That QM entanglement thing

While I slowly change a few lines in the Egel interpreter source code from time to time, I am thinking more about QM these days. For whatever reason. So, my braindead musings in all public light for people to laugh at below.

I couldn't help but think: QM is exactly what you get for describing 'spinning' or 'oscillating' phenomena with probability distributions.

The metaphor I have in my mind: Envision you're on a nice tropical island with a lighthouse. The light the lighthouse casts on the island is a spinning phenomenon. 50% of the time it faces you, 50% of the time it doesn't. The 'state', or rather 'behaviour', of that lighthouse can be described with a ket, and letting your hermitian loose on it will confirm that it's a 50/50 chance that you'll 'see' the light passing in front of you.

Now suppose you're on an island with two lighthouses, One lighthouse faces you 70% of the time, another 40% of the time. (The analogy with QM breaks here a bit but fix the behaviour of the lighthouses to fit your fantasy or understanding of QM.)

So when you make measurements of one lighthouse you'll know the probability distribution of the other lighthouse, without any 'spooky action at a distance.' I just don't see it.

ADDENDUM: These are indeed musings on Bell's inequalities.  I agree with all that. But my idea is: Bell showed that there are no hidden variables, there cannot be a definite state satisfying the inequalities. What he didn't show was that there cannot be an 'oscillating' state (resulting in related probability distributions.)

ADDENDUM2: Dumbing it further down. Consider a fair coin, a ket faithfully describes: this is a system that once observed will have a 50/50 chance of returning heads or tails. Bell says there are no hidden variables in there. True, the system's behaviour, not state, is completely and faithfully described. Because there is no definite state until you flip it.

ADDENDUM3: The basic observation is that the difference between a superposition and an 'oscillating' state isn't that big. But where Bell says, reject local+real, I would say, local+real makes more sense so just accept that what you're studying is 'oscillating'. To make that stick is of course another issue.