With respect to quantum entanglement you might want to call it something else or throw an extra adjective in there to make it sound different. For example, call it something like "hyperlinked entanglement." That way you can evoke some of the basic feeling of the known science and side step anyone who says, "but quantum entanglement doesn't work that way." Of course not... but hyperlinked entanglement does!
@tonguetied I'd buy it, so to me it'd be acceptable. I like @PeterC's suggestion to change the name, though.
Thanks for the suggestions from thirdwind and PeterC and suggestion support from KaTrian. I will think about the name change, quantum entanglement is not proven nor disproven at this point and it is actually called Superluminal communication. It has very little to do with the story line but I think it would clarify timelines in my story the way I see it. I will have to go back to my original post to see what I said that "explained" the rift, I don't feel like I tried to explain the concept, more like that it just happens. Again thanks. Now if I just could really get serious and actually write, this writing stuff is a lot more complicated than it looks from a reader's perspective.
Yes, this is true. Unfortunately this can't be used to transmit information. I think I am one of those "purists" and I tell you that there is no problem with your concept. Experiments involving quantum entanglement like the "delayed choice quantum eraser" had really weird results, like certain events seemingly affecting things happened in the past. It is said that this can't be used to communicate back to the past or faster than light (which is basically the same) but this statement is more like "common sense" than a scientific explanation. Just to be on the safe side and protected from us (purists) follow @PeterC's advice to change the name. This "rift" sounds very similar to a wormhole which is an already established concept in sci-fi. This is at the edge of science at the moment and in reality no one knows how an actual wormhole would (or would not) work. So it's acceptable
Something akin to it actually also exists in the universe of the novel I'm working on with @T.Trian. It would've been nice to call it 'lumia', but alas.... Well, ain't that the truth!
Quantum entanglement has been proven and is well-documented in the literature. It can't be used to transmit useful information, however. I like PeterC's suggestion, and that's the one I recommend.
As for the QEC, yeah, it's a pipedream. The observation is that one particle changed state when its twin changed state, but there was no discernible pattern to the state change, only that it did change state at the same time. However, let's say that we don't understand the pattern at this time but perhaps in a hundred years, we may find the secret. So, sure, you can use it, but if you're going to explain it, you better make it so that the scientists of the age discovered something new about it. The second concept sounds little different from Star Trek warp drive. So put it bluntly, you can use whatever you want, but if you're going to explain it, keep in mind, almost all the cool stuff in science fiction is impossible by today's technology and understanding.
Thanks again to all that have provided feedback to my questions, it is useful. I do have an aspect in my story that will seem far fetched to many that I intend to explain, but it is something that I firmly believe could be possible and at this time I feel that it is keenly relevant to the overall story line so an explanation seems needed. However even with the small amount of writing I have done I can see how story lines seem to take on a life of their own, something very unexpected for me, but in hindsight makes sense, so who knows what will end up in the bit bucket.
