How to find optical toy models of entangled quantum mechanical systems? I recently read Arnold Neumaier's lectures on uncovering classical aspects of quantum mechanics:

*

*Classical and quantum field aspects of light

*Optical models for quantum mechanics

*I can't find the third lecture, probably it doesn't exist yet. I guess it will elaborate more on the thermal interpretation, but it's easy enough to find published material on this.

In "8. Simulating quantum mechanics", an optical model based on the second order coherence theory of the Maxwell equations is presented. Even so I can understand this model more or less, I would prefer simpler optical toy models for a start. Having explicit boundary conditions would be nice, and a restriction to (quasi-)monochromatic light could make it easier to intuitively understand such a system.
For example, I guess that a complex superposition of polarized monochromatic plane waves traveling up or down in z-direction could be used to create a faithful optical model of a 2-qubit quantum system. (The periodic boundary conditions used here cannot really be reproduced in an actual physical experiment, but that doesn't worry me at the moment.) The first qubit would be the complex degree to which the plane wave is traveling up or down, and the second qubit would be the complex degree to which the plane wave is x- or y-polarized. But which measurements are allowed in such a toy model? The average intensity can of course be measured, but can the average Poynting vector be measured as well? Are destructive measurements such as putting a polarization filter into the system allowed? Is there a way to add a stochastic element (Born rule) to the measurement process in such an optical model?
Of course I should be able to work out most of these questions myself, but I wonder whether people like Arnold Neumaier haven't already worked out such simple optical toy models, and put the details online somewhere...
 A: 
But which measurements are allowed in such a toy model?

The basic assumption should be that oscillations in time are so quick that only averages over time can be measured. Because the speed of light is so big, measuring at different positions in space should be allowed nevertheless.

but can the average Poynting vector be measured as well?

Why not? It may be hard to describe a non-destructive measurement device for it, but it should be measurable in principle.

Are destructive measurements such as putting a polarization filter into the system allowed?

Definitively. Whether polarization can only be measured destructively is another question.

Is there a way to add a stochastic element (Born rule) to the measurement process in such an optical model?

There seems to be no natural way to do so, but maybe this is a good thing. It shows that there are systems satisfying all axioms and assumptions of the quantum mechanical formalism, without also satisfying the (stochastic version of the) Born rule. Similar to the situation for the parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry, this shows that the Born rule cannot be derived from the other axioms and assumptions alone.

One reason for this answer is that the missing stochastic element might actually be a good thing. The other reason is that the "restriction to (quasi-)monochromatic light" from the question is essentially equivalent to requiring that all quantum states have the same energy level. One motivation for looking at optical toy models was to get entanglement in an easily understandable model. Because my textbooks treat entanglement and quantum computing in a static setting without considering the energy levels, it was only natural that (quasi-)monochromatic light seemed preferable to me. But because the energy levels determine the time evolution of the phases, they might be an important limitation for quantum computing in practice, if it should be impossible to avoid multiple energy levels completely.
A: Light IS the toy model for quantum mechanics. Maybe the technically most simple quantum mechanical experiment I know is the double slit experiment with light and it's extremely simple to replicate, even with household means (we can talk about potential experimental setups in an independent question). 
As for Dr. Neumaier's very skewed perspective about physics... I would suggest that he should think VERY CAREFULLY about the reason why we call it QUANTUM mechanics and not PARTICLE mechanics. After reading part of these pamphlets, I am getting the definitive feeling, that he is not a good source for an introduction to QM. Those scripts are enormously confused about physics, and quite honestly, I think they are full of technical mistakes and misinterpretations. In effect, I think he is struggling with the demons of his misunderstanding of physics more in those documents than he is "teaching". 
