Of course not, because no such signal is required. How many times do I have to say you don't know the difference between correlation and causation before you stop trying to base an argument on confusing those two things?

So I'm back to square 1, wondering how measurement at detector A can possibly affect the particle at detector B, without any influence travelling between them, but still violating Bell's Inequalities (hidden variables are ruled out), i.e. how is QM then a local theory?

Since there is nothing that needs to propagate between the detectors to have correlations in the measurements

If you aren't motivated to do anything but repeat that, I can't see much point in telling you where to look to correct your misunderstanding.

Sorry, I was thinking more along the lines that if you had discovered something so profound, you would naturally want to publish it in a physics journal before posting it in a pof forum. I'm not trying to stop you from publishing here first, but if it were me, I'd be in too much of a hurry to get it to prl to hink about posting here. But, suit yourself.

You are confused. Quantum cryptography relies on the physics of quantum mechanics.

In particular, the impossibility of intercepting a photon and cloning the original state. At the moment, it's impractical for anything but key distribution. For further information, you will find C. Bennett to be a great source.

As a quick refreser of what quantum information means before you object by throwing out the jargon again, the definition comes from von Neumann. S = -Tr (rho log (rho)) where rho is a density matrix and Tr designates the trace.

Basic Dirac notation. A state vector or ket |blah> is a ray in Hilbert space. A bra = delta_ij and the operator 1 is given by sum |blah>

However, it still relies upon the basic principles of information cryptography. The main difference between quantum cryptography and older styles, was that it was replacing a numerical form with a physical form.

that the proof of it is that it results in a bra-ket operator that is equal to its own square, which is supposed to result in the 2 sides of the operators being equal, or they are orthogonal.

However, it seems to me that corollaries of the No Cloning Theorem exist, in the form of the No Teleportation Theorem, which says that classical information channels cannot be used to transmit quantum information,

and that quantum teleportation is not possible either, the No Communication Theorem, which says that you cannot use quantum entanglement to transmit information, and the No Broadcast Theorem, which says that you cannot broadcast quantum information.

You are making this way harder than it is and drawing the wrong conclusion in the process.

Ok. So what? That's straight forward to see. The state vectors are square integrable, by definition and they form a complete, orthonormal basis. If the integral of (Psi*) phi is 1, then phi = Psi. If it's 0, then phi is orthogonal to Psi. The square of 1 is 1 and the square of 0 is 0.

That just means you can't extract the information from a quantum system that is needed to copy it.

Which was addressed in my first post where I said quantum teleportation requires the actual system to be teleported, not the information required to copy it.

None of those things are relevant.

I know I am persistent in my refusing to just accept things on blind faith in others. But I usually find that when I have such questions, that there are genuine problems in the system, that only become public knowledge much later.

I cannot make that assumption in equations.

I just don't see how it's possible to copy a system without copying the information.

because as far as I know, that would be non-local movement, and would be an entirely different type of movement than all current understanding of how objects move place to place. One could then transport people instantly to another galaxy, because distance would not be an issue, and nor would any stars, planets or black holes between them.

But I am far more interested in understanding theories, and proving they are consistent or not, than if they are relevant to my pay

You need to get the idea out of your head that everyone in the world but you has missed the obvious and doesn't care about the details just because you don't understand the details.