The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: "Spooky action at a distance" -Etrher Theory vs. "quantum entanglement"  (Read 1131 times)

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
In 1935, Einstein famously referred to the phenomenon in which energy particles react in concert, even when separated by a great distance, as being "spooky," and it led him at the time to question the very foundation of quantum theory.

Quantum mechanics (QM) calls this observation "quantum entanglement." QM claims that particles displaying this effect are "entangled." QM states that when particles that are closely related ("highly resonant") are separated by distances that appear too great for quantum forces to be acting, such an effect is due to their being "entangled."

"Quantum entanglement" is a clever phrase. but I submit that QM really has no rational concept of what is happening here.

Last November, I posted two threads presenting an ether model for the origin of cosmic forces, one thread showing how such an ether can explain gravity and magnetic fields, and the other thread showing how this kind of ether can explain time.

This Thread will show how the ether model can also account for action-at-a-distance, rationally - which, again, QM cannot do.

In my ether model, the ether originated from oscillations in Original Space, these oscillations leading to an energically-vibrational ether composed of uniform, identical ether units throughout all of space. (After the first vibrating unit appeared, it broke the perfect symmetry of space, and this ethereal type of unit was copied and propagated, throughout all of space.) -Such a model would obviously represent a highly-rational framework for the subsequent appearance of uniform, orderly, systems like atoms, planets, and so on.

This same basic concept - of an ethereal, vanishingly-rarified, underlying matrix, or network, of identical, vibrating, elemental ether energy units -leads to a simple explanation for the effect QM is calling "quantum entanglement."

In my model of the ether, quantum "particles" are not discrete solid units, but rather are "particle capacity" energy units that are made up of elemental ether units.

We know that quantum forces involve spin, act across vectors of space, and so on. -Again, I submit this kind of model totally fails to fit with action-at-a-distance. -Instead, what I propose is going on is that when two quantum units are seen to react "together," even when separated by great distances, is that a non-quantum type of energic mechanism is actually causing the effect. -Elemental ether units making up the two quantum units would be energically contiguous with elemental ether units in the space between the quantum units. (Vibrational energic resonance only occurs between elemental units. This interadction may be between two "free" elemental ether units, or between a free elemental unit and an elemental unit that is part of a quantum unit.) Therefore, when one of a pair of closely-related quantum units is "tweaked," and its "twin" quantum unit reacts to the tweaking, what is actually happening is that the two were already "in touch" with each other, due to their similar make-up, via vibratory transmissions through the contiguous elemental ether of space. -When one of the two was tweaked, the other "felt" the change via the underlying universal ether matrix.



 QM cannot do.


 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
My last sentence, "QM Cannot do," should have said "QM cannot do, cosmologically." -Of course, the energy model presently being accepted, which says that an ether doesn't exist, and that our earthbound quantum data will be able "someday" to explain cosmic forces like gravity, magnetic fields, time, and action-at-a-distance, does work in our earthbound setting for things like electronics and so on. But my model can account for cosmic forces, which the quantum model cannot do.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums