 While diverging from the Copenhagen prescription mentioned above, some  modal interpretations  take real states of systems to be closely enough related to quantum states that entangled systems’ violation of quantum state separability implies some kind of holism or nonseparability. Van Fraassen (1991, p. 294), for example, sees his modal interpretation as committed to “a strange holism” because it entails that a compound system may fail to have a property corresponding to a tensor product projection operator \(P\otimes I\) even though its first component has a property corresponding to P. In fact, a clearer case of holism would arise in a modal interpretation that implied that the component lacked P while the compound had \(P\otimes I\): ceteris paribus, that would provide an instance of physical property holism. Healey (1989,1994) offered a modal interpretation and used it to present a model account of the puzzling correlations which portrays them as resulting from the operation of a process that violates both  spatial  and  spatiotemporal separability.  He argued that, on this interpretation, the  nonseparability  of the process is a consequence of  physical property holism;  and that the resulting account yields genuine understanding of how the correlations come about without any violation of relativity theory or  Local Action.  But subsequent work by Clifton and Dickson (1998) and Myrvold (2001) cast doubt on whether the account can be squared with relativity theory’s requirement of Lorentz invariance. More recently Healey (2016) has given a different account of how quantum theory may be used to explain violations of Bell inequalities consistent with Lorentz invariance and Local Action. This account involves no metaphysical holism or nonseparability.