It seems to me you're making a lot of assumptions about what I'm capable of understanding. I work with physicists every day (from BU, Harvard, Princeton) - some of them don't want anyone else working with them, despite the fact that I'm a lot more expensive than other programmers they could hire. Usually they assume I understand every word they say. It's quite refreshing to come across someone who makes no demands on my meager intellect.
"All theoretical physicists consider entanglement a hoax. I mean the real ones, those who also do research and produce research results outside this particular issue."
At least two members of the IBM team were PhDs in physics, at least one in theoretical physics. The main scientists of the Innsbruck team were PhD physcists. Of course, this doesn't prove they're right. They do seem to have better qualifications than you do for evaluating their own work. But they could still be wrong - or lying. Or, since they're physicists, it's also possible they're just stupid. But my vote would be devious, because they've already been able to persuade a whole bunch of fake theoretical physicists to support their position. In fact, the Innsbruck guys were collaborating with guys from LANL in the US.
In any case, it seems there's a lot of halfwit physcists involved in this hoax as well.
Give me a try. I'm sure you've got a whole stack of papers that could disprove it. Maybe I won't be able to understand them, but I one day might. Besides I'm not the only person on this forum. I'm sure there are potential readers of this forum who might make be able to wrap their heads around a skeptical bibliography produced by your vast and penetrating intellect.
Of course these guys would already be in on the hoax, but they might not be aware of all of your sources. So if you could supply a short bibliography for their sakes - not for mine - I'm sure it would be immensely appreciated.
These guys had their papers published by Nature and by Scientific American. I'm not sure about SciAm, but Nature has a peer-review process. They might be skeptical, but apparently they don't think it's a hoax.
