Quantum Entanglement - an illusion based on a wrong assumption? Almost all resources I've read about Quantum Entanglement speak about how 'amazing' it is that two entangled particles are bound over any distance, and that the state of one particle determines the state of the other.
I believe that there is possibly a profoundly wrong assumption here that doesn't get addressed properly.
The assumption is that when the state of one particle is observed, it is then, and only then, determined, exiting it's super position state (and thus the state of the other particle also being determined, over any distance, instantly - which is where most of the focus lies when talking about entanglement).
But here is my problem - why is the assumption that the state of the first particle is being determined on observation so easily accepted ?
It seems to me much more logical and absolutely free of unexplained voodoo that:


*

*the particles are entangled (have opposite symmetrical states).

*The state of the first and second particles is unknown and unknowable until observed, but is predetermined from the moment of the particle's inception.

*Upon observation, nothing in the particle changes, except that our knowledge of the first particle's state leaves a "super-positioned" state into a specific one.

*Basic logical consistency dictates that we "instantly" know the state of the second particle, without the need for "spooky action at a distance".


So I guess that my basic premise is - it seems much more reasonable that our (my?) understanding of superposition is wrong, rather than that particles exchange state information instantly across any space.
Please help me understand where I am wrong ?
 A: I read the article by Mermin which @joshphysics refers to in his comment, and I have to say it is a very good article. It gets to the heart of Bell's paradox in a very clear way. But it contains two fallacies which I think ought to be pointed out.
The first is the idea that a Stern-Gerlach apparatus can look at a single atom and measure it as either spin-up or spin-down. This is not how magnets actually work. Any magnetic field that is inhomogenous in the x-direction is just as inhomogeneous in the y-direction. So it cannot split a beam into x-up vs x-down components without also splitting into y-up and y-down components. Yes, Stern and Gerlach did something like this, but to a fan-shaped beam, not a pencil beam. (I am assuming the standard Stern-Gerlach experiment with propagation in the z-direction.) Mermin talks about an abstract machine with three switch settings, but at the end, he admits he is talking about Stern-Gerlach. Doesn't work that way. I explain this in more detail in my blogpost Quantisation of Spin Revisited.
A bigger problem is Mermin's "machine" which lets you push a button and then out come two entangled particles. I don't think such a machine exists. Certainly, the experiments which people talk about with spontaneous down-conversion and coincidence counters are much more complicated than this. I know that people who know better than me will say that it comes to exactly the same thing, but I'm not sure about that. I wrote an article about this once called "There Are No Pea-Shooters for Photons". I don't think there is a pea-shooter for photons, and I'm pretty damn sure that Mermin's pea-shooter for entangled spin pairs does not exist.
There is one more problem with Mermin's analysis, which is not exactly a problem because it's a very clever thing that we owe to Bell in terms of logical clarity. But it obscures the real physics. I'm talking about the notion that the real contradiction occurs when we skew the detectors. That there's nothing wrong with Case A, where coincidences are detected with a probability of 100%.
In fact, that's already a hell of a problem if we have both detectors parallel and we get 100% correlation. Yes, I know you think that just means that the particles were created in a correlated state...so what's the problem? The problem is that yes, if you HAD a pea-shooter (which you don't) that created projectiles in pairs, spin-up and spin-down, and if you HAD a Stern-Gerlach machine to positively detect those spins (which you don't)...if you had those things, yes, you should expect 100% correlation at the detectors. But any physically conceivable "pea-shooter" cannot and will not reliably produce projectile pairs correlated in the x-direction only. The pea-shooters you can realistically imagine will produce correlated pairs in all possible orientations. And the ideal Stern-Gerlach machines (the ones that don't exist) will not give you 100% correlation on those types of sources. Because if you produce a y-correlated pair and put them into an x-aligned "ideal" Stern-Gerlach detector, you will get a 50% coincidence rate.
Any realistic source will produce randomly-correlated projectile pairs, so the "ideal" detector pairs cannot be 100% correlated. Bell's paradox provides a brilliant answer to the very esoteric philosophical question of "what if you DID have such a magical source", but from a practical point of view, the horse is already out of the barn if you can show 100% correlation from an ordinary source.
There are people who know more than me about these things, but I do not believe they have answers to my arguments.
A: What you are proposing is called a local hidden variable theory.  Bell's theorem proves that any such local hidden variable theory is inconsistent with behavior predicted by quantum mechanics.  Bell test experiments have been performed, which show that the predictions made by quantum mechanics are correct, in ways that cannot be explained by a local hidden variable theory. 
A: Here are my two cents on this.
In quantum mechanics, one, two,...many particles are described by a state function. The state function is gives a probability distribution that includes all the possible measurable values of the one,two...many particles.
Let us take two for simplicity and because here is where confusion arises. Because of conservation of quantum numbers the possible probability states of two spin a half particles to be created from a spin zero particle are two, either particle_1  can have spin up and the particle_2 spin  down, or the particle_2 is up and particle_1 down. It is a limited outcome probability distribution, but a distribution never the less. In the same way that spinning a coin and getting heads gives you the knowledge that the other side is tails, if you measure one particle's spin you know the spin of the other even if it has gone off to infinity. There is nothing more esoteric than conservation of quantum numbers here. 
In my opinion all this entanglement navel gazing is not worth the effort to think it through. Dealing with state functions and probabilities is the job of the physicist who measures.
A: 
The spin states of the entangled photons could have been
  pre-determined from the beginning of the experiment, it requires that
  certain assumptions on which quantum physics is based are either
  untrue or misleading. The first assumption I discuss is one of
  Dirac's. In his introduction to his theory of the Principles of
  Quantum Mechanics (Fourth Edition revised) he states that “Only
  questions about the results of experiments have real significance for
  the physicist.” and then “ The foregoing discussion about the result
  of an experiment with a single obliquely polarized photon incident on
  a crystal of tourmaline answers all that can be legitimately be asked
  about what happens to an obliquely polarised photon when it reaches
  the tourmaline. Questions about what decides whether the photon is to
  go through or not and how it changes its direction of polarisation
  when it goes through cannot be investigated by experiment and should
  be regarded as outside the domain of science.... Nevertheless some
  further description is necessary in order to correlate the results of
  this experiment with the results of other experiments that might be
  performed with photons and to fit them into a general scheme. Such
  further description should be regarded, not as an attempt to answer
  questions outside the domain of science, but as an aid to the
  formulation of rules for expressing concisely the results of large
  numbers of experiments.”  Obviously when Dirac was formulating these
  statistical rules he was deeply concerned about the practicalities of
  making precise measurements on individual particles although he
  explicitly accepted that there may well be deterministic rules guiding
  things.  All of quantum mechanics is now based on Dirac's derivation
  of statistical rules based on the idea that determinism is impossible
  to prove so we must adopt a statistical approach. When we interpret
  the sayings of physicists then, we should bear in mind that QM is only
  statistical because we do not have the fineness and gentleness of
  experiment to be able to conduct the experiment deterministically.
To then come to the issue of Bell's inequality which has been
  mentioned. Bell himself made the statement in a 1985 radio interview
  (from wiki) “There is a way to escape the inference of
  superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves
  absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free
  will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just
  inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our
  behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one
  experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including
  the ‘decision’ by the experimenter to carry out one set of
  measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is
  no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what
  measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe,
  including particle A, already “knows” what that measurement, and its
  outcome, will be.”. I suggest that this super-determinism is excessive
  and that only each individual photon transfer needs to be
  pre-determined, which would be the strict answer to what you ask, but
  it then begs follow on questions such as how such a 'local'
  pre-determinism maybe achieved in isolation from a more general
  non-deterministic environment and this is answered as follows:
There is no example of a photon existing independently and outside of
  an exchange between two atoms. The only way we can detect a photon is
  through its acceptance and incorporation into the structure of a
  receiving atom. Therefore we may consider a photon to be a singular
  exchange of an indivisible quantum of energy between two atoms. Over a
  large number of photons the pattern of distribution of those exchanges
  is then determined to fit a statistical pattern as described by what
  we know as electromagnetic waves. An exchange is a transaction or an
  instantaneous moment in time occurring between a giver and a receiver.
  I would suggest that at the moment of exchange of any photon its
  destination atom is known and 'agreed' with that destination.
But then if this transaction is instantaneous the question then arises
  as to how the time-delay appears which gives rise to a speed
  associated with the photon's time of flight from source atom to
  destination atom. This question also has a complete answer but which
  is too big for here.
In conclusion I would say that it is possible for the spin of
  entangled photons to be pre-determined,there is no experiment or
  theory which precludes this possibility. In Dirac's words what you ask
  is “outside the domain of science”! What we should really be asking is
  how the illusion of 'time' occurs in photon transfers.

