https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2023/07/quantum-mechanics-is-nonlocal-but-what.html?m=1
As always Hossenfelder makes an interesting presentation. As sometimes occurs, I disagree with her this time. I'm not going to go into the length and depth of spooky action at a distance in quantum entanglement (which may explain our entire universe including the space-time continuum itself), suffice to say that quantum physics has rather conclusively proven that if you have two entangled particles and both are in a state of superposition, no matter the distance between them, measuring one will instantaneously cause the other one to collapse into the correlating condition. I suggest you click the link if you're interested. She explains it quite well.
My point of disagreement with her is the statement universally accepted by physicists, and denied by me, that this is not a method of communication. I disagree for two reasons.
First: Although it is not intelligent communication, one can argue that there is a passing of information in the form of one datum between the two particles. And that is my position.
Second: While it is true that you can have no control over the random process of how each particle will respond to decoherence, you can send a simple message using simply one pair of particles. The message is, "If I measure my particle, causing your particle to decohere, it means that I have proven that Karl Marx and Groucho Marx are twin brothers." If I don't measure my particle within a certain span of time, it means that the two are not related; or at least that I could not prove it so. The mere fact that your particle is no longer in a state of superposition gives you information which travelled faster than the speed of light.
Now send billions of particles in an array where are you know which particle comes first, which comes second, etc. (No we can't do this now, but I don't see why a future civilization couldn't --which would make a great element in a science fiction story). If a particle collapses, you count it as a one. If a particle doesn't collapse, you count this as a zero. You now have a binary code, which is the same code running computers. That's a lot of data traveling faster than light.
No, I'm not presenting this as a statement of reality because my knowledge of physics is virtually nonexistent and you all know how I feel about math and how math feels about me . However, until a physicist explains to me why I am wrong, this is what I accept as my version of reality.
Final note: I actually know what the physicists will say about why this wouldn't work. It's because the person at either end doesn't know if their particle has already collapsed until they measure it and since they don't know who is collapsing the particle, the only way information is sent is in the first proposal. Nevertheless, I suspect there may be a way to make this work. Certainly as a science-fiction story it allows the potential for faster than light data transmission.
Where is the physicist when you need one?
