LnGrrR Since the old thread is well off topic from the OP I’ll continue comments on Entanglement in a new thread And try to “Dumb it down" here I assume your have trouble following the details on probabilities and why calculating probabilities for an event of grater than 100% or less than Zero is such a problem for a local realist. So let me try to “Dumb it down” a bit at the risk of maybe going too dumb, you tell me. Take two flashlights designed to emit polarized light, filtered or what ever. However, when you want you can turn down the brightness until only one photon at a time is sent. Each pointed at a detector with a polar filter lined up with its flashlight. #1 is aligned at 00 for vertical. #2 flashlight and its filtered detector is turned to 900 for horizontal we know as long as the test filters are aligned this way all the light will be detected. If we turn the test 900 none of the light will be detected. So, we will only do one test to keep this very simple. Turn the test filter on #1 to 450 and on # 2 to 1350. (Notice the tests are still 900 apart from each other). Know just like when you play with polarized sunglasses you know just 50% of the light gets through for both (A paradox in it own right). Even before we get to entanglement, how do you explain this?? The only thing that explains this is the uncertainty principle. Doesn’t matter which one you use; HUP or BM uncertainty, both are unable to say which part of the original light gets though or not. Uncertainty is defined into both theories to account for this, making them both equivalently non-local IMO. How does a realist explain polarized sunglasses, they cannot for them it still a paradox. Back to dumb’n this down, let’s look at separating that light out in detail by sending exactly one photon per second. We only one test per second, we know that if we don’t get detection, that the one photon had to be blocked by the filter. Now 100 seconds, 100 photons – how many get though? 50 of course, for both flashlights. But if we keep track by which second 1 though 100; in exactly which positions do we predict photons will be detected? QM or BM may use different styles of uncertainty to spread the detections out randomly, but that “non-local” uncertainty is all they have to distribute those positions no predits which time 'slots' will be filled. With both #1 and #2 showing 50 hits spread out randomly in 100 positions, how often do they land in the same numbered positions between #1 and #2 – all agree here it's a pure coin flip 25 out of 50 or half the time. NOW comes the fun part we hook a little wire between the two flashlights, and label it “entanglement”(And from reading DrC's stuff, you should see that this is a tricky wire to hook up) Here is the neat part about having an uncertainty principle in your theory, you get to define just how that uncertainty works – and both QM and BM say that when #1 gets a hit so will #2! That is always coordinated so they detect together, but never knowing what order the detections will occur. As long as they hit together all 50 of them, both QM & BM are satisfied. But how does the realist explain it? Go ahead please do, I'm working on that myself. While you’re at it, explain just how those polarized sunglasses work too. If you can do the sunglasses as a realist, you should be able explain both entanglement and the double slit without an uncertainty principle and much more. Finding how a realist can solve this with a variable defined as part of the photon, (from its beginning, separate from its twin with no interconnection) is what John Bell’s Theorem was trying to do. But experiments have shown that for a variable to do that it must produce probabilities that are nonsense (negative or more than 100%) as the price for being real and local. QM and BM have no such restriction. Seeing how this works will come from the notes DrC has at : http://drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm I can think of nothing better than those notes, except give yourself some time with them.