0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In quantum entanglement, a pair of closely-similar quantum particles appear to stay somehow connected with each other, despite being separated, even across wide distances. In previous threads, I've given a model for how a universal ether could have arisen in the beginning. -I claim that this is the only kind of theory that rationally accounts for quantum entanglement.In the very beginning, according to my model, before the first appearance of forces, everything was very self-compatible, so that everywhere, there only existed reciprocal oscillations of elemental "point" localities. Then oscillational fatigue led neighboring "points" to combine, loosely, breaking the perfect symmetry of the oscillations, transitioning everything to a world of elemental, identical, "point" moietites, interacting with each other vibrationally. -Eventually, entrainments of these vibrating elemental units led to larger units, up to the size of atomic and quantum units.In this model, everything in our world, including quantum/atomic units, are made of these elemental ether units, and the same identical elemental units constitute a universal unstructured ether-matrix, that is beyond our ability to detect, but which underlies our quantum atomic structured world.With this model, quantum entanglement represents a pair of quantum units that are made of loosely-resonationally-connected "building block" elemental ether units, that are able to vibrate together with the same kind of elemental units in the ether matrix all around them, so that they remain connected with each other through the etheric matrix.
People should take a serious interest in solving quantum entanglement. It could potentially change the way we view the theory of basic forces, which in turn would have important consequences in many other areas of thought. One change would be that there never was a "Big Bang."
The forces involved in quantum entanglement ("Q.E.") appear to be perfectly linear, and to differ from other forces science is familiar with, i.e., quantum forces, which operate via non-linear mechanisms like spin, waves, and the like. The forces in the connectivity in quantum entanglement appear to be perfectly linear. The ether model I outlined can account for the linearity involved in QE, because in this model, the energy units transmitting the connectivity are elemental ether units. Being elemental, they are all identical to each other, and they interact (resonate) via a different kind of process from the spin/vector/wave mechanisms seen with quantum forces, that is, by vibration. (the ether units forming "loose" connections as they vibrate near each other.) In considering the kind of etheric model I propose for QE, one has to use a different way of thinking about energy than is usually used.
To try to clarify the concept of linearity as it would apply to the elemental-ether model for quantum entanglement -Quantum so-called-"entanglement" represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental etheric units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the two quantum units being "walled off" kinetically, like cool "arms" of a quiet, purring, ether mechanism.The connection between the two entangled quantum units forms a straight line containing a "packet" of similar-patterned elemental ether units, through the surrounding ether matrix, which is composed of a sea of elemental ether units. Since the two quantum units are "built", loosely (resonationally), out of the same identical elemental units, the "entangled" quantum units are able to "feel" the vibrations of the elemental ether all around them.It becomes a little more complicated when you consider the fact that quantum units can also (besides being able to interact with the ether in this way vibrationally) interact with other quantum units, through non-linear processes like spin, waves, across spatial vectors, and the like, in ways that science can detect.
All the classical physicists, including Newton, accepted the existence of a universal ether medium as being necessary for the transmission of forces. -Then, in the late 1800s and first half of the 1900s, a series of experiments were performed, by Albert Michelson and others, which used measurements of the behavior of light beams under different physical conditions designed to detect if an ether capable of transmitting light was present. The tests were interpreted as negative, and the ether concept was discarded by physics. (Then physicists like Einstein started coming up with theories for how the world could work without a medium to transmit forces.)I claim those old experiments were based on false assumptions as to how any possible kind of ether would affect light beams.The classical concept of a universal ether pictured an ether as necessarily being fluidic in nature, acting as a fluid to transmit forces like light beams. The idea of a fluidic ether seemed to be supported by the observation that energy transmissions, like light, are in the form of "waves." -But I claim the ether still could be not fluidic, but rather electric., My ether model is based on the idea of an electric, rather than fluidic ether. The effect of an ether on light beams would hinge on this difference in terms of assuming how an ether would affect the behavior of light beams.The old experiments that physics still clings to to dismiss the ether failed to consider the possibility that an electric ether, acting via electrical resonative interactions with elemental ether units, would affect the behavior of light beams entirely differently from how the way a fluid ether would affect light beams. The existence of "waves" does not necessarily mean an ether medium would be fluidic. -"Waves," in my ether model, only reflect the fact that there is a "sea" of elemental ether units all around us, and the "waves" actually represent a "shoreline" effect, i.e., zones where etheroidal units are transitioning to sub-quantal units..Those old experiments that physicists still accept, as ruling out an ether, erroneously assumed that any possible kind of ether would have to be fluidic, whereas I claim they made a key mistake in failing to consider another possibility, i.e., that an ether could be electric, and interacting with light via electrical resonance with elemental units of an ether, and not fluidic at all, as they had assumed.,