//Particles can be quantum entangled across time and space.//

Yes, they can. But the 'spooky action at a distance' observed with entangled systems does not permit retro-causality. The notion that it does is almost surely based on a misunderstanding of the results of delayed choice quantum eraser experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/343121/delayed-choice-quantum-eraser-without-retrocausality

Experiments involving these sort of entanglement effects do not allow experimenters to alter the past, or to send information into the past. Quantum indeterminacy ensures that any attempt to encode a message to be sent backwards in time degenerates into white noise. The future cannot affect the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

Indeed, Phillippe Eberhard has produced a proof that within the framework of quantum field theory, retro-causality is theoretically impossible. So far, no experiment that I am aware of has managed to prove him wrong.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00696109

//Everything I said is feasible based on quantum physics and human technology.//

No, it really isn't.

//CERN is colliding particles in *this* universe with *our* tech.
Quantum entanglement of those particles across time and space therefore results.//

No, that's not how you create entanglement, at least not for experimental purposes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2017/02/28/how-do-you-create-quantum-entanglement/#b383fea1732b

As the article points out, it's highly likely that the entanglement in those delayed choice quantum eraser experiments whose results you've so badly misunderstood was produced by parametric downconversion. Nothing to do with particle colliders.

//And use quantum computers to analyse the results.//

No, they use regular computers for that. Not that it would matter; data analysis is data analysis and using a quantum computer to analyse data will not magically transform it into a TARDIS.

//Who is pushing globalisation and multicultural immigration, despite the obvious detrimental effects on their own citizens? European governments.//

So because you disagree with European governments on certain political matters, it logically follows that they're not subject to the laws of physics? Well that's a convincing scientific argument if ever I saw one. [sarcasm]

//I'm sure those European governments expect no return on their billions invested in CERN.
No, it's just out of the goodness of their hearts. Purely scientific enquiry.//

Umm, you do realise that scientific enquiry leads to returns, don't you? Have you not paid attention to the last 150-odd years of history?

//Even if this were technically impossible in *today's* world, this tech will only develop in the future.
And it may well be future technicians doing this.//

Of course... even though we can't do retro-causality yet, surely they'll figure out how to in the future, and it's those guys we should be worried about. How convenient.

Luckily for you, time travel to the future is possible and not even that difficult. So we can send you forward to stop the evil future people meddling with our past and present. All you have to do is fly off in a nice fast spaceship for a while, then turn around and come home. Time dilation will take care of the rest: you'll return to a future Earth, just in time to beat the baddies and save us here in 2018. The downside is that you won't be able to return to your own time.

Sounds like a winning plan to me.

//Break it up, Toni. There was nowt in my post that suggested support for the lunacy of the time travelling alien brigade.//

Sorry, my bad. My BS detector can be over-sensitive at times, but on a second reading it's obvious that you weren't claiming any malfeasance by the Time Lords of CERN.

//I've just learned over the years that there are some occasions when its best to just figuratively cross the road to avoid the crazy man shouting at shadows.//

Good grief man, where's the fun in that? It's the internet, so it's not like the crazy man can stab you if you enrage him. And winding them up is immensely enjoyable.

//But I'm unconvinced by many worlds theory.//

There is nothing wrong with the the many worlds interpretation of QM; it's mathematically equivalent with competing interpretations and makes the same predictions. When trying to choose between interpretations, it mostly comes down to a matter of what feels right (and what simplifies the equations, of course). I like the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, but it's never really caught on.

Agent Lavis, strange how you never mentioned your plethora of knowledge before. Had to do a little research, eh?

"we can't do retro-causality yet"

Yet.

Um, did I not refer to *future* technicians?
They may have new theorems and technology you can't imagine, and are making slight edits to history to hint to us (past generations) and see our reaction.

When they get scoffing, shrugging and denial, they will take that as a green light to proceed.

//Um, did I not refer to *future* technicians?
They may have new theorems and technology you can't imagine, and are making slight edits to history to hint to us (past generations) and see our reaction.

When they get scoffing, shrugging and denial, they will take that as a green light to proceed.//

XD

Best. Conspiracy. Theory. Ever.

Thanks, Shockadelic, your overly-fertile imagination has made my day. My mates are going to sh!t bricks laughing when they hear about your nefarious time agents from the year 6969 messing with the past. Ahh, the joys of the internet.

But nothing to say about being sent to the future to thwart their dastardly plans? I'm surprised. I'd have thought you'd leap at the chance to volunteer to save us all. What's wrong, no courage in your convictions?