It's not even a transfer since you can't control the state of the measured atom. It just collapses into one state which happens to also affect the other atom. So you could never choose to transfer actual data
Is this at least somewhat directionally correct? I know that quantum physics principles are very difficult to define without going into the actual math.
Of course many scientists don’t like violating locality or statistical independence but there’s no philosophical reason to a priori discard them.
If yes, that's binary communication. If no, then how do we know B changed at all?
edit; Been trying to read up on this, i think i get it; Its a random outcome whether B has been looked at or not, but when you check them later, they are opposite pairs randomly distributed.
Just be careful when reading up on this about a subtlety here - as long as both A and B measure the same property, say "spin along Y axis", a measurement they will always both measure the opposite of, the experiment will seem just like the "unopened envelopes" popular description of entanglement which is not really magical. It's annoying that this particular description keeps being made..
The interesting things happen when you start mixing up the measurements so A and B measure different, but correlated, properties. In the context of Bell's tests, they will not measure in the exact same basis (like vertical polarization), one of them will rotate the basis slightly, say 30 or 60 degrees. And the resulting correlations between A and B in this scenario can't be explained by hidden variables ("unopened envelopes describing the result of all possible measurements") but is predicted correctly by quantum mechanics.