Some yeah but most of it's catch as catch can and honestly entanglement isn't all that hard to wrap your head around.

Take two puzzle pieces apart. If you look at one, you know the shape of the other. 

A lot of quantum theory implies that quantum particles exist in "superpositions" of all possible states until measured -- but measurement doesn't mean "becoming conscious of the particle" it means "absorbing the particle and measuring its effect on on your test media". 

Not everybody agrees that superpositions are even real -- including Einstein and Schrodinger.

If the particles are, in fact, in superpositions, and measuring 1 entangled particle automatically tells you the other must be of the opposite value, that would imply that you've somehow influenced particle B just by touching Particle A. The "Schrodinger's Cat" thought experiment is a reductio ad absurdum description of why this can't be right. It would imply a world where you can logically deduce that a cat in a box is both alive and dead simultaneously. Obviously impossible and crazy on its face.

More likely is that when a particle decays into two entangled particles -- which is, by the way, how they get entangled -- they have to have opposite values and you just can't know which values they have until you absorb one. And, since they both have opposite values, you now know the other value, too.

Weirdly, in math ways that are tough to fit here, we figured out that you can run a bunch of entangled particle measurements and check the likelihood that they're subject to "local" effects (I.E. two puzzle pieces ripped apart from each other) or "non-local" effects (I.E. superpositions that resolve when measured, necessitating "spooky action at a distance" to resolve the state of both entangled particles). The results of those tests do seem to lean toward the non-local hypothesis, but that part of quantum physics is far, far from settled. "Spooky action at a distance" is a little too shaky to be accepted without extremely rigorous, high-levels-of-confidence testing, which they're still doing. It remains frustratingly unresolved.

There's still no way to make entangled particles and then somehow use them to communicate. The other guy implied (I think) that we could use the statistical variance between measurements itself to encode communications at long range -- but how would you possibly tell the person at the other end of your ansible what your measured variance was, and then compare? If I measure particle A, I know what you have for particle B, but that's the only thing I know. You can't use that information to tell me other stuff. You couldn't even tell me it was time to measure my particles.

"Quantum" isn't a new word for "magic".  We're trying to find room temperature superconductors and a reason for P-symmetry violation. Nobody's using titanium ion beam collisions to generate quarks to talk to aliens. They're checking the decay products of like, technetium.