In the first instance, we are simply assuming that information may be transmitted via quantum entanglement regardless of whether that is ever proven true in actuality.
Well, don't assume that, because it is definitively known that entanglement cannot be used to transmit information. But I know what you mean: we'll put our foot down, like Ursula LeGuin, and say "an ansible exists! Now what?"
Now as for the second issue, I simply want to reiterate that quantum mechanics and special relativity are not a unified theory; the two cannot be encompassed within a single known mathematical framework. The very phenomenon of quantum entanglement underscores that discrepancy and indeed its conjectured existence first made that clear. We cannot use the discordance between quantum mechanics and special relativity
Stop right there. There is no discrepancy between special relativity and quantum mechanics. Entanglement does not violate SR, because it cannot lead to non-causal physical behaviors. It's just a correlation.
[Geek alert: The famed discrepancy between relativity and quantum mechanics is between General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. You see, in QFT, the forces are described by the exchange of particles called bosons. The physical quantities we calculate are based on a superposition of all possible boson exchanges; this infinite sum is kept finite by a method called renormalization. It works incredibly well for all forces besides gravity. Now, what about gravity? Because of the geometry of the Einstein Field Equations, the bosons of any quantized gravity force would be spin-2, meaning that each boson would carry twice as much angular momentum as a photon (a boson of electromagnetism). Here's the problem: spin-2 forces aren't renormalizable in the 4-dimensional spacetime we observe. In fact, there are only two spaces in which a spin-2 force can be finite: one space has 26 dimensions, and the other space has 11. (Sound familiar?)]
OK, well I can accept that. But my understanding is that quantum entanglement is generally thought to be invariant within special relativity. That is what I meant. Is this incorrect?
Geek alert:
Indeed!! j/k =)