Physicists have different ideas about "quanglement" (quantum entanglement), but none of them includes any nonphysical entities or forces.devans99 wrote: ↑July 9th, 2019, 3:44 pmHow do you know [quantum entanglement] is a purely physical phenomenon? The two particles wave forms collapse at the same time despite an arbitrary large distance between them. To me it suggests there is more to reality than we are aware of. It could be that there is another aspect of reality where the two distanced particles are actually co-located or where time does not exist and so instantaneous distanced correlated events can take place. Maybe God is part of this other reality - not material in the sense we understand but still able to effect the material world we sense.
For example, here's David Bohm's interpretation:
"[T]he quantum theory has a fundamentally new kind of non-local relationship, which may be described as a noncausal connection of elements that are distant from each other, which is brought out in the experiment of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. For our purposes, it is not necessary to go into the technical details concerning this non-local relationship. All that is important here is that one finds, through a study of the implications of the quantum theory, that the analysis of a total system into a set of independently existent but interacting particles breaks down in a radically new way. One discovers, instead, both from consideration of the meaning of the mathematical equations and from the results of the actual experiments, that the various particles have to be taken literally as projections of a higher-dimensional reality which cannot be accounted for in terms of any force of interaction between them.
We can obtain a helpful intuitive sense of what is meant by the notion of projection here, through the consideration of the following device. Let us begin with a rectangular tank full of water, with transparent walls (see Figure 3.2).
Suppose further that there are two television cameras, A and B, directed at what is going on in the water (e.g., fish swimming around) as seen through the two walls at right angles to each other. Now let the corresponding television images be made visible on screens A and B in another room. What we will see there is a certain relationship between the images appearing on the two screens. For example, on screen A we may see an image of a fish, and on screen B we will see another such image. At any given moment each image will generally look different from the other. Nevertheless the differences will be related, in the sense that when one image is seen to execute certain movements, the other will be seen to execute corresponding movements. Moreover, content that is mainly on one screen will pass into the other, and vice versa (e.g., when a fish initially facing camera A turns through a right angle, the image that was on A is now to be found on B). Thus at all times the image content on the other screen will correlate with and reflect that of the other.
Of course, we know that the two images do not refer to independently existent though interacting actualities (in which, for example, one image could be said to 'cause' related changes in the other). Rather, they refer to a single actuality, which is the common ground of both (and this explains the correlation of images without the assumption that they causally affect each other). This actuality is of higher dimensionality than are the separate images on the screens; or, to put it differently, the images on the screens are two-dimensional projections (or facets) of a three-dimensional reality. In some sense this three-dimensional reality holds these two-dimensional projections within it. Yet, since these projections exist only as abstractions, the three-dimensional reality is neither of these, but rather it is something else, something of a nature beyond both."
(Bohm, David. "The Enfolding-Unfolding Universe and Consciousness." 1980. Reprinted in The Essential David Bohm, edited by Lee Nichol, 78-138. New York: Routledge, 2003. pp. 94-6)