[Doctor Stochastic]

Physicist could explain it much better. What happens is that correlations are different in QM than in the ordinary Boolean algebraic interpertations of probability theory.

For example, one might put either the Spade Ace or Heart Queen in a sealed mayonaise jar and place it on the steps of Funk and Wagnalls; the other card would be placed in sealed envelope and given to Price Waterhouse to place in a NASA launched space probe. If the mayonaise is later opened and has the Ace, one can be sure the probe has the Queen. One knows something about things far away, but there has been no information transmission.

Similar things happen with entangles states in QM. It's more complicated as the measurements are not as simply described as looking at a card.

[js1138]

Similar things happen with entangles states in QM. It's more complicated as the measurements are not as simply described as looking at a card.

The measurments are statistical, which prevents information transfer. At least that's what's being claimed.

[Physicist]

For example, one might put either the Spade Ace or Heart Queen in a sealed mayonaise jar and place it on the steps of Funk and Wagnalls; the other card would be placed in sealed envelope and given to Price Waterhouse to place in a NASA launched space probe. If the mayonaise is later opened and has the Ace, one can be sure the probe has the Queen. One knows something about things far away, but there has been no information transmission.

Actually, the ace and queen would be examples of local hidden variables. We would expect such correlations to respect Bell's Inequality, whereas quantum correlations do not. There really is no classical analog.

I wrote a layman's explanation of what Bell's Inequality is, and why its violation is so puzzling, but it's not as clear as I would like it to be.