Forgive me for a simple question but I have been reading up on Bell's Theorem and its formulation in measuring a fully entangled state $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|00〉 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|11〉$$
and I understand that the probabilities of measuring the outcome of a single qubit for two different states are the same no matter the basis. However, most texts I read then have a paragraph similar to this:
Moreover the state of the second qubit is exactly equal to the outcome of the measurement — $|0〉$ if the measurement outcome is $0$, say. But now if the second qubit is measured in a basis rotated by $\theta$, then the probability that the outcome is also $0$ is exactly $\cos^2(θ)$."
Why is this true? In particular, we must remember that the states being described here are just shorthands for vectors in $\mathbb{C}^4$ and I'm not even sure what "rotating" a basis by an angle means here... To be clear, $|00〉= [0,0,0,0]^{T}$ and $|11〉= [1,1,1,1]^{T}$ so how do you rotate a basis or set of vectors?
EDIT: I just want to add that I understand the implied argument. If $|v〉,|v^{\perp}〉$ are two vectors that make up the measurement basis and say the outcome of measuring the first qubit was $|v〉$, then it is implied that the second measurement's basis consists of the vectors "$|v_\theta〉,|v^{\perp}_\theta〉$" so that $$|v〉= |v_\theta〉\cos(\theta)+|v^{\perp}_\theta〉\sin(\theta)$$ $$|v^{\perp}〉= -|v_\theta〉\sin(\theta)+|v^{\perp}_\theta〉\cos(\theta)$$ and then we proceed by considering the probabilities of measuring the state $|v_\theta〉$ etc.
But what really are these vectors $|v_\theta〉,|v^{\perp}_\theta〉$ when their coordinates are complex numbers in a 4D space?
An obvious definition for trying to generalise rotations to this situation would be to define them as the vectors which make those equations true but the problems I see with this are:
Mathematically, we don't know such vectors exist without some explicit construction (and there are supposedly problems with considering rotations around axes in 4D so this isn't as esoteric a complaint as it might sound).
Such a definition is completely devoid of physical insight. Why would this definition correspond with anything to do with actual rotations of a polarising filter in an actual experiment?
Again, I apologise if this shows a deep misunderstanding of the physics etc. and any major clearings-up would be greatly appreciated.