'Spooky action at a distance.'

[TheMoon]

One cannot expect that a direct measurement of one particle in a coupled state would mean this would bring about any changes in the other particle. But perhaps in some ways, those changes can be achieved. Perhaps, in order that measurement of particle a have any effect on particle b, the measuring apparatus must mimick the photon. The reason is, each particle a and b has potential. Not all of these potentials will be realized however in a single time-frame. The photon therefore, posessess the most potential. It has to be ready to serve data about particle a behaviour to the observer. So, rather than to begin with arbitrary measurement of particle, one begins with a series of arbitrary measurements of the photon. After arbitrary measurements on the photon have been made, the result should be a series of potentialities, pertaining to the photon and therefore particle a and b. Throughout this measurement process, information acquired about particle a, directly affects particle b. It is unlikely one would gain a classical measurement, though at this stage not impossible. The more arbitrary measurements are made on the photon, the closer one gets to a full description of both particles. That is to say, an observer at particle a, making a measurement would have no effect at all on particle b, because of a resitriction in potentialities.

 

[quantum_wave]

One cannot expect that a direct measurement of one particle in a coupled state would mean this would bring about any changes in the other particle.

But perhaps in some ways, those changes can be achieved.

Perhaps, in order that measurement of particle a have any effect on particle b, the measuring apparatus must mimick the photon.

The reason is, each particle a and b has potential. Not all of these potentials will be realized however in a single time-frame. The photon therefore, posessess the most potential. It has to be ready to serve data about particle a behaviour to the observer.

So, rather than to begin with arbitrary measurement of particle, one begins with a series of arbitrary measurements of the photon. After arbitrary measurements on the photon have been made, the result should be a series of potentialities, pertaining to the photon and therefore particle a and b.

Throughout this measurement process, information acquired about particle a, directly affects particle b. It is unlikely one would gain a classical measurement, though at this stage not impossible.

The more arbitrary measurements are made on the photon, the closer one gets to a full description of both particles. That is to say, an observer at particle a, making a measurement would have no effect at all on particle b, because of a resitriction in potentialities.

I think this post deserves a reply, though I'm not certain I fully understand the methodology that you prescribe. But correct me if I'm wrong; your conclusion is stated in both the first sentence, and the last sentence:

One cannot expect that a direct measurement of one particle in a coupled state would mean this would bring about any changes in the other particle.

...

That is to say, an observer at particle a, making a measurement would have no effect at all on particle b, because of a resitriction in potentialities.

I suspect I have missed the point though, and wonder if you can add some content to clarify.

 

[Michael Anteski]

In 1935, Einstein took note of the early evidence of the "action at a distance" phenomenon, and it led him to question the very foundation of quantum mechanics (QM). -He never really changed his mind on the matter. He occasionally used the term "ether" after that, but never incorporated an ether into his cosmic model (General Relativity is of course basically a no-ether framework.)

I have a Thread in the Forum presenting a model for the origin of cosmic forces from original space. This process in space led to the formation of a universal ether, which acts via the transmission of energic-impulses, by vibrational resonance, between elemental etheric units. (The "vibrating" ether units being derived from "oscillating point localities" of original space.) -Larger energy units, like quantum units, have been built up from resonations of the elemental units, especially in magnetically-energized regions like earth, where the ambient magnetic energy-setting causes the ether units to crowd closer, producing linear, unit-to-elemental-unit "entrainments," that produce larger, quantum-scale, "particles," a "quantized" energy-setting, such as exists in our earth environment.

This model, of an underlying matrix of uniform, identical, elemental ether units that resonate virationally, would represent a logical mechanism for "spooky action at a distance." -The idea would be that when a pair of closely-related (highly resonant) quantum "particles" are seen to react "together," even when separated by distances that appear too great for QM forces to be acting, that there is actually a second type of energy acting - an underlying vibrational/resonational energy that transmits energy impulses through the ether of space. -The pair of larger "particles" are composed of the same elemental ether units as those in space, so that (in addition to their quantum energy processes of spin, vectors, etc.) they also retain the ability to resonate vibationally with the universal underlying ether matrix. Thus, when one of a pair of closely-related particles is "tweaked," its "twin" will "feel" the effect, even across great distances, through the vibratory ether.

 

[origin]

I have a Thread in the Forum presenting a model for the origin of cosmic forces from original space.

What do you mean by 'the Forum'. This is 'a forum' and all I see is this post. I doubt your other aleged thread is any more informative but I am curious.

 

[Michael Anteski]

origin

I hate to "hijack" someone else's Thread. But I'll go into my basic idea of how an ether originated from space.

The basic idea is that space came first, which seems intuitively reasonable. -Original space would have been space before the first appearance of forces. Thus it would have been different from our present type of space. Original space no longer exists, so it can't be tested. But it must have had properties that led to our present world of uniformity of atomic structure, and so on, as we have today.

In my model, original space was self-compatible, such that elemental "point localities" were oscillating in perfect symmetry, reciprocally, with each other. The reciprocity distance-parameters of the oscillations would not have been infinite, so the point-localities would have been finite (not like mathematical "points.")

Eventually, these oscillations led to oscillational fatigue of a pair of adjacent points, which fell toward each other "Yin and Yang" fashion. (Oscillational fatigue occurs in metals, but since metallic oscillational fatigue is a quantum process, it cannot be definitively related to oscillational fatigue in origjnal space.) -This Yin-Yang 'disturbance in the perfect symmetry of space was then propagated throughout all of space, which produced a universal vibrating energic ether made up of elemental ether units that were all identical with each other and capable of resonating vibrationally with each other. -This makes a suitable model for how our present orderly world of identical atoms could have arisen.

The vibrational curvational property of the Yin-Yang unit, having broken perfect symmetry, would have been different from the symmetrical oscillational property of original space. The non-directionality of space would have thus been converted to a directional, energic, ether from oscillational space.

 

[paddoboy]

The basic idea is that space came first, which seems intuitively reasonable. -Original space would have been space before the first appearance of forces. Thus it would have been different from our present type of space. Original space no longer exists, so it can't be tested.

Space along with time are what evolved from the BB.
The only difference between the spacetime that evolved at the BB, and the spacetime today, was that it was in a hot dense state, so much so, that matter was unable to exist in such conditions, and the four forces we know of today, were combined as one Superforce.
As spacetime expanded, temperatures and pressures dropped, the Superforce started to decouple [gravity first] and our first fundamental particles were able to pop into existence during these phase transitions.
Of course as yet we are unable to create such conditions in the Lab but that scenario along with our particle zoo model, are generally accepted in mainstream cosmological circles.
This process is called "Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking"

But it must have had properties that led to our present world of uniformity of atomic structure, and so on, as we have today.

I have just described the most likely logically based scenario.

 

[paddoboy]

The time frame of the decoupling of the Superforce went like this.....
Gravity......t+10-43 seconds or at the Planck era:
Strong Nuclear......t+10-35 seconds:
Weak force......t+10-11 seconds:

 

[HarryT]

Space along with time are what evolved from the BB.
The only difference between the spacetime that evolved at the BB, and the spacetime today, was that it was in a hot dense state, so much so, that matter was unable to exist in such conditions, and the four forces we know of today, were combined as one Superforce.
As spacetime expanded, temperatures and pressures dropped, the Superforce started to decouple [gravity first] and our first fundamental particles were able to pop into existence during these phase transitions.
Of course as yet we are unable to create such conditions in the Lab but that scenario along with our particle zoo model, are generally accepted in mainstream cosmological circles.
This process is called "Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking".

I really would like to know why you and so many other people think that space is anything more that empty, property-less nothing-ness? I mean, it feels just so weird to me to talk about space as something that was created at some point or something that has properties. Is it too much to accept the possibility that space is just something has always existed and will forever exist ?

 

[HarryT]

The time frame of the decoupling of the Superforce went like this.....
Gravity......t+10-43 seconds or at the Planck era:
Strong Nuclear......t+10-35 seconds:
Weak force......t+10-11 seconds:

Why so spefic times?!
I mean, at the moment the strong and weak nuclear forces are part of a model that is unable to explain everything we observe in the universe. Doesn't that imply the model is al least incomplete. Or in other words: doesn't this mean that the very existence of these strong and weak nuclear forces is uncertain ?

 

[paddoboy]

I really would like to know why you and so many other people think that space is anything more that empty, property-less nothing-ness? I mean, it feels just so weird to me to talk about space as something that was created at some point or something that has properties. Is it too much to accept the possibility that space is just something has always existed and will forever exist ?

The Casimir Effect and DE show that spacetime is more then just property-less and empty.
And the evidence we have that point to the BB, show that at the first instant of time, matter could not possibly exist due to the excessive temperatures and pressures.
It may on face value seem counter-intuitive, but so to was the discovered and evidenced facts that both time and space are not as absolute as Newton presumed.
BHs are also counter-intuitive, and we have never directly seen one to boot.
But to dismiss BHs one first needs to conjur up some other probably even more weird entity that can explain the observational effects we see of the matter/energy and spacetime within the BHs vicinity.

 

[paddoboy]

Why so spefic times?!
I mean, at the moment the strong and weak nuclear forces are part of a model that is unable to explain everything we observe in the universe. Doesn't that imply the model is al least incomplete. Or in other words: doesn't this mean that the very existence of these strong and weak nuclear forces is uncertain ?

No scientific theory is 100% certain. That's how science works.
But if the strong and weak forces did not exist, then neither would you and I.
The "times" are calculated on the calculations of the temperatures and pressures that would have existed.
Like I said, at that first instant, matter was totally impossible to exist.
Only spacetime and the inherent Superforce according to our best models and the work achieved in particle accelerators and the LHC.

 

[paddoboy]

Why so spefic times?!
I mean, at the moment the strong and weak nuclear forces are part of a model that is unable to explain everything we observe in the universe. Doesn't that imply the model is al least incomplete. Or in other words: doesn't this mean that the very existence of these strong and weak nuclear forces is uncertain ?

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model

The Standard Model
The Standard Model explains how the basic building blocks of matter interact, governed by four fundamental forces

 

[HarryT]

The Casimir Effect and DE show that spacetime is more then just property-less and empty.
And the evidence we have that point to the BB, show that at the first instant of time, matter could not possibly exist due to the excessive temperatures and pressures.
It may on face value seem counter-intuitive, but so to was the discovered and evidenced facts that both time and space are not as absolute as Newton presumed.
BHs are also counter-intuitive, and we have never directly seen one to boot.
But to dismiss BHs one first needs to conjur up some other probably even more weird entity that can explain the observational effects we see of the matter/energy and spacetime within the BHs vicinity.

-Space is filled with all kinds off whizzing EM photons. Some of those can penetrate virtually anything. Why couldn’t the Casimir effect be explained by the “pressure” of those photons that have a size that does not fit between the plates?
-What does DE stand for ?
-Don’t think BB would have to be in any way relevant to the existence of space.
-The GR model postulates space and time not to be absolute. The GR model is also not able to explain everything. This model is therefore incomplete and not 100% evidence that space and time are actually not absolute.
-Why are BH counter-intuitive? I mean, we know matter or a particle is mostly empty space. Seems obvious that under the right circumstances this could collapse to having less empty space resulting in a compact matter state we call black hole?
-From what I understand the reason that the strong force is postulated is that protons and neutrons appear when we smash atoms and/or quarks appear when we smash protons or neutrons? Seems a very awkward and clumsy explanation to me to think there must be some duct tape holding the protons or quarks together . Isn’t it much more logical to assume protons, neutrons, quarks do not exist inside an atom but instead are created after smashing the atom from the energy fragments from the smashed atom?

 

[paddoboy]

-Space is filled with all kinds off whizzing EM photons. Some of those can penetrate virtually anything. Why couldn’t the Casimir effect be explained by the “pressure” of those photons that have a size that does not fit between the plates?

Not sure, but educated men in this discipline have explained it as due to quantum fluctuations in the EM field. Photons/light are part of the EM field.

-What does DE stand for ?

Dark Energy.

-Don’t think BB would have to be in any way relevant to the existence of space.

The BB theory tells us the Universe, space and time evolved from a hot dense state to what we see today. Cosmological redshift is redshift caused by the expansion of spacetime.

-The GR model postulates space and time not to be absolute. The GR model is also not able to explain everything. This model is therefore incomplete and not 100% evidence that space and time are actually not absolute.

The GR model so far is 100% correct within its parameters and areas of applicability. That includes the non absolute nature of space and time.

-Why are BH counter-intuitive? I mean, we know matter or a particle is mostly empty space. Seems obvious that under the right circumstances this could collapse to having less empty space resulting in a compact matter state we call black hole?

That's great...I agree with you, as a BH is even predicted in Newtonian mechanics. Still some lay people do find it counter-intuitive.

-From what I understand the reason that the strong force is postulated is that protons and neutrons appear when we smash atoms and/or quarks appear when we smash protons or neutrons? Seems a very awkward and clumsy explanation to me to think there must be some duct tape holding the protons or quarks together . Isn’t it much more logical to assume protons, neutrons, quarks do not exist inside an atom but instead are created after smashing the atom from the energy fragments from the smashed atom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction

In my own layman's language, let me say that most of the energy released in a nuclear bomb, is the energy holding protons and neutrons together.
The strong nuclear force is that which is responsible for holding the atomic nucleus of an element together.
This has been known for many many years.

I would also add, that at one time, an atom was the smallest part of any element, but as we built bigger and better colliders etc, we learnt that as we smashed atoms together, we broke them into smaller pieces, and as we smashed those pieces together, we got even smaller stuff. Logical scientific thinking I would say.
We have even seen some of these particles and their tracks, so how can you assume that they don't exist, but just "appear"?
That makes no sense to me.

 

[HarryT]

Not sure, but educated men in this discipline have explained it as due to quantum fluctuations in the EM field. Photons/light are part of the EM field.

Right, that's my point. An EM field in(!) space. Not a property of(!) space.

Dark Energy.

Aha, yes. Well I think that as long as we only have models for things like gravity or electric fields (spooky action) but do not have a real understanding of how this spooky action works then conclusions we draw based on this fundamental lack of real understanding of gravity must not be taken as facts. In other words: What now seems an accelerated motion of galaxies may turn out to be a false interpretation once we understand how spooky action works. Same may be true with dark matter.

The BB theory tells us the Universe, space and time evolved from a hot dense state to what we see today. Cosmological redshift is redshift caused by the expansion of spacetime.

Seems strange to me. Why cant the BB just be a big bang in a space that already existed and independent of any already existing time?

The GR model so far is 100% correct within its parameters and areas of applicability. That includes the non absolute nature of space and time.

The GR model seems correct. But all experiments have only been done in “near-Earth” gravity conditions. Everybody seems convinced these results can be extrapolated into the vast interstellar and inter galactic empty voids. I doubt that, or at least that has not been scientifically proven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction In my own layman's language, let me say that most of the energy released in a nuclear bomb, is the energy holding protons and neutrons together. The strong nuclear force is that which is responsible for holding the atomic nucleus of an element together. This has been known for many many years.

I just feel I can think of a much more elegant explanation. I mean lets look at the hydrogen -> helium fusion. Helium is lighter than the four original protons. The excess mass is transferred into energy. What if instead of the nuclear strong duct tape the helium nucleus is just 4 protons fused together in a more efficient configuration where there is less matter required?
Yes, I know: 2 protons and 2 neutrons. But originally they where 4 protons.

I would also add, that at one time, an atom was the smallest part of any element, but as we built bigger and better colliders etc, we learnt that as we smashed atoms together, we broke them into smaller pieces, and as we smashed those pieces together, we got even smaller stuff. Logical scientific thinking I would say. We have even seen some of these particles and their tracks, so how can you assume that they don't exist, but just "appear"?
That makes no sense to me.

This is in fact the reverse argument as my last argument above. I believe it is more logical like this: When you smash for example a proton, the energy of the proton gets fragmented and those fragments condense by a kind of cohesion effect to the next smaller more or less stable possible particle ?

 

[Michael Anteski]

My "oscillatory original space-to-universal, uniform, vibratory ether" model is the most sensible. In the Big Bang model, it is asserted that various particles "appeared" at specified intervals, but, while such particles are found to exist today, no hypothesis is given for any original stepwise progression from any units to other units, as I have given in my ether model.

 

[HarryT]

My "oscillatory original space-to-universal, uniform, vibratory ether" model is the most sensible. In the Big Bang model, it is asserted that various particles "appeared" at specified intervals, but, while such particles are found to exist today, no hypothesis is given for any original stepwise progression from any units to other units, as I have given in my ether model.

I can understand the attraction of an ether model. However I believe you just do not fully understand the scientific evidence against an ether model because that evidence is nothing less than overwhelming. On top of that, for me personally, after considering the possibility of the existence of an ether myself, I eventually came to the conclusion that it is almost silly to compare Electromagnetic waves or gravity waves with the kind of waves we know in our everyday life like sound waves or water waves. Just because light exhibits wave like properties doesn’t imply or prove in any way that light is comparable to for example a sound wave or that it would require a medium to propagate. Especially since it has been shown that small particles also exhibit wave like properties.

 

[paddoboy]

Right, that's my point. An EM field in(!) space. Not a property of(!) space.

DE is certainly a property of spacetime.

Aha, yes. Well I think that as long as we only have models for things like gravity or electric fields (spooky action) but do not have a real understanding of how this spooky action works then conclusions we draw based on this fundamental lack of real understanding of gravity must not be taken as facts. In other words: What now seems an accelerated motion of galaxies may turn out to be a false interpretation once we understand how spooky action works. Same may be true with dark matter.

The expansion we observe is not due to any motions of gravity.
It is a cosmological redshift caused by the intervening spacetime expanding.
Any Doppler redshift/blueshift we observe is just small in comparison and due to local gravity effects in groups of galaxies.
Spooky action at a distance is a quantum effect, and yes, you are correct...as yet it remains largely a mystery.

Seems strange to me. Why cant the BB just be a big bang in a space that already existed and independent of any already existing time?

The BB and GR totally compliment each other, one of the reasons why they are seen as "near certain", and that includes the assumption of the evolution of space and time [henceforth known as spacetime] from a hotter denser state.
The BB actually ceases to predict at t+10-43 seconds after the initial event...the Planck/Quantum level in fact, and we then assume back that extra tiny bit [10-43 seconds] to the supposed Singularity.
In other words from 10-43 seconds, space and time [as we know them] evolved as we see and experience them today.
Anything else is speculation.

The GR model seems correct. But all experiments have only been done in “near-Earth” gravity conditions. Everybody seems convinced these results can be extrapolated into the vast interstellar and inter galactic empty voids. I doubt that, or at least that has not been scientifically proven.

GR works totally well over larger scales. This was shown in the viewing of the eclipse by Eddington, and the subsequently observation of spacetime warpage and the geodesic path of light from a particular star.
We also assume the laws of physics to be constant throughout the Universe as well as being Isotropic and homegenous over large scales.
Logical extrapolation of what we already know, and we have no reason to doubt those assumptions as yet.

I just feel I can think of a much more elegant explanation. I mean lets look at the hydrogen -> helium fusion. Helium is lighter than the four original protons. The excess mass is transferred into energy. What if instead of the nuclear strong duct tape the helium nucleus is just 4 protons fused together in a more efficient configuration where there is less matter required?
Yes, I know: 2 protons and 2 neutrons. But originally they where 4 protons.
This is in fact the reverse argument as my last argument above. I believe it is more logical like this: When you smash for example a proton, the energy of the proton gets fragmented and those fragments condense by a kind of cohesion effect to the next smaller more or less stable possible particle ?

The balls in your court.
You need some either some experimental evidence, observational evidence, logical theoretical applications of what we already know, follow the scientific methodology and then undergo peer review.
Best of luck.

Seriously though, what do you think cosmologists and the many giants in science have been doing?
They have access to a myriad of state of the art equipment, probes like Planck, and the HST and Spitzser.

 

[HarryT]

DE is certainly a property of spacetime.

Or one could say: DE exists in space. It’s only a subtle but essential different way of interpreting things.

The expansion we observe is not due to any motions of gravity.

Agreed, I was skipping to many thought steps. Putting it like I did was nonsense.

It is a cosmological redshift caused by the intervening spacetime expanding.
Any Doppler redshift/blueshift we observe is just small in comparison and due to local gravity effects in groups of galaxies.
Spooky action at a distance is a quantum effect, and yes, you are correct...as yet it remains largely a mystery.

My point is: there are too many mysteries to warrant faith in the absolute correctness of the interpretations of the observed Doppler effects. Accelerated expansion is weird enough in my opinion to at least put some doubts with the conclusions, and question or test the axioms leading to these conclusions.

The BB and GR totally compliment each other, one of the reasons why they are seen as "near certain", and that includes the assumption of the evolution of space and time [henceforth known as spacetime] from a hotter denser state.
The BB actually ceases to predict at t+10-43 seconds after the initial event...the Planck/Quantum level in fact, and we then assume back that extra tiny bit [10-43 seconds] to the supposed Singularity.
In other words from 10-43 seconds, space and time [as we know them] evolved as we see and experience them today.
Anything else is speculation.

There it is again: “The evolution of space and time” To put it like that feels to me like admitting that we are not intelligent enough to accept the possibility that there exists space and time beyond the point of the outskirts of the Big Bang. That what is now the known as the visible universe. Yes, the theories compliment each other and allow us to explain many things and they are magnificent and even “correct”. I just think we are missing something like the context of applicability of the theories to get the whole picture. Just like Newton missed the context of applicability of his theories.

The balls in your court.
You need some either some experimental evidence, observational evidence, logical theoretical applications of what we already know, follow the scientific methodology and then undergo peer review.
Best of luck.

I would like that, but I have no idea on how to do this. I tried to forget about my ideas for a long time because I have most of the typical crackpot symptoms. But I couldn’t in the end because it felt so good that I just had to at least try and get some feedback. I compare it to the feeling I had when I first realized that the Newtons motion formulas could be derived from each other through integration. The beauty of realizing this was almost emotional.
I can say something about the “evidence”: If I assume the universe is basically only energy in space (or in spacetime like most people seem to want to call it, but it could be called in Umpa Lumpa for all I care) then it is obvious that it should be possible to create a single theory explaining everything. The fact that this theory has not been found for so long is (to me) indirect evidence we are missing “something”. Something in the basic assumptions has to give to get out of this stalemate.

Seriously though, what do you think cosmologists and the many giants in science have been doing?
They have access to a myriad of state of the art equipment, probes like Planck, and the HST and Spitzser.

They have been doing incredible things and I have enormous respect for their accomplishments and follow progress with great interest.
Right now I am just asking myself and people on this forum a simple enough question:
Is the assumption correct that when we smash a particle that the smaller particles that appear are fragments of the smashed particle?
I postulate and give argument why I believe this assumption is not correct and it is much more logical and elegant when the smaller particles that appear are (at least for some part) newly created particles from energy fragments from the smashed particle. The difference is only very subtle but may have profound consequences because if this is true then the strong nuclear force is simply not required anymore to keep things together.

 

[Michael Anteski]

I can understand the attraction of an ether model. However I believe you just do not fully understand the scientific evidence against an ether model because that evidence is nothing less than overwhelming. On top of that, for me personally, after considering the possibility of the existence of an ether myself, I eventually came to the conclusion that it is almost silly to compare Electromagnetic waves or gravity waves with the kind of waves we know in our everyday life like sound waves or water waves. Just because light exhibits wave like properties doesn’t imply or prove in any way that light is comparable to for example a sound wave or that it would require a medium to propagate. Especially since it has been shown that small particles also exhibit wave like properties.

The consensus opinion that the Michelson Morley Experiment (MMX) permanently disproved an ether is wrong. The MMX was looking for an inertial effect (a 'wind drag" effect.) -If an ether is non inertial in action (specifically, energically contiguous, as would be the vibrational ether I propose), the crucial MMX criterion would not apply. -Yet physics still adheres to the finality of that 1887 design (and the subsequent modifications in experimental designs, which did not disprove the ether either.) -A model such as mine, of a vibrational ether that constitutes a universal underlying energic matrix upon which quantum and other larger energies are superimposed), would, if taken notice of, represent the only existing rational explanation for the effect of action-at-a-distance, which is now being called quantum entanglement (the idea in my model being that widely separated resonant quantum units are made up of elemental ether units, and thus retain the ability to resonate vibrationally with the elemental ether units of the underlying energy matrix - in addition to possessing the known quantum energy properties, spin, vectors, and so on.