If you want to think about quantum state faster-than-light action-at-a-distance spooky entanglement, look at it this way...
There are two gloves (a right and a left hand glove) and two lockboxes (box 1 and box 2).
Each lockbox contains one of the gloves. Someone other than you has placed the golves in.
You open box #1 and discover that it contains the right hand glove. You now know that box #2 contains the left hand glove (this is amazing to some).
The rational theory is that the states already existed before you looked into either box.
The irrational theory is that neither of the states existed as "well-defined" until after you looked into one of the boxes.
Quantum physics is just a way of abstracting the underlining reality. And it's gone so far that it has completely de-materialized everything and replaces it with math no one can understand.
Can anyone explain the proof to the irrational theory without more baseless conjecture?
As many classical metaphors for quantum mechanics, your explanation is intuitive, convincing, and demonstrably wrong.
There is simply no way to describe the underlying mechanisms of this world using classical physics. However, since our brains are used to the classical picture, the metaphors seem true at a glance.
There are two gloves (a right and a left hand glove) and two lockboxes (box 1 and box 2).
Each lockbox contains one of the gloves. Someone other than you has placed the golves in.
You open box #1 and discover that it contains the right hand glove. You now know that box #2 contains the left hand glove (this is amazing to some).
The rational theory is that the states already existed before you looked into either box.
The irrational theory is that neither of the states existed as "well-defined" until after you looked into one of the boxes.
Quantum physics is just a way of abstracting the underlining reality. And it's gone so far that it has completely de-materialized everything and replaces it with math no one can understand.
Can anyone explain the proof to the irrational theory without more baseless conjecture?