Hi: Somewhere in this thread, my name arose. So I am inspired to make precise what I have to say:

Re: "entanglement": contrary to popular opinion, it is NO different from ordinary statistical correlation. The argument for a difference was launched by John Bell. But, he made a mistake first noticed by Edwin Janyes, namely, he misapplied Bayes' formuala for correlated events. This invalidates his famous "inequalitites" and therefore all evidence for 'nonlcality,' 'wave collapse,' etc. Further, as I have shown (and published) all EPR/GHZ the experiments can be understood in terms of Malus' Law, i.e., classically, locally and realistically.

All of my story has been published, against great resistence, in professionally respectable journals; preprints etc. can be downloaded at: www.nonloco-physics.000freehosting.com

The big 'poobahs' in the trade talk behind my back but have not found the wherewithall to criticize my work under their name where I can respond. It is a scandal that a "scientific" enterprise prefers a mystical interpretation of QM, which could well have something to do with the fact that historically fundamental science actually was an enterprise to substantiate creationism. Irony! No?