Quantum physics: Copenhagen vs decoherence interpretations

What do you mean by non-locality?

That Wiki description is anything but clear, and desperately needs rewriting. Yes, as an ex quantum physicist, I am fully aware of entanglement. But you were talking about non-locality. Entanglement and non-locality are not synonymous. And you say earlier that Well, entanglement is embedded in our basic laws of the Universe, is well understood, and requires no wrestling. So what is it about 'non-locality' that needs to be wrestled with?

Not to be flippant, but my knowledge of what quantum physicists think of non-locality and entanglement comes from having been one and having spent numerous years amongst others, many with far more knowledge and talent than I possess... I don't need to read popular press articles to understand my own world, thank you. I'm sorry, what beef would that be? My concern is that you do not understand the terms you are using, as evidenced by your swapping and changing from non-locality to entanglement, and back again. And evidenced further by your choice of topic title... Of course it can be mentioned, but that does not make the terms interchangable... Yep, another 'ta-da' experiment showing that experimental quantum mechanics does indeed behave just like us theorists say it should. Great. Next?Cutting to the chase, the simple fact is that no form of 'non-locality ' exhibited by quantum mechanics allows for superluminal transfer of information, leaving causality intact. Or from your layman's position, are you suggesting otherwise?

I think you would need to understand something of these interpretations in general before trying to talk about non-locality. And then you would discover that the type of non-locality inherrent in QM is essentially idendepent of interpretation except in certain cases (that you don't mention.) Interesting. It is clear that local realism is violated. It is not clear at all that causality is violated; quite the opposite. Why would you try to claim otherwise? You have no evidence at all that causality is violated. You say that this is off-topic for your current thread but your comment suggests a level of disconnect enough to make me realise that any further conversation here, on-topic or off-topic, will be a waste of my time. If I have any time to spare for QM here, it will be to go back to Coleman's lecture and try to make it accessible, as Percy requested a while back.