Exceeding the speed of light was not the purpose of that example sport.
The *spooky action* is the *great and observable* influence two objects are having on each other at billions of light years separation.
How does your space-time geometry hold up under those observations?
The collapse of wave functions (more properly state vectors) in entangled states can produce apparently nonlocal effects, but these nonlocal effects do not transmit material, and they do not transfer any information.
Apparently you say, LOL.
So you're saying that nothing, what so ever concerning their states, is transferred between distant entangled photons instantaneously at the point of wave function collapse, not talking in the least about using the phenomena for transfer of data or used for communication.
Sounds like if nothing gets transferred, the phenomena shouldn't exist and the results damn sure shouldn't be predictable, should be random, shouldn't it?
There's nothing spooky about it. Gravitons are being exchanged by the two masses, and it takes millions (or billions) of years for them to go from one to the other. It's no more spooky or mysterious than the little magnet I had that put iron filings on a cartoon guy's beard under a sheet of plastic in 1961.
How does your space-time geometry hold up under those observations?
It holds up just fine.
So you're saying that nothing, what so ever concerning their states, is transferred between distant entangled photons instantaneously at the point of wave function collapse
Actually, I said something quite the opposite. I said there are apparently nonlocal effects. Apparently means "evidently" or "manifestly." Quantum mechanics has nonlocal effects. Those effects always manifest themselves in ways that cannot be used to subvert Lorentz Invariance.
Sounds like if nothing gets transferred, the phenomena shouldn't exist and the results damn sure shouldn't be predictable, should be random, shouldn't it?
The results are not predictable. This is where you are mistaken, and this is why one cannot create a causality violating apparatus to send the information about the spin flip into the past.
There is also nothing "transferred" because the two photons in the EPR paradox are indistinguishable particles occupying a single quantum state. There is simply a state which consists of both of them. Were it otherwise, they would not be "entangled." When the state vector collapses, a measurement has been taken. Even though the state vector is now in an eigenstate of a particular spin direction, an observer watching the other particle at a different point in space time has no way of knowing that the state vector has collapsed without doing a measurement. That would have the same effect as collapsing the state vector himself, which is to say, there is no experiment a physicist could do (and equivalently, no material effect that could be demonstrated that would show) that the photon has in fact been tampered with by virtue of its entanglement.
This is all in the Copenhagen school. In the path integral formulation -- also favored by quantum field theorists -- there is a different interpretation of what is happening, but the ultimate result is the same. There is no exchange of information between the two photons. Again, if there were, we could use spin flipping to send boolean messages into the past.
Your belief that there is some "universal now" that all space-time points in the universe are sitting in "at this moment," leads you to a false conclusion because the concept of simultaneity is something which is very, very rigidly defined in the real universe. There is no "now" which consists of time alone. There is a now+where which defines a point in spacetime, and there is never a "now" without a specific "where." There is not an "instantaneous" collapse of the state vector at multiple places in the universe at the "same instant," because "at the same instant" has no meaning as applied to this event [in fact, it has almost no meaning as applied to any event, because different observers in different frames of reference differ on the question of events happening at "the same instant" even when the events are quite ordinary.]