The End of Discovery within Physics

[Obvious Leo]

Misty. I was attempting to convey the idea that a fractal cosmos is only definable as a process and was using one's personal existence simply as an analogy. Your own existence can only be defined as a journey through time, or more precisely a journey within time. However you are in and of the universe, composed of matter and energy no different from any other physical entity. Thus if your own existence is definable only in this way then how could any other physical entity be definable any differently? However my analogy is not be taken any further because emergent physical entities can maintain their pattern of organisation for only a finite time whereas the journey of the uber-reality itself must be eternal and cyclical. I use the imagery of the Universal Turing Machine and the Mandelbrot set to illustrate this.

If you're looking for a personal immortality in this paradigm then I'm sorry to disappoint you but if you're satisfied with a meaning for your own existence then it offers a unique role for consciousness. A conscious mind is both an observer and a player in a continuously emerging reality, which means that the mere fact of your own existence means that you effect a permanent and irrevocable influence on the future of the cosmos via the mechanism of chaotic determinism. The choices you make throughout your own personal journey will either make the world a better place or a worse one but inescapably it will make it a different place than it would have been had you never existed. Since this is so manifestly bloody obvious I conclude it must be true.

Regards Leo

[AB1OB]

Hypothesis: Light expands omni-directionally into the future at c. Geometrically this would be an expanding sphere.

Agreed. Light moves into the future at c.

At least we agree to this point.

So does all matter and energy.

Yes BUT not in the same fashion. There is a differential expansion between matter and energy.

Geometrically this can be represented as an expanding sphere of sorts but your sphere is by no means spherical because you ignore gravity.

I do not ignore gravity. If you refer back to my imagined experimental model (for testing the spherical expansion of light), it was done in deep space to minimize gravitational effects.

Gravity is a part of my model but I am trying to build up to it only after we can go forward on common ground. (So far our common ground is that light expands spherically into the future.)

Furthermore your geometrical representation is not physical but geometrical so your physics makes the same mistake as Newton's. You mistake the map for the territory. The universe is not expanding, my friend. It is merely aging and it is the observer who observes this as an expansion. You are modelling an observer effect by spatialising time, just as Minkowski did.

Regards Leo

(First of all I need to digress to this point, the universe does not "age", it cycles. A cycle of expansion for a matter component, within the universe, is the process of aging for that matter component. A proton, for example, has the same relativity whether it has just recently entered the cycle of expansion or if it has been in the cycle for billions of years. There is not a "young proton" vs. an "old proton" but its relativity to other matter changes relative to ever changing time positions. That is, things happen differently in different time positions because they are different physical environments.)

You are partly correct. I am mapping the territory using a geometric representation of the physical relativity. And YES, I treat space-time as volume in motion, (which it is IMHO).

But you misunderstand me if you think that I am saying, the universe is expanding. I explained this already in a previous post; The universe is finite but unbounded. It has a central position of entanglement from which there is a current of expansion. This current of expansion is the flow of (what we think of as) forward time.

This current of expansion is flowing through concentric spheres of entangled time positions. This is what I described as "onion-like layers".

Matter (M) is expanded radially via the current of expansion. M starts at the point of universal entanglement. M gets to layer #1 (time position #1) and in doing so, it has made one cycle of internal relativity and produced one cycle of external E/M effect. This position is a sphere. It has (360)^2 degrees of available positions for M or as many M-subprimes as will fit. These are the "many worlds" positions of concentric time layer #1.

Now M has been expanded from time sphere #1, radially into concentric onion-like layer #2. Again, M makes one cycle of internal relativity and produces one cycle of external E/M result. This time sphere has a slightly larger diameter than #1. Even more possible "other world positions". In addition, once M left time sphere #1 another M-subprime entered that vacated position. The position of M's past became the position of M-subprimes present, Therefore since all time positions are always present, they are also a source of "many worlds".

So my "map of the territory" is a central point of entanglement, surrounded by a Planck thickness sphere containing many positions for time #1. This sphere is surrounded by the next Planck thickness sphere and its many positions for time #2 and so on...

For Matter to exist in this territory, relative to the expansion current, it must be in constant radial motion. The current is expanding through the universe. The current is carrying the Matter along a radial of this expansion. The universe itself is not expanding (It might be be stable, shrinking or growing but that is another matter, not to be confused with the expansion of matter through time).

Hypothesis #1 Light expands spherically into the future (current point of agreement) .

Hypothesis #2 Matter expands unilaterally into the future.

Can we agree on Hypothesis #2?

-- Updated December 6th, 2014, 8:47 am to add the following --

.................................... I define physical reality as that which is continuously coming into existence at the speed of light.

I almost agree with this. You have the speed correct. But I would say, physical reality is an ever-changing existence produced by continuous cycles of matter through a sphere of space-time.

In my model the speed of light and the speed of emerging time are one and the same thing,

I almost agree with this, too. But I see a problem with your thinking here. If the speed of light and the speed of "emerging time" (a.k.a. "the present") are the same, we would NOT be able to "see" light!

There has to be a differential speed of matter in the present and light. If they both move the same way at the same speed, vision would be impossible!

whereas in the canonical doctrines of physics the speed of time is not a valid construct because time is bi-directional (as all Cartesian dimensions are).

Standard physics does not take the one-way time into account because they ignore the fact that we are dealing with expansion as a one-way time.

Mine is an information-centric model which essentially means the monad has an information content precisely synonymous with its energy content. These are the only physical entities in the universe which can be regarded as objectively real and all the various particles, fields, forces etc which are used in our physical models are simply emergent constructs devised by our consciousness to model their patterns of self-organisation. Monads are beholden to only a single physical law, namely that all effects are preceded by a cause, but the monad in fact has two physical properties, these being its information content and the duration of its existence, as determined by gravity. Prosaically we could say that the monad simply becomes its own next monad in exactly the same way as Leo becomes his own next Leo. The universe is itself becoming, just as I am myself becoming.

I can sort-of agree with this. I use the term Proton system instead of monad. My Proton system has an internal relativity of 3-dimensions, which I refer to as; charge/spin/motion. It is what I refer to as an existence unit from which everything else is emergent. It is the Planck dimension determinate. It makes one internal cycle and produces one external result and moves one Planck position every Planck time unit of duration.

[Obvious Leo]

To me your model has far too many unnecessary elements because you confuse mathematical objects with physical ones.

Yes BUT not in the same fashion. There is a differential expansion between matter and energy.

This is false and has been satisfactorily demonstrated to be false by E=mc². Once again you mistake the map for the territory. Einstein showed that matter is nothing more than an emergent form of energy configured in a particular way. It is the specific nature of this configuration which confers on matter the property we understand as mass, which means sub-atomic particles are not fundamental entities and thus do not progress through time at c in their emergent form. Instead of thinking of the sub-atomic particles as physical objects I think of them as patterns of organisation being continuously maintained in a state of dynamic equilibrium.

The best form of language for this one-dimensional bitstream is that of the computer geek. I simply say that the monads encode for the sub-atomic particles, which encode for atoms, which encode for molecules etc. This is where the Mandelbrot set imagery is useful because it allows us to picture these hierarchies of informational complexity embedded within each other like matryoshka dolls, where each emergent hierarchy operates within its own causal domain. These hierarchies are entirely arbitrary but in a fractal world this allows for both top-down and bottom-up causation between these embedded layers and this is the essential difference between chaotic determinism and Newtonian mechanism.

Once again I use the nature of the human experience as an analogy. If I experience thirst this sensation has been CAUSED by a deficiency of water in my body at the cellular level. This information is transmitted to my higher-level consciousness all the way up the causal chain via a mechanism of staggering complexity and when I go the tap and drink a glass of water the fact that I have done so is then transmitted all the way back down again via a totally different mechanism. My freely willed choice has effected change in every sub-atomic particle in my body and these changes affect the BEHAVIOUR of each constituent monad. My consciousness has caused a new reality because I am not mandated to quench my thirst. I could obtusely choose to die of dehydration if I were pig-headed enough.

This is not the way Einstein saw the world because his timeless paradigm leaves no room for top-down causation. Throughout his life he recognised that this was a major flaw in his model because it denied the possibility of the human will and thereby reduced the human experience to a meaningless farce. However what he failed to see was that this problem was one of his own making. By representing time as a Cartesian dimension orthogonal to a solely mathematical object he conflated the physical with the non-physical and thereby introduced time invariance into his equations, but the real universe is obviously not time invariant. Special Relativity is metaphysically fundamentally flawed because of this anomaly and as long as you attempt to cram your model into the spacetime paradigm you will be unable to escape it. Spacetime is utterly unworkable ontologically unless you accept that there is no metaphysical distinction between past, present and future.

If this is the universe you wish to model I wish you joy of your efforts but I'm having none of it. The bloody obvious is good enough for me.

Regards Leo

[AB1OB]

To me your model has far too many unnecessary elements because you confuse mathematical objects with physical ones.

Yes BUT not in the same fashion. There is a differential expansion between matter and energy.

This is false and has been satisfactorily demonstrated to be false by E=mc².

If matter and energy were going the same co-moving speed, we would not be able to see.

I don't see what E=mc² has to do with the fact that Matter expands radially and energy expands spherically.

Matter is on a radial of expansion from ONE SOURCE (the entangled position of the "Big Bang").

While energy (in "space") is expanded spherically from radial to radial. Energy enters and leaves the "expansion space" at a point on a radial of "Matter".

These are 2 different animals.

Once again you mistake the map for the territory. Einstein showed that matter is nothing more than an emergent form of energy configured in a particular way. It is the specific nature of this configuration which confers on matter the property we understand as mass, which means sub-atomic particles are not fundamental entities and thus do not progress through time at c in their emergent form. Instead of thinking of the sub-atomic particles as physical objects I think of them as patterns of organisation being continuously maintained in a state of dynamic equilibrium.

I have already described the Proton system as, "an emergent form of energy configured in a particular way". I used to think the same thing as you but now I see matter as a proton flow through a thermodynamic cycle. What we think of as matter is a proton beam that expands from a cycle of contraction and expands from a cycle of expansion...repeatedly and continuously. The entirety of the system is "expanded equilibrium".

I claim that nobody seems to realize the importance of expansion. People commonly think of "cosmic expansion or red-shift" issues but it is so much more.

Science says, "space can expand between galaxies so they can move apart faster than light". But they also say, "gravity holds everything together, inside the galaxy and with nearby stuff." They say, "light is self-generating", even atomic structure ignores expansion.

Expansion is occurring at all scales, atomic to intergalactic and is crucial to the physics within expansion. (There are different physics for transition and contraction currents-same E/M components, differing physics)

The best form of language for this one-dimensional bitstream is that of the computer geek. I simply say that the monads encode for the sub-atomic particles, which encode for atoms, which encode for molecules etc. This is where the Mandelbrot set imagery is useful because it allows us to picture these hierarchies of informational complexity embedded within each other like matryoshka dolls, where each emergent hierarchy operates within its own causal domain. These hierarchies are entirely arbitrary but in a fractal world this allows for both top-down and bottom-up causation between these embedded layers and this is the essential difference between chaotic determinism and Newtonian mechanism.

I don't know what you mean by encode but I see the proton system as a spiral wave. It has a dimensionality that allows each spiral to have lateral freedom within the constraints of its radial motion of expansion. That geometric dimension creates a displacement that we perceive as its electron cloud. Atomic structure is all about efficient geometry. They don't need to be encoded, they do what is natural for their shape/size/motion/internal & external energy potentials.

Once again I use the nature of the human experience as an analogy. If I experience thirst this sensation has been CAUSED by a deficiency of water in my body at the cellular level. This information is transmitted to my higher-level consciousness all the way up the causal chain via a mechanism of staggering complexity and when I go the tap and drink a glass of water the fact that I have done so is then transmitted all the way back down again via a totally different mechanism. My freely willed choice has effected change in every sub-atomic particle in my body and these changes affect the BEHAVIOUR of each constituent monad. My consciousness has caused a new reality because I am not mandated to quench my thirst. I could obtusely choose to die of dehydration if I were pig-headed enough.

I have no disagreement here, though I would describe the process differently.

This is not the way Einstein saw the world because his timeless paradigm leaves no room for top-down causation. Throughout his life he recognised that this was a major flaw in his model because it denied the possibility of the human will and thereby reduced the human experience to a meaningless farce. However what he failed to see was that this problem was one of his own making. By representing time as a Cartesian dimension orthogonal to a solely mathematical object he conflated the physical with the non-physical and thereby introduced time invariance into his equations, but the real universe is obviously not time invariant. Special Relativity is metaphysically fundamentally flawed because of this anomaly and as long as you attempt to cram your model into the spacetime paradigm you will be unable to escape it. Spacetime is utterly unworkable ontologically unless you accept that there is no metaphysical distinction between past, present and future.

There is no metaphysical distinction between past, present and future. Relative to expansion, close to the entangled source is as far into the past that you can go. But it is not your distant past. It is only the position of your distant past. Go to the outer limits of the system, as far away from the source as you can get, at that perimeter the only way forward is back (through transition/contraction). But that will not cause any paradox either because it is a segregated path.

So every radius of expansion is a different time zone, slightly different but really no distinction (at close ranges). We exist in multiple time zones simultaneously.

Leo, You seem to want to cram information into your stationary monads but i think it actually is the spread out effect of my model that allows for complexity. Since matter is moving at c to exist at rest, relative actions of one second can be spread over 186,000 miles. This would allow plenty of space to accomplish the hierarchy of interrelated consciousness systems.

If this is the universe you wish to model I wish you joy of your efforts but I'm having none of it. The bloody obvious is good enough for me.

Regards Leo

Its not that I want to model it this way. It is just obvious to me that it is geometric.



-- Updated December 6th, 2014, 5:11 pm to add the following --

Just remembered another thought, this consciousness process stretching over a parallel linear path is not unlike parallel computer processors with a higher integrator interrelating the sub-processors.

[Obvious Leo]

If matter and energy were going the same co-moving speed, we would not be able to see.

Nonsense. We do not see reality but a holographic representation of our own past presented to our visual cortex simply as information. For example if you focus a telescope on a distant galaxy you observe its matter and its energy simultaneously. However the energy moves through time at c whereas the matter does not. What further proof is necessary that the matter is merely an informational construct of the mind? In the spaceless paradigm information and energy are synonymous notions.

I don't see what E=mc2 has to do with the fact that Matter expands radially and energy expands spherically.

I have no idea what this means because the notion of expansion is not physical. It is an abstraction of human consciousness applied to an observation.

Your proton beam is creative but physics acknowledges no such entity. Neither do I. A proton is a composite and emergent entity whose physical properties are conferred on it by yet more fundamental composite and emergent entities. Check out the Standard Model.

Expansion is occurring at all scales, atomic to intergalactic and is crucial to the physics within expansion. (There are different physics for transition and contraction currents-same E/M components, differing physics)

This is plain ********. Different physics at different scales of organisation is the very problem that the science is attempting to resolve because even the humblest undergraduate can understand this must be false. This is why the three main models of physics are incompatible with each other.

Just remembered another thought, this consciousness process stretching over a parallel linear path is not unlike parallel computer processors with a higher integrator interrelating the sub-processors.

Almost but not quite. The cosmic computer is non-linear so you're better off thinking in terms of an evolutionary algorithm which operates through neural networks, just as a mind does. However I make explicitly plain that this doesn't mean the cosmos is a mind.

Regards Leo

[AB1OB]

If matter and energy were going the same co-moving speed, we would not be able to see.

Nonsense. We do not see reality but a holographic representation of our own past presented to our visual cortex simply as information. For example if you focus a telescope on a distant galaxy you observe its matter and its energy simultaneously. However the energy moves through time at c whereas the matter does not. What further proof is necessary that the matter is merely an informational construct of the mind? In the spaceless paradigm information and energy are synonymous notions.

I don't argue with your logic but I do argue with your perspective "spaceless".

I have explained how matter and light differ and how the signals get from the matter to the other matter.

You refuse to accept it but you also refuse to offer an explanation. At least one that I have absorbed to this point.

You say there is no space but I can look through a telescope at matter and energy??? If I am getting your point, you think that the distant galaxy in the telescope isn't really distant. It is just really tiny and it took longer for its light to get here??

I do agree, what we observe is here, NOT there or then. We make interpretations regarding there or then based on our assumptions of context.

So how do signals get from there to here. You think the signals are "self-propelled" with built-in GPS ("encoded").

Well that might not be fair. They wouldn't need be self-propelled because there is no space, eh?

In my model the holographic image of reality is carried from and to matter by universal-wide process of expansion.

(Nested quote removed.)


I have no idea what this means because the notion of expansion is not physical. It is an abstraction of human consciousness applied to an observation.

I am talking about this;



I realize it is a oversimplification of a dynamic process reduced to 2 dimensional sketch but you do not seem to understand what it represents. I would never ask you to agree with it but it would be nice if you understood it.

Your proton beam is creative but physics acknowledges no such entity. Neither do I. A proton is a composite and emergent entity whose physical properties are conferred on it by yet more fundamental composite and emergent entities. Check out the Standard Model.

The Standard Model is the description using the point particle illusion to describe how it looks from our co-moving perspective. I am trying to describe what our co-moving perspective entails.

Expansion is occurring at all scales, atomic to intergalactic and is crucial to the physics within expansion. (There are different physics for transition and contraction currents-same E/M components, differing physics)

This is plain ********. Different physics at different scales of organisation is the very problem that the science is attempting to resolve because even the humblest undergraduate can understand this must be false. This is why the three main models of physics are incompatible with each other.

No, don't confuse the issue. The 3 main models are all in reference to expansion.

I am talking about 2 different conditions, more like normal physics/dark matter/dark energy

Just remembered another thought, this consciousness process stretching over a parallel linear path is not unlike parallel computer processors with a higher integrator interrelating the sub-processors.

Almost but not quite. The cosmic computer is non-linear so you're better off thinking in terms of an evolutionary algorithm which operates through neural networks, just as a mind does. However I make explicitly plain that this doesn't mean the cosmos is a mind.

Regards Leo

It looks like a mind to me, a bottom-up mind. For me a continuum is a memory. A repetitive cycle over duration.

Cheers

[Obvious Leo]

You say there is no space but I can look through a telescope at matter and energy??? If I am getting your point, you think that the distant galaxy in the telescope isn't really distant. It is just really tiny and it took longer for its light to get here??

Essentially yes. For example we can either say that the sun is 93 million miles away OR we can say that is 8.3 minutes away. It cannot be both, a fact which Einstein was correctly able to conclude from the observed constant speed of light. Albert was a careless researcher and a mediocre mathematician and he simply handed his problem over to his former maths teacher, Hermann Minkowski, a metaphysical dunderhead of rare calibre. It was he who confected the 4D continuum of spacetime, which effectively froze the entire universe into a single Parmenidean block by dismissing the passing of time as illusory. By the way Einstein was extremely suspicious of this transparently dubious tactic. He learned to live with it because the model had such enormous predictive power, but it kept him awake at night for the rest of his life. He suspected all along that this sleight-of-hand was responsible for the dice-playing god and the spooky-action-at-a-distance which troubled him so deeply and set him at odds with Bohr and Heisenberg. He should have trusted his own intuitions because his genius always lay in his instincts rather than in his physics, at which he was at best a journeyman.

Einstein was right the first time but he was led into a conceptual cul-de-sac by his doctoral advisers. Space and time are not interwoven but in fact are mutually exclusive. Sadly he nailed his colours to the wrong mast and physics hasn't made a lick of sense ever since.

No, don't confuse the issue. The 3 main models are all in reference to expansion.

I agree. This is why they are counter-intuitive, riddled with paradoxes, and self-contradictory. If we accept the passage of time as a real physical phenomenon then the observed "expansion" is easily explained. Furthermore the fact that this "expansion" appears to be accelerating is also easily explained. In accordance with General Relativity time passes more quickly between galaxies than it does within them because galaxies are more closely gravitationally bound. The observer observes this temporal asynchronicity as the galaxies moving away from each other, as indeed they are. However the confected space is entirely unnecessary because the galaxies are simply moving apart in time. To a far lesser extent the same thing occurs within galaxies. The moon is moving away from the earth, a fact well known to physics but never satisfactorily explained. Time simply passes more quickly between the earth and the moon than it does on either body, which in the absence of space is a complete and adequate explanation.

Regards Leo

[AB1OB]

All time positions are present, within the system.

Time does not pass. It is measured as radial DISTANCE from universal point of entanglement.

Matter "passes" through time positions, as it cycles through its expansion phase.

[Obvious Leo]

All time positions are present, within the system.

Time does not pass. It is measured as radial DISTANCE from universal point of entanglement.

Matter "passes" through time positions, as it cycles through its expansion phase.

Alas simply repeating the same mantra does nothing to enhance its comprehensibility.

Regards Leo

[AB1OB]

All time positions are present, within the system.

Time does not pass. It is measured as radial DISTANCE from universal point of entanglement.

Matter "passes" through time positions, as it cycles through its expansion phase.

Alas simply repeating the same mantra does nothing to enhance its comprehensibility.

Regards Leo

I agree. I will start a new thread that will be dedicated to my explanation of the DYNAMICS of RELATIVITY. I will explain my theory in a logical progression. My goal is to explain relativity in an entirely intuitive fashion. That is the only way to "enhance its comprehensibility", as you say.

So, for now, I will make this my concluding post for this thread; The End of Discovery within Physics

There is certainly no end in sight for discovery within physics. But there is only so far science can go with Particle Physics. Physics is a study of relativity. In our macro-world, we can take things apart and see how the inter-related parts function. But when we get to extremely small scales, parts become meaningless. It is all just energy after all. Smashing energy into its component energies does tell you something about how strongly they were inter-related but very little, if anything about its dynamic function.

-- Updated December 7th, 2014, 8:40 am to add the following --

My new thread, DYNAMICS of RELATIVITY will be in the Epistemology and Metaphysics section.

I think the topic is more general than Philosophy of Science alone. Also science is always approached from the perspective of the observer within our currently accepted frame of reference. I intend to describe the "universe" as it would look from without vs. from within.

[Bohm2]

Scientists have no problem saying, "It is impossible to go faster than c relative to other matter but it is fine and dandy that galaxies can move apart faster than the speed of light". HUH?! What crap! And then they say, "That's because the galaxies are not really moving, it is the space that is expanding."

I don't think you are understanding what Bell's theory implies and your model does nothing to answer it. Violation of Bell's inequality implies some instantaneous connection between two or more quantum systems. In fact, the hidden/private quantum signals that exist between entangled particles/systems cannot remain hidden if the speed of these "private lines" is anything less than infinite velocity/instantaneous:

The new hidden influence inequality shows that the get-out won't work when it comes to quantum predictions. To derive their inequality, which sets up a measurement of entanglement between four particles, the researchers considered what behaviours are possible for four particles that are connected by influences that stay hidden and that travel at some arbitrary finite speed. Mathematically (and mind-bogglingly), these constraints define an 80-dimensional object. The testable hidden influence inequality is the boundary of the shadow this 80-dimensional shape casts in 44 dimensions. The researchers showed that quantum predictions can lie outside this boundary, which means they are going against one of the assumptions. Outside the boundary, either the influences can't stay hidden, or they must have infinite speed.

Quantum nonlocality based on finite-speed causal influences leads to superluminal signaling
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3795v1.pdf

Quantum non-locality based on finite-speed causal influences leads to superluminal signalling
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v8/ ... s2460.html

Perimeter lecture from the lead author:

The experimental violation of Bell inequalities using spacelike separated measurements precludes the explanation of quantum correlations through causal influences propagating at subluminal speed. Yet, it is always possible, in principle, to explain such experimental violations through models based on hidden influences propagating at a finite speed v>c, provided v is large enough. Here, we show that for any finite speed v>c, such models predict correlations that can be exploited for faster-than-light communication. This superluminal communication does not require access to any hidden physical quantities, but only the manipulation of measurement devices at the level of our present-day description of quantum experiments. Hence, assuming the impossibility of using quantum non-locality for superluminal communication, we exclude any possible explanation of quantum correlations in term of finite-speed influences.

Quantum Nonlocality Based on Finite-speed Causal Influences Leads to Superluminal Signalling
http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=11110145

In fact, using technique of entanglement swapping, it's been shown that entanglement between photons are possible for photons that have never existed at the same time:

The role of the timing and order of quantum measurements is not just a fundamental question of quantum mechanics, but also a puzzling one. Any part of a quantum system that has finished evolving, can be measured immediately or saved for later, without affecting the final results, regardless of the continued evolution of the rest of the system. In addition, the non-locality of quantum mechanics, as manifested by entanglement, does not apply only to particles with spatial separation, but also with temporal separation. Here we demonstrate these principles by generating and fully characterizing an entangled pair of photons that never coexisted. Using entanglement swapping between two temporally separated photon pairs we entangle one photon from the first pair with another photon from the second pair. The first photon was detected even before the other was created. The observed quantum correlations manifest the non-locality of quantum mechanics in spacetime.

Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.4191v1.pdf

I don't see any relevancy with your model. Again, give these guys credit. These concepts are something very difficult to conceptualize even for these physicists who spent their whole lives studying this material. For people, like ourselves without PhDs in physics, it's difficult enough just trying to understand the conclusions/implications of these experiments, instead of trying to design some simplistic alternative models (with zero) evidence to explain phenomena.

[AB1OB]

I don't think you are understanding what Bell's theory implies and your model does nothing to answer it. Violation of Bell's inequality implies some instantaneous connection between two or more quantum systems.

I understand why you think I don't understand. Because you and many others are confused.

First of all, the implied instantaneous connection is of the same quantum system. We are dealing with "quantum entanglement".

The explanation of this apparent instantaneous connection is very easy to explain. I will explain it in the next few sentences. But understanding the correct perspective, in which you can actually realize why this is the explanation...well that is a little more involved (but it is all totally intuitive from the correct perspective).

SPOOKY ACTION AT A DISTANCE EXPERIMENT;

Set-up; Very well protected large pond of water. Twin surfers with identical surfboards equipped with GoPro cameras. Large mass shaped to create a good surfing wave fore & aft and an apparatus to drop it into the pond between the surfers.

Results; The 2 GoPro videos show they were both experiencing the same surfing ride, at the same time.

Conclusions: Spooky action at a distance must exist. NOT!

[Bohm2]

SPOOKY ACTION AT A DISTANCE EXPERIMENT;

Set-up; Very well protected large pond of water. Twin surfers with identical surfboards equipped with GoPro cameras. Large mass shaped to create a good surfing wave fore & aft and an apparatus to drop it into the pond between the surfers.

Results; The 2 GoPro videos show they were both experiencing the same surfing ride, at the same time.

Conclusions: Spooky action at a distance must exist. NOT!

Do you really believe that such a simple common causal high-school explanation has not been considered by some of the most famous physicists of the past and the present? Such explanations have all been considered but they do not give the experimentally-verified QM results. Again, look through previous links or if you want a very short proof of Bell's:

See spot run: A simple proof of Bell's theorem
http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

[AB1OB]

.......................... Do you really believe that such a simple common causal high-school explanation has not been considered by some of the most famous physicists of the past and the present? Such explanations have all been considered but they do not give the experimentally-verified QM results. Again, look through previous links or if you want a very short proof of Bell's:

Yes. I really believe that simple explanation.

But keep in mind what I said before;

.......................... ................... But understanding the correct perspective, in which you can actually realize why this is the explanation...well that is a little more involved (but it is all totally intuitive from the correct perspective).

Bohm, you don't seem to realize that Bell is trying to show that there is non-locality. My model is non-locality.

Actually it is a combination of non-locality and locality.

But the electromagnetic matrix that I've been describing is the non-local factor.

Entanglement is a common source of expansion. In the universe, it is an expanding radial proton flow and a spherical expansion of space between the radials, that creates the "surfers' waves" of my "high school experiment."

Why does, as it says in the linked article, "two separate systems become entangled when you bring them together"? Because by bringing them together, what they really mean is they are transferring energy into a source of expansion from 2 or more source all at ONE point.

If they say anything about a photon as a particle, it is a transfer point to or from matter. Otherwise, it is just energy being expanded spherically by the E/M matrix.

If they say they take this photon path and switch it to that photon path, it is just not how light works.

-- Updated December 11th, 2014, 7:18 am to add the following --

............................................

Conclusions: Spooky action at a distance must exist. NOT!

Just to clarify...I believe in action at a distance.

I just don't think that it is spooky.

It comes down to understanding that, although the equilibrium involved in the symmetry of this expansion is very far removed from the object of study, the "space" of this offset is naturally quantisized by uniform expansion.

-- Updated December 11th, 2014, 4:56 pm to add the following --



They are deceiving themselves, if they think of it as a "delayed photon" and a "later photon".

Light is a transfer through special relativity. It leaves a point of general relativity and is expanded into the future by special relativity until it intercepts with more general relativity at a point.

All the energy (independent from its source) at the last point of common general relativity (in this experiment) is the PBS.

[Frank Aiello]

I doubt it's the end of discovery within physics. There are many questions to be resolved. For example, why is 96 percent of the universe non-baryonic matter? What explains the asymmetry between matter and antimatter in the universe? (One would expect equal amounts of both, yet matter largely dominates); what is the origin of mass and its relationship to the Higgs boson and the Higgs field? Can we come up with a consistent theory of quantum gravity? These are just a few questions off the top of my head. Almost always when one says discovery is finished, discovery is actually just getting started. I see no reason why this should not be the case for physics.