" or at least explain why you think it is a misnomer?

Did you actually read it? It ain't there.

If you quote authorities, the least you could do is listen carefully to what they're saying. I get it. Quantum mechanics seems to be non-local. But actually, it is and it is not. That's why some people choose to say it is non-local. Sweet. Sabina H. is saying in the quote above that non-locality does not work at the macro level so we can’t fly from place to place non-locally. In other words, it doesn’t work like teleportation on ‘Star Trek’. There is nothing “observably” traveling non-locally. If we could observe something traveling from point to point it would necessarily be traveling locally. Non-locality implies that there is no observable transition in the points between. The quantum properties are indeterminate and non-local prior to the first observation, and with that, the loss of entanglement. That is when the eigenstates appear and, from that point on, observations and consequences are local. I don’t see how your view that QM is local can be found in the video. Here is another quote from Sabina H. “So this is why quantum mechanics is said to be non-local. Because you have these correlations between separated particles that are stronger than they could possibly be if the state had been determined before measurement. Quantum mechanics, it seems, forces you to give up on determinism and locality. It is fundamentally unpredictable and non-local.” I see now the quote was from a commenter outside this forum, but still, it looks bass ackward.

In QM, the quantum properties are indeterminate prior to the first observation. Experimental results showing a violation of the Bell test have done away with determinism and locality. Non-locality in QM remains as the default explanation. Where did this quote come from? It looks bass ackward to me. In tests of Bell's inequalities the QM model predicted more possible correlations than the classical model. Can someone verify the quote?

I haven't post much in this thread as I view it as a non-argument. However can you tell me how and why those two sentences of yours from your last post do not directly contradict each other ? 1) says "The mainstream view is that non locality has been demonstrated" 2) says " the vast majority do not think non-locality is real" There was no do "not" in my statement so the statements do not contradict. The "not" is your addition. The first sentence reads, "So, oddly enough, quantum mechanics is entirely local in the common meaning of the word." OK, there is locality in the “common” meaning of the word but physicists have a deeper understanding of the events in which the observed events are non-local. That's what QM really means as Hossenfelder explains in the the next sentence. "When physicists say that it is non-local, they mean that particles which have a common origin but then were separated can be stronger correlated than particles without quantum properties could ever be. I know this sounds somewhat lame, but that’s what quantum non-locality really means." You are reading something into the quotes that is not there. 1. Non-locality (FTL) does not imply causation. 2. Is OK 3. The correlations are confirmed and can be explained classically. The coin flips for example. Correlations are not exclusively a property of QM so the observation of correlations supports the classical view as well. In QM the absence of determinism prior to the first measurement (ruled out by the Bell test) can not be explained without non-locality.

The mainstream view among physicists is that non-locality has been demonstrated as ‘real’ with few contrary opinions such as those of Gell-Mann or Kracklauer. With the exception of those two, the vast majority remaining are the ones that do think non-locality is real. Another commonly held view is that any electron can establish a non-local resonant connection with any other electron on the same light cone with retarded and advanced potentials going both forward and backward in time. Carver A. Mead explains this in his book, “Collective Electrodynamics.” And the same idea can be traced back to the old Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory so this is nothing new. The experiments done by Carver Mead or Anton Zeilinger could not work as they do if it were not for non-local interactions. Here is a video by Sabina Hossenfelder about non-locality. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nonlocality%2C+sabina+hossenfelder "Understanding Quantum Mechanics #3 Non-Locality" Done read "Feynman's QED and got the T shirt. The mainstream view among physicists is that non-locality has been demonstrated as ‘real’ with few contrary opinions such as those of Gell-Mann or Kracklauer. With the exception of those two, the vast majority remaining are the ones that do think non-locality is real. Another commonly held view is that any electron can establish a non-local resonant connection with any other electron on the same light cone with retarded and advanced potentials going both forward and backward in time. Carver A. Mead explains this in his book, “Collective Electrodynamics.” And the same idea can be traced back to the old Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory so this is nothing new. The experiments performed by Carver Mead or Anton Zeilinger could not work as they do if it were not for non-local interactions.

When the work is really "ground breaking", Iggy Nobel wastes no time to pick a winner. The tardigrade experiment is an Ig Nobel prize winner for sure.

I could cite any number of authorities who find entanglement and non-locality as valid. This is the mainstream view since it has been established experimentally. The burden of proof is on the person, you, making the extraordinary position. I can name one more who might agree with Gell-Mann and Susskind and that is A.F. Kracklaurer. Can you name another? That’s a great idea for a new experiment. I can supply the tardigrades. If you pass a single particle through a single slit, it produces an interference pattern due to diffraction.If you pass a single particle through a double slit it produces a double slit interference. If you try again with 3,4 or 5 slits, you get increasingly complex interference patterns. How does a single particle passing through multiple slits ‘know’ how many slits are to its left or right so it can land in the proper position with the appropriate pattern? There must be something non-local going on. Experimentally it is possible to select a detector to make the first measurement. The timing is much like it is done at the track. This is serious physics. I suspect next year this will announced as a winner of the Ig Nobel prize. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.07978 Entanglement between superconducting qubits and a tardigrade K. S. Lee, Y. P. Tan, L. H. Nguyen, R. P. Budoyo, K. H. Park, C. Hufnagel, Y. S. Yap, N. Møbjerg, V. Vedral, T. Paterek, R. Dumke Quantum and biological systems are seldom discussed together as they seemingly demand opposing conditions. Life is complex, "hot and wet" whereas quantum objects are small, cold and well controlled. Here, we overcome this barrier with a tardigrade -- a microscopic multicellular organism known to tolerate extreme physiochemical conditions via a latent state of life known as cryptobiosis. We observe coupling between the animal in cryptobiosis and a superconducting quantum bit and prepare a highly entangled state between this combined system and another qubit. The tardigrade itself is shown to be entangled with the remaining subsystems. The animal is then observed to return to its active form after 420 hours at sub 10 mK temperatures and pressure of 6×10−6 mbar, setting a new record for the conditions that a complex form of life can survive.

The random probability is lost at the instant the first measurement is made and I understood that many years ago. What about my view do you think is “classical”? Which came first has been done in other experiments and that is how we know the first observation matters. In the Geneva experiment, they made the timing of events as close to instant as possible on both ends to measure the speed of decoherence. It made no difference which came first. Entanglement and violating causality may well be two different things. In the past I considered entanglement at the macro level to be impossible but some experimenters have claimed to have achieved entanglement at the level of Buckey balls and even tardigraves. I will wait for the experiments to discover how far up the scale entanglement can go.

I see no contradiction between R. and v>c with the exception of Einstein's Second Postulate which is a provisional statement and not a law of physics. We still have c in the body of R. and Maxwell's equations where it is a universal dimensional constant and not a speed. Well, I do not like your superposition business. If you read my quote, I don't like it either. I have no objections to answering direct questions and spend much doing the same. I have never considered Cramer’s theory to have anything to do with Superdetermism. My understanding is that SD considers the past and future to be like a movie in the projector and there is nothing we can do to alter our fates. In SD there is no such thing as free will. I don’t know if Cramer has ever stated his opinion about free will but his theory does imply a non-Newtonian sense of time much like the ‘Block Universe’ but I don’t find that to be necessarily deterministic. I am not aware of anything superluminal in the classical view with the exception of the recessional velocities of the very distant galaxies. This is not the newest experiment and the Chinese have done it better since but here is one citation from Eise. https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:37034 Experimental test of nonlocal quantum correlation in relativistic configurations In this experiment, a type of Bell test was performed near Geneva. Pairs of entangled photons were generated at a central location S and sent through fiber optic cables to widely separated locations: A and B. Detectors at A and B measured the polarity of the incoming photons simultaneously (< 5 ps) and found them to be anti-correlated. The intuitive explanation is that the polarities were present from the start and remained so until their detection. This possibility was ruled out by the violation of The Bell inequality so the old question becomes, 'How did the second photon to be detected 'know' it should be anti-correlated to the first if was detected before a light speed signal travel from one detection point to the other to 'inform' it of the polarity of the first? The < 5 ps was a far shorter time than a light speed signal could travel the distance between A and B so something superluminal appeared to be happening.

If you are looking for an argument form authority, I suggest you broaden sources. From my reading of the literature, non-locality is largely settled science and contrary views are far from the mainstream.

This is a highly irregular statement. QM permits superluminal signaling, and ‘signaling’ is a word frequently used. The classical view does not permit superluminal signaling. What are you saying about the superluminal nature of the transaction or non-signal signaling or whatever you choose to call it? The timing of the ‘whatever’ has been frequently measured in experiments to be superluminal so how can you claim superluminal is an illusion? What is quantum teleportation actually? If you tried to explain it before, that wasn't even close.

Because in this experiment, there is no direction all observers can agree upon. Detection1 can be the first for one observer, while for another observer Detection2 is the first. So there is no superluminal signal from one detection to the other, because a signal always has a direction. Hiding behind the vague word 'nature' does not help you. Yes, but that is from the human perspective. From the perspective of the experiment which is what I was referring to, the timing of events with clocks on both ends timed of the loss of entanglement as superluminal. A superluminal signal is not possible by classical means. I don't know if you could even call it a 'signal' because it is instant at all points and has no direction. I agree ‘properties’ is a better term but ‘identities’ is the term I first encountered in my readings on the topic and I think even Zeilinger now speaks of ‘identity swapping’. Good point but what word would you suggest?

Why do you say the experiment near Geneva rules out the superluminal nature of entanglement? There may be something 'causal' about the simultaneous loss of entanglement but it is not causal in the classical sense where a direct physical interaction is required. It is "spooky action at a distance." Zeilinger's work with quantum teleportation demonstrates a superluminal transaction where an action at the source of an entanglement instantly- that is much too fast to measure- affects the observation at the other end. I have also repeated numerous times that the particles have been correlated from the beginning. This is not the question. The correlated identities are not fixed from the start as with the gloves in boxes analogy where the left and right handed anti-correlation remains fixed from the start to finish such that the box with the right hand glove has always had the right hand glove and the box with the left hand glove has always had the left hand glove. This is the classical assumption. The tests of Bell’s inequalities suggest that more combinations are possible in QM than with the classical physics when more than a single pair of possibilities are considered. Think of boxes with left or right handed gloves that can also be red or blue. The possibilities are still anti-coordinated so you can never have two left handed gloves or two red gloves but there is no way of knowing which box is which, or if they have always remained the same. The conventional explanation is that the identities of the particles are both in a state of superposition with both gloves simultaneously being both left/right and red/blue identities like Schroedinger’s dead/alive cat until the first measurement is made and then their identities become determinate but always anti-coordinated. This defies our classical visualization. I think there must be a better explanation but the superposition explanation does work. In short, Bertlmann’s socks may always be anti-coordinated pink and blue but you never know if they were on his feet the same way all day or if rotated them about occasionally. Tests of Bell’s inequalities suggest that particle identities may be coordinated but their identities are not necessarily the same from the start. They are indeterminate until the first measurement is made.

You may call it a “communication” and I have no problem calling it a communication but officially it is not a communication because one qubit of information does not cross the threshold of being a communication since nothing intelligible can be understood from one qubit of information as defined by those working on quantum computers. Apparently, at the particle level, one qubit of information is all it takes for an ‘intelligible communication’ among other particles since particles ‘know’ how to respond. It may look like a communication to you and me but it is not officially defined as such. I suspect it may look like a ‘communication’ to the quantum computer people as well but if they call it a communication that puts their view at odds with Einstein’s Second Postulate about nothing being able to travel faster than light. If you and I agree to call it a communication, that puts us on the wrong side of the second postulate because it has been measured as a faster than light ‘communication’. That is OK by me. If I understand this so far, your coin example is local, (but not classical) in Hermitian space. But I see it as both local and classical in my observable space or Euclidean space, Newtonian space, Hamiltonian space, or Minkowsky space.