Replies

Alain Aspect's work was part of his PhD research, and the details are online here.

The physical phenomena referred to in the post are real, but its author seems to have chosen the most absurd interpretation of them.

First, since these correlations cannot be used to transfer information, they do not violate Einstein's Theory of Relativity. That is a closed issue. Secondly, there are several explanations of the correlations that do not imply any kind of superluminal action at a distance. One is the Everett "Relative State" formulation, described here, and another is Cramer's "Transactional Interpretation", explained here.

Bohm's "holographic universe" idea has been around for a long time. To be blunt, in my opinion Bohm is a maverick who refuses to accept the intrinsic randomness of quantum events and has for decades been spinning candyfloss to salvage his cognitive dissonance. For a sympathetic view of the book, go here. For a more nuanced discussion, by the always lucid Kevin Sharpe, putting Bohm's views in better context, go here.

Finally, the word "hologram" is used as a metaphor. There is no experimental evidence that either the universe or the brain resembles a literal hologram. Metaphors generally make good copy but bad science.

[Disclaimer: my PhD in quantum mechanics was awarded over 30 years ago. A lot of brain cells have decayed since then.]

Everett's no-collapse formulation of quantum mechanics was a reaction to problems that arise in the standard von Neumann-Dirac collapse theory. Everett's proposal was to drop the collapse postulate from the standard theory, then deduce the empirical predictions of the standard theory as the subjective experiences of observers who are themselves treated as physical systems described by his theory. It is, however, unclear precisely how Everett intended for this to work. Consequently, there have been many, mutually incompatible, attempts at trying to explain what he in fact had in mind. Indeed, it is probably fair to say that most no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics have at one time or another been attributed to Everett.

Hmm, it kind of reads like stereo instructions. ;)