To stretch your analogy to breaking point, the explanation that makes the most (least?) sense to me that I&#x27;ve read is thus: First, imagine all the coins have no mass. And a mischevious quantum cat either puts all the copper and sliver coins in the same bag leaving the other empty, or puts all the copper coins in one bag and the silver in the other.<p>Not knowing which placement has been done, you put one bag in your freezer, and drive across town with the other bag.<p>Then you ask yourself the question, or perform an experiment to tell you, &quot;Which bag did the cat put all the coins in?&quot;, at which point you open the bag and find it full of coins or empty, determining the state of the bag you have, and the state of the bag in your freezer at home.<p>No problem, huh?<p>Except, if you&#x27;d asked a different question, or performed a different experiment, to tell you &quot;Which bag contains all the copper coins, and which contains the silver coins?&quot; - <i>you would have still got a valid response</i>, and found the bag either full of copper or silver coins, again determining the state of the other bag at home.<p>That&#x27;s the nature of entanglement. Without knowing the state, the nature of the question you ask of one particle will determine what sort of answer you get, in a way that instantaneously affects the bag at home too. i.e. someone opening your freezer just after you ask your question will see the other bag in a consistent state with the bag you have.<p>That&#x27;s why it&#x27;s so gorram weird.