A Universe from Nothing?

[Polymath257]

Before the measurement is executed, the particles exhibit randomness; but at the moment of measurement, the entangled particles become synchronized, is that correct? If so, it means the act of measurement is causing a change from random behavior to synchronized behavior. There has been a change. This change is what Einstein was calling 'spooky action at a disttance'. He thought there was a hidden variable causing the spookiness.

And Einstein was wrong. Bell's inequalities and their violation show that there can be no hidden variables. The randomness is an aspect of QM: values for measurements are undetermined before the measurement. Often, they can be any of a range of values with fairly well determined probabilities for each.

 

[ChristineM]

So what does this really do for us besides. a possibly unhackable communications system?
QM seems to have no other particular use in everyday real life, so why all the hype on all the science websites?
It's a waste of time and effort to publish all those lies and fluff about it if it's of no use i REAL LIFE.
Does someone think they're gonna sell me something?
I'm not paying any more for the misinformation than just my normal monthly internet bull.

The semiconductor from the simple germanium point contact diode to multi core microprocessors found controlling the world (in effect) are only possible because of quantum effects.

They have already sold you something, the computing device you use to post.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, a measurement was done. That gave the entangled pair a definite value. They were *always* synchronized.

The value is the rate of spin?

 

[godnotgod]

And Einstein was wrong. Bell's inequalities and their violation show that there can be no hidden variables. The randomness is an aspect of QM: values for measurements are undetermined before the measurement. Often, they can be any of a range of values with fairly well determined probabilities for each.

My comment about hidden variables was meant to show that they were non-existent.

Aren't values for measurements undetermined for everything, and not just entangled objects?

 

[Polymath257]

The value is the rate of spin?

Direction.

My comment about hidden variables was meant to show that they were non-existent.

Aren't values for measurements undetermined for everything, and not just entangled objects?

Yes. The curious thing about entangled particles are that the values are correlated even while being 'random'.

 

[godnotgod]

Direction.

Yes. The curious thing about entangled particles are that the values are correlated even while being 'random'.

You said earlier that:

"...in QM, the particles have no definite value for their spin. They are guaranteed to be opposite, but the specific spin isn't determined."

Since the value is the direction of spin, which is always opposite, then what is it that is determined? It is already known that the spin is always opposite.

 

[Polymath257]

You said earlier that:

"...in QM, the particles have no definite value for their spin. They are guaranteed to be opposite, but the specific spin isn't determined."

Since the value is the direction of spin, which is always opposite, then what is it that is determined? It is already known that the spin is always opposite.

Yes. The value of the spin is either up or down for any direction. Before a measurement, the values are undetermined. Afterwards, they are determined *for that direction*.

I. For example (single particle),

A.if you measure the spin along the x-direction and select those that give 'up', and then measure along the y direction, the y-values will be random.
B. If you *don't* select a y value, and then measure x, it will be up.
C.If you *do* select a y value and then measure x, the x values will be random again.
D. If you do the second measurement along an axis NOT perpendicular to the first, the measurements will be random, but skewed, either towards up or down, depending on which axis you do the second measurement along.

II. For entangled particles, we assume the two particles are made with opposite spins (the most common case).
A. In the first measurement will give opposite values if the two measureless on the two sides are along the same axis So, if you measure along x on one side and get up, and x on the other side, you will be guaranteed to get down.
B. If the measurements on the other side are NOT along the same axis, those measurements are random, but skewed (in the same way second measurements are for one particle).
C. If you do the first measurement on both sides along the x axis, and select those with up spin on the right, and *then* measure along the y axis, both sides will be random and not correlated. After the first measurement, the entanglement is destroyed (this is part of why quantum computers are difficult to build).

 

[godnotgod]

After the first measurement, the entanglement is destroyed...

Here is an excerpt from a discussion on Stack Exchange:

Q: Why does measuring the spin of an entangled particle cause it to become unentangled?

A: The answer is simple: measurement causes the wave-functions to collapse.

It can be said that one of the fundamental properties that makes Quantum mechanics so strange is the idea of superposition, which is the property that if you have two physically valid descriptions of a state, then it is physically just as valid for a system to be in any linear combination of both states at the same time (think Schrödinger's cat).

Entanglement is just a particular example of a superposition of states. For instance you can describe the spin of two particles as both being up or both being down. Entanglement is a state where they are in a superposition of both spins being up and both spins down at the same time.

Now if you make a measurement of the spin of one or both of the particles, then this will cause your superposition to collapse into being either both up or both down thus destroying the special superposition state that is the entangled state.

Why does measuring the spin of an entangled particle cause it to become unentangle?

Does this agree with what you said?

 

[Polymath257]

Here is an excerpt from a discussion on Stack Exchange:

Q: Why does measuring the spin of an entangled particle cause it to become unentangled?

A: The answer is simple: measurement causes the wave-functions to collapse.

It can be said that one of the fundamental properties that makes Quantum mechanics so strange is the idea of superposition, which is the property that if you have two physically valid descriptions of a state, then it is physically just as valid for a system to be in any linear combination of both states at the same time (think Schrödinger's cat).

Entanglement is just a particular example of a superposition of states. For instance you can describe the spin of two particles as both being up or both being down. Entanglement is a state where they are in a superposition of both spins being up and both spins down at the same time.

Now if you make a measurement of the spin of one or both of the particles, then this will cause your superposition to collapse into being either both up or both down thus destroying the special superposition state that is the entangled state.

Why does measuring the spin of an entangled particle cause it to become unentangle?

Does this agree with what you said?

Yes.

 

[Vouthon]

In terms of the Quantum Mechanics discussion, Anton Zeilinger and his team essentially torpedoed the "hidden local variable" argument by closing once-and-for-all a few outstanding loopholes (namely the detection and communication loopholes) in a set of experiments in 2015. (for which he and his colleagues were recently awarded the Bell Prize).

The experiments demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that when two entangled particles are spacelike separated at such a distance from one another that no signal could possibly connect them even at the speed of light, they do happen to be correlated and thus inexplicably "in communication", even though this seems impossible according to the constraints of classical physics in which particles are expected to be "local" rather than affected by action at a distance.

General Relativity and QM are not reconcilable at present which is why theorists working at the cutting-edge of fundamental physics are so desperate to formulate a testable theory of "quantum gravity" to reconcile Quatum Nonlocality and Chance on the one hand, with classical locality and realism/determinism, on the other.

It's such a complicated topic of discussion, though, since the greatest minds are still bemused by this conundrum.

There are interesting possible implications of this for the debate regarding a "beginning" to the universe and especially the question of the Big Bang singularity but its rather speculative at present given our limited understanding.

 

[godnotgod]

In terms of the Quantum Mechanics discussion, Anton Zeilinger and his team essentially torpedoed the "hidden local variable" argument by closing once-and-for-all a few outstanding loopholes (namely the detection and communication loopholes) in a set of experiments in 2015. (for which he and his colleagues were recently awarded the Bell Prize).

The experiments demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that when two entangled particles are spacelike separated at such a distance from one another that no signal could possibly connect them even at the speed of light, they do happen to be correlated and thus inexplicably "in communication", even though this seems impossible according to the constraints of classical physics in which particles are expected to be "local" rather than affected by action at a distance.

General Relativity and QM are not reconcilable at present which is why theorists working at the cutting-edge of fundamental physics are so desperate to formulate a testable theory of "quantum gravity" to reconcile Quatum Nonlocality and Chance with classical locality and realism/determinism.

It's such a complicated topic of discussion though since the greatest minds are still bemused by this conundrum.

There are interesting possible implications of this for the debate regarding a "beginning" to the universe and especially the question of the Big Bang singularity but its rather speculative at present given our limited understanding.

One of the discussions going on in both the world of science and consciousness studies is that of a Unified Field, which science calls it, and via various names in the spiritual community; ie; God, Brahman, Void, Ground of Being; etc. So to explain how two particles can seemingly interact one with the other without apparent signal, scientists are looking at how the particles are being created via energy fluctuations in the field. Some in the spiritual world are pointing to the idea of the universe as being a giant hologram. The researcher Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum, of the study I cited re: brain nonlocality, also says, in another paper, that when interference is removed, the subject and the matrix are one and the same. In scientific terms, it would be saying that the field and the particle are one and the same, just as wave and ocean are inseparable as one. Hinduism, for one, has said for centuries that 'Thou Art That', and Vedantist Vivekenanda says it this way: 'The Universe is The Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'.

One physicist claims to have reconciled GR to QM by approaching the question from the POV of the particle, which is the basis for everything, and so would apply to both views. See here:

 

[gnostic]

Brain to Brain
In 1965, researchers T. D. Duane and Thomas Behrendt decided to test anecdotal reports that identical twins share feelings and physical sensations even when far apart. In two of 15 pairs of twins tested, eye closure in one twin produced not only an immediate alpha rhythm in his own brain, but also in the brain of the other twin, even though he kept his eyes open and sat in a lighted room.3

The publication of this study in the prestigious journal Science evoked enormous interest. Ten attempted replications soon followed by eight different research groups around the world. Of the 10 studies, eight reported positive findings, published in mainstream journals such as Nature and Behavioral Neuroscience.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 In the late 1980s and 1990s, a team headed by psychophysiologist Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum at the University of Mexico published experiments that, like most of the previous studies, demonstrated correlations in the electroencephalograms (EEGs) of separated pairs of individuals who had no sensory contact with each other.14, 15, 16 Two of the studies were published in the prominent journals Physics Essays and the International Journal of Neuroscience, drawing further attention to this area.17, 18, 19 Experiments in this field became increasingly sophisticated. In 2003, Jiri Wackerman, an EEG expert from Germany's University of Freiburg, attempted to eliminate all possible weaknesses in earlier studies and applied a refined method of analysis. After his successful experiment he concluded, “We are facing a phenomenon which is neither easy to dismiss as a methodological failure or a technical artifact nor understood as to its nature. No biophysical mechanism is presently known that could be responsible for the observed correlations between EEGs of two separated subjects.”20

As functional magnetic resonance imaging brain-scanning techniques matured, these began to be used, with intriguing results. Psychologist Leanna Standish at Seattle's Bastyr University found that when one individual in one room was visually stimulated by a flickering light, there was a significant increase in brain activity in a person in a distant room.19 In 2004, three new independent replications were reported, all successful—from Standish's group at Bastyr University,18 from the University of Edinburgh,21 and from researcher Dean Radin and his team at the Institute of Noetic Sciences.22

References (see next post)

Wow.

So you have an excerpt of a book, that listed the sources for its bibliography, among others, that of Grinberg-Zylberbaum. None of which are peer-reviewed.

Most of those sources showed, are just some more of the same people who believe in the pseudoscience parapsychology, written by some other more-of-the-same quacks as Grinberg and Goswami, pretending to be scientists.

You know that graph you keep posting up, of the EEG of two people, in the claim of nonlocal communication.

Well, I would be more suitably impressed if the same number of authors listed in the “Brain to Brain” article, were neuroscientists independent of parapsychology nonsenses, were to examine and evaluate that graph.

As it stand, the majority of the sources are written by people who are just more of the same quacks.

 

[Polymath257]

The experiments demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that when two entangled particles are spacelike separated at such a distance from one another that no signal could possibly connect them even at the speed of light, they do happen to be correlated and thus inexplicably "in communication", even though this seems impossible according to the constraints of classical physics in which particles are expected to be "local" rather than affected by action at a distance.

The point is that the entanglement (and hence the correlation) are produced at some point in the past where the particles interacted (or were formed). The correlation is fixed then and propagates after that. No signal required. QM *is* a local theory! It just isn't a *realist* theory.

General Relativity and QM are not reconcilable at present which is why theorists working at the cutting-edge of fundamental physics are so desperate to formulate a testable theory of "quantum gravity" to reconcile Quatum Nonlocality and Chance on the one hand, with classical locality and realism/determinism, on the other.
.

It's a bit of a stretch now to say they are not reconcilable. String theory definitely reconciles them, but is very far from being tested. The issues with quantum gravity are NOT between locality vs non-locality. They *are* about how to deal with an underlying geometry that is random because of quantum fluctuations.

 

[godnotgod]

Wow.

So you have an excerpt of a book, that listed the sources for its bibliography, among others, that of Grinberg-Zylberbaum. None of which are peer-reviewed.

Wow.

Grinberg-Zylberbaum's experiments were published in the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays.

Most of those sources showed, are just some more of the same people who believe in the pseudoscience parapsychology, written by some other more-of-the-same quacks as Grinberg and Goswami, pretending to be scientists.

Amit Goswami
Biography
Mini Bio
Amit Goswami, Ph. D. is a retired professor from the theoretical physics department of the University of Oregon in Eugene, where he had served since 1968. He is a pioneer of the new paradigm of science called "science within consciousness".

Goswami is the author of the highly successful textbook Quantum Mechanics that is used in Universities throughout the world. His two volume textbook for nonscientists, The Physicist's View of Nature traces the decline and rediscovery of the concept of God within science.

Amit Goswami - Biography - IMDb
*****

Biography
Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum is/was a Mexican scientist, writer and psychologist. He studied Mexican shamanism, oriental disciplines, meditation, and telepathy through the scientific method. He wrote more than 50 books about these subjects.[1]

Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum was born in Mexico City in 1946. Grinberg decided to study the human mind when he was 12 years old, after his mother died from a stroke.[2] He studied psychology at the Science Faculty of UNAM.[3] In 1970, he went to New York City to study psychophysiology at the Brain Research Institute. He earned a Ph.D. at the E. Roy John Laboratory.[3]

When he went back to Mexico, he founded a laboratory of psychophysiology at the Universidad Anáhuac. He installed another laboratory of this kind in UNAM in the late 1970’s. He founded the Instituto Nacional para el Estudio de la Conciencia (INPEC) in 1987,[1] financed by UNAM and CONACYT. Jacobo published several of his books through INPEC.[3] Grinberg wrote more than 50 books about brain activity, witchcraft, shamanism, telepathy, and meditation.[1]

Jacobo tended to put his reputation as a scientist in danger when he tried to use the scientific method in shamanism studies.[4] He combined two in his professional work, always trying to understand the “magic world”.[1]

Jacobo Grinberg - Wikipedia
*****

Do these brief bios describe quacks pretending to be scientists who believe in pseudoscience? Please note that Grinberg has a Ph.D in psychophysiology, not parapsychology, and that Goswami was a full professor of Quantum Physics who wrote a textbook on the subject used around the world. You're just making up more crap, trying to set up straw men in order to knock them down to serve and reinforce your entrenched egoistic materialist paradigm, while completely ignoring the credibility of those you denigrate and downgrade in your feeble attempt at making them appear to be on the same level as carnie barkers and snake oil salesmen. Stop making up lies, gnostic. It's getting boring.


You know that graph you keep posting up, of the EEG of two people, in the claim of nonlocal communication.

Well, I would be more suitably impressed if the same number of authors listed in the “Brain to Brain” article, were neuroscientists independent of parapsychology nonsenses, were to examine and evaluate that graph.

I cited 4 researchers who replicated what the graph revealed. If you want more information, go fetch it yourself.

As it stand, the majority of the sources are written by people who are just more of the same quacks.

Your stand is pretty wobbly. Show me the evidence to support your silly claim. Either that, or go to your room and remain there until further notice. Splash cold water in your face to sober up. Then report back here when you've come to your senses and your lies and fabrications have dried up.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes.

So while what you say and what the article in question says do not answer my specific question, you both say that measurement of the spin of one of the entangled photons causes the entanglement to collapse.

 

[gnostic]

Grinberg-Zylberbaum's experiments were published in the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays.

You keep saying that, but as ImmortalFlame have pointed out there have been no replications of Grinberg's experiments, no one independent of those who believe in the pseudoscience ESP, psychic or remote viewing groups.

Except it was submitted to a journal that has little to no academic credibility, incredibly few citations, and a reputation for publishing dubious papers. Is there any record of them attempting to submit it to any other journals?

That reference or bibliography you quoted from, list whole bunch of parapsychology quacks. And I am not only the one who have grave doubts about the bibliography:

1. You are quote mining; the proper way to quote a source is to link to the article or quote the entire text.

2. The bolded part doesn't fill me with great confidence.

Furthermore:

Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing - Wikipedia

My personal opinion of your sources is that they are not trustworthy. And that they are peer-reviewed in much the same way as bible groups peer-reviewing scripture.

Basically: It doesn't matter how many posts you fill with "sources" when 99% are in fact from the same source, and i predict people won't really approve of the source once they read about it in general. You can't blame people for not believing sources that are commonly described as "sham masquerading as a real scientific journal" which publishes "truly ridiculous studies" as per the Wikipedia article.

If you can actual medical peer-review journals that don't published garbage like that of Physics Essays, that have examined and replicated
Grinberg-Zylberbaum's experiment, then I might actually rethink my approach to the experiments and his work.

But one of the people you keep bringing up, Amit Goswami. You cannot for one moment expect me to accept Goswami as reliable independent source, since he is one of those who help Grinberg's original experiment in the first place; so Goswami is not impartial.

Second, Goswami also write parapsychology and mysticism nonsense. Below are at least half-dozen books written by Goswami:

• The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World
• Quantum Doctor, The: A Quantum Physicist Explains the Healing Power of Integral Medicine
• The Everything Answer Book: How Quantum Science Explains Love, Death, and the Meaning of Life
• God Is Not Dead: What Quantum Physics Tells Us about Our Origins and How We Should Live
• Physics of the Soul: The Quantum Book of Living, Dying, Reincarnation, and Immortality
• Quantum Creativity: Think Quantum, Be Creative

These books sound like what could be found in the Spirituality or Mysticism bookshelves of local bookstore, not in the science shelves. They listed as "Quantum Mysticism".

Goswami reminds of me who does self-help books, sell snake oil or do televangelist TV shows or YouTube videos.

In fact, he reminds me very much like Zakir Naik, who tried to mix science with Islam, by taking both out of context.

Excuse for being very being skeptical of your heroes.

 

[godnotgod]

You keep saying that, but as ImmortalFlame have pointed out there have been no replications of Grinberg's experiments, no one independent of those who believe in the pseudoscience ESP, psychic or remote viewing groups.



That reference or bibliography you quoted from, list whole bunch of parapsychology quacks. And I am not only the one who have grave doubts about the bibliography:


If you can actual medical peer-review journals that don't published garbage like that of Physics Essays, that have examined and replicated
Grinberg-Zylberbaum's experiment, then I might actually rethink my approach to the experiments and his work.

But one of the people you keep bringing up, Amit Goswami. You cannot for one moment expect me to accept Goswami as reliable independent source, since he is one of those who help Grinberg's original experiment in the first place; so Goswami is not impartial.

Second, Goswami also write parapsychology and mysticism nonsense. Below are at least half-dozen books written by Goswami:

• The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World
• Quantum Doctor, The: A Quantum Physicist Explains the Healing Power of Integral Medicine
• The Everything Answer Book: How Quantum Science Explains Love, Death, and the Meaning of Life
• God Is Not Dead: What Quantum Physics Tells Us about Our Origins and How We Should Live
• Physics of the Soul: The Quantum Book of Living, Dying, Reincarnation, and Immortality
• Quantum Creativity: Think Quantum, Be Creative

These books sound like what could be found in the Spirituality or Mysticism bookshelves of local bookstore, not in the science shelves. They listed as "Quantum Mysticism".

Goswami reminds of me who does self-help books, sell snake oil or do televangelist TV shows or YouTube videos.

In fact, he reminds me very much like Zakir Naik, who tried to mix science with Islam, by taking both out of context.

Excuse for being very being skeptical of your heroes.

Excuse me, but Amit Goswami is a highly respected and bona fide Quantum physicist who was instrumental in the Jacobo Grinberg experiments. These experiments, whether you like it or not, were executed via strict scientific standards. Your silly attempts at discrediting them won't work. Immortal Flame doesn't know what he's talking about, and neither do you, as both of you have entrenched biases that are setting up straw men from the get-go. You and he keep bad-mouthing Physics Essays but have produced not one shred of evidence that it is an unworthy publication. Just a bunch of witch hunt caliber hearsay.

Grinberg and Goswami are no heroes of mine, but I do respect their credentials and honesty. I don't respect your dishonesty nor that of Immortal Flame. Your approach is filled with hype and illogic, while his is of the 'your papers, please' variety.

Naik is not a scientist; Goswami and Grinberg ARE legit scientists. Sorry if that is an inconvenient fact.

Now go to your room!

 

[Polymath257]

So while what you say and what the article in question says do not answer my specific question, you both say that measurement of the spin of one of the entangled photons causes the entanglement to collapse.

Not the entanglement, but the wave function. The wave function is what gives the probabilities of possible measurements. When an observation is made, it 'collapses' to a single value.

I put scare quotes on this because the collapse itself is a problematic concept. Think of it like This: split a coin so that there is a 'heads' part and a 'tails' part. Don't look at which is which and send one part off to observer A and the other part to observer B. Nothing quantum is going on here. There is a 50-50 probability on each side of detecting a 'head'. if A detects a 'head', then B will detect a 'tail' with 100% confidence. The 'probability' collapsed upon observation. No 'signal' was sent and nothing *physical* changed, though.

 

[gnostic]

Excuse me, but Amit Goswami is a highly respected and bona fide Quantum physicist who was instrumental in the Jacobo Grinberg experiments.

Any quantum physicist who write books with titles like these...

• The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World
• Quantum Doctor, The: A Quantum Physicist Explains the Healing Power of Integral Medicine
• The Everything Answer Book: How Quantum Science Explains Love, Death, and the Meaning of Life
• God Is Not Dead: What Quantum Physics Tells Us about Our Origins and How We Should Live
• Physics of the Soul: The Quantum Book of Living, Dying, Reincarnation, and Immortality
• Quantum Creativity: Think Quantum, Be Creative

...are hardly considered “respected”. These titles sound like self-help books meant to make quick dollars on the naive mystics or the higher than the kite hippies.

 

[Vouthon]

Hello Polymath!

Thank you, as ever, for your informative comments. I always enjoying reading your intelligently written posts....(your username was well chosen, so it would seem)

The point is that the entanglement (and hence the correlation) are produced at some point in the past where the particles interacted (or were formed). The correlation is fixed then and propagates after that. No signal required. QM *is* a local theory! It just isn't a *realist* theory.

Neither of the particles assumes definite properties until measured, right? So quantum theory predicts random results for any particular entangled property, such that the correlations cannot be explained by properties carried by the system prior to measurement - correlations, moreover, that are "independent of which of the systems are measured first and how large the spatial distance between them is, so quantum mechanics transgresses space and time in a very deep sense," if I may quote Professor Zeilinger of the University of Vienna from an article in 2016.

It is random for each individual particle of the (maximally) entangled state, yet quantum theory predicts perfect correlations.

Recent experiments have left little-to-no-wiggle room for local hidden variables limited by the speed of light (essentially ruled out as a viable explanation), I think we would agree? Furthermore, the idea of super-determinism (the last redoubt for the sceptical) was recently dealt a blow by an experiment performed by David Kaiser, Alan Guth and others from the University of Vienna, published in Physics Letters, Cosmic Bell Test: Measurement Settings from Milky Way Stars.

If we start out with the reasonable assumption that information cannot propagate instantaneously, one finds that quantum physics generates "nonlocal correlations" that are incompatible with this normative assumption. On the face of it, there seems to be no narrative within spacetime to explain the instantaneous perfect correlation between the spacelike separated particles.

When Zeilinger and his colleagues were awarded the Bell Prize late last year it was said, therefore:

Bell Prize Goes to Scientists Who Proved "Spooky" Quantum Entanglement is Real

“While many experiments have come close to proving quantum entanglement, the scientists we are honouring have closed previous loopholes,” says Professor Aephraim Steinberg, a quantum physicist at the U of T’s Centre for Quantum Information & Quantum Control (CQIQC) and one of the founders of the Bell Prize.

"Collectively, they have removed all reasonable doubt about the nonlocal nature of quantum entanglement. In so doing they are also opening the door to exciting new technologies including super-secure communications and the ability to perform certain computations exponentially faster than any classical computer,” says Steinberg.
​

Yet you would contest this assertion of "nonlocality"? Are we to assume that Professor Steinberg and Zeilinger whom he awarded the Bell Prize, are both in error when contending that the "nonlocal nature of quantum entanglement" is now beyond reasonable doubt? Professor Zeilinger has claimed: "Recent experiments have perfectly verified the fact that quantum correlations between two entangled particles are stronger than any classical, local pre-quantum worldview allows. Thus, it appears that on the level of measurements of properties of members of an entangled ensemble, quantum physics is oblivious to space and time."

You are saying that the influence starts earlier, with the correlation in states going from the point at which the particles became entangled, so it remains local?

I guess I'm just flummoxed at how one can still call QM a "local theory". Many theorists seem to bluntly refer to "quantum nonlocality" and "non local correlations" - implying (or stating up front) that local realism is dead, whereas for you only realism is dead but localism is salvaged?