The idea that conservation laws having nothing to do with entanglement doesn't make sense to me at this point. Maybe someday it will. In any case I don't want to take the thread any further off topic. If i get a chance to prepare some researched statements or questions on it, then I'll post them in a new thread. Until then, I'll take your word for it.ZapperZ said:You need to address how your "reality" jive with the Stony Brook/Delft experiments. Till then, I truly believe all of this is meaningless.
... we intend to "clarify" what we don't understand via verification of that understanding through a series of experiments. There's nothing to indicate what you claim to be a separate "underlying reality" is valid. Believing in such a thing dispite the lack of evidence isn't "modern physics".
I also don't want to argue here about whether or not reality exists independent of measurement, although it seems pretty clear to me that it does, and that that's not what Bell tests are testing. It also seems clear to me that physics doesn't yet know everything that there is to know about a whole lot of experimental phenomena (quantum entanglement being just one example).
'Underlying reality' just refers to what isn't yet known about reality (like the behavior of the light incident on polarizers in a Bell test). Of course, we don't know yet what it is that we don't know (at least I don't :-) ) -- but what you seem to be saying is that it's ok to assume that we already know everything that there is to know about reality.
The experimental evidence isn't just the foundation for what can be said to be known, it's also an indicator that what is known isn't the whole story.