0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ok maybe I'm holding back unnecessarily. It is a kind of leading question, leading to an idea that maybe - and it is a unsubstanbtiated long shot - we are looking at space all wrong.There has always been a tendancy to assume that; "objects need to be in proximity to interact"; (how close depends on which force) and certainly on a human scale this seems self evident and intuitive. However relativity and quantum mechanics have shown us the limitations of human intuition.I'm wondering if cause and effect haven't been confused. So in fact we could consider that objects are in proximity by definition if they are interacting... or maybe likely to interact.If supportable, this may provide a better "understanding" of quantum teleportation, described as "spooky action at a distance". "Interaction defined distance" for want of a better name says the entangled particles are in proximity until compared to/observed relative to some other measure of distance, some chain of particle interactions.This seems consistent with the philosophy of spatial relationism, now preferred over absolute space. It's good for relativity and QM as it suggests why macroscopic distance (newtonian and also relativistic) is different from distance on a microscopic scale.I quess we are also going to need zero point energy/vaccum potential to estalish distance in a vacuum. (This is the theorised spontaineous creation and annihilation of particle pairs).Some potential?