'Spooky action at a distance.'

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by TheMoon, Dec 22, 2014.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    No, I see it as unnecessarily pedantic and ignoring the fact that DE as yet [other then being a property of spacetime] is totally unknown but probably the CC of Einstein fame
    The thing is Harry, these cosmologists and Astronomers that have given us this knowledge, have access to a myriad of state of the art equipment, both on Earth and in orbit and beyond.
    They have access to data that you and I do not, and utilising the scientific method, the scientific discipline is self correcting. What I mean by that is that we have plenty of rising scientists who would give all they have to show that what we presently accept is false....Afterall, there would be a Nobel in it for them! They are always kept on there toes, and the receiving of new data all the time, sees new aspects and modifications coming through.
    The recent experiment BICEP2 although mistaken in the beginning, was reviewed and reviewed and compared with other results again and again.
    The point is that the BB says nothing about before, or even why and how.
    Cosmologists openly admit that.
    As far as the BB model is concerned nothing existed prior.
    We need a validated QGT to realise what if anything did exist.
    But we are allowed to speculate as long as we realise that that is all it is.
    You will also notice that when I said that the BB was an evolution of space and time, I also added, "as we know them"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Let me say now that I am only an amateur lay person who has read plenty of reputable material.
    A crackpot by the way is not someone that genuinely asks a question. That's what we all should do. A crackpot is the person who may ask a question, without any attempt to accept the answer and has an agenda that he sees as certain, over riding all of 20th/21st century cosmology.
    They are generally afflicted with delusions of grandeur and inflated egos, and we have a few over the years on this forum. In fact we have four of them all claiming to have a TOE!!!!!
    Others here are more knowledgable then I, but most now are so tired of the continuing crackpots we do get, they now bypass their nonsense.
    I'm a stubborn old bastard and will answer genuine questions, when I am able, and will rfute nonsense when I can.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Little Bang Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    If A generates a photon to send B info that it has changed state the clock of that photon would never move. Would not A consider it had received the info instantaneously?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. TheMoon Registered Member

    Messages:
    32
    I worded my first post so badly that I wanted to hide for a long time afterwards. However, I still believe, rather cautiously, that there are parts of this hypothesis that may be salvaged, even if it's just to do away with at a later time.

    So, not sure how clear I was in one of my other posts, the notion that particles in a coupled state is a semi-faster than light notion of a rock with an observer each side. The coupled state is part of a larger system. I think I am referring to my hypothesis where the identity of a system is re-enforced by an observer. Here however, if one imagines that each particle in the universe is entangled with any single photon - and for the sake of observation I name this system to be a giant rock with which I have placed many observers, A and B, around the object. Enter the photon. Whatever data A and B observers now possess occurred in an simultaneous. Although, neither A nor B observers gained data identical to any other observer. This is due to the observers relation to a single photon or the structure of the human eye. If the ability of the human eye to perceive a single photon was stretched, then some of the A and B observers would acquire identical data. If the eye could be restructured completely, then each A and B data would be identical.

    The more I tried to re-word this hypothesis, the more I knew I had missed something. Perhaps this was nothing more than I had come up with photon-particle entanglement - concerning a particle entanglement question. Could observer A collapse the wave-function of observer B for particles in an entangled state? I see no reason why not, even if it is simply that an observation made on either side tells one that this cannot be the same observation for the other side. This would require observers A and B.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. TheMoon Registered Member

    Messages:
    32
    Suppose there are two particles. One at observer A and another at the other side of the universe, observer B. I am observer A and I want to try a thought experiment in which I can pass relevant data to observer B through my observation. If I assume that only I know that the particle is in a coupled state, then the thought experiment won't work. Observer B has to be aware of this too. But if I am aware that the particles are in a coupled state, I cannot stop myself from being both of the observers. The same for observer B, in any case. So, the thing I was wondering... assuming observer B exists and if I cannot successfully manage to transfer data about particle A, to particle B, without having imagined both particles, then how is it different if I say that I can be both observers at the same time, given that if I had not been, in part at least, there would have been no thought experiment?
     
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    The question why scientists think that space is not empty is simply because we use field theories to describe our world, and in field theories all the fields have values - everywhere. Ok, fields can have the value zero. Usually. But the gravitational field cannot have this value. What is the "vacuum" for the gravitational field is a non-zero metric, the Minkowski metric. And this metric can be different at different places: Put the "vacuum" inside a massive shell, and it will look like a vacuum - a Minkowski metric - but if you put a clock into it, it has another time dilation as a clock in a vacuum far outside the shell. So, even if it looks similar, and is locally undistinguishable. it is quite reasonable to think that it is in above cases in quite different nontrivial states.

    The other question is if space was created. GR has simply a singularity at the early universe. and a singularity simply means that the theory is false there. So, we simply don't know what happens there. Is space created if the universe expands? This is only one interpretation, one can as well think that our rulers are shrinking. In this case, the univers looks expanding in the large, even if everything remains on its place.
     
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    It never was consensus. People with sufficiently good education have always known that the Lorentz ether is compatible with MMX. So, even at the time of the experiment itself the ether concept in itself has not been disproved.
     
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    That's one possibility, but in no way a certainty. Instead, the name "dark energy" has been invented to suggest another, non-gravitational explanation, based on some yet unknown form of energy.

    Sorry, but given that there is inflation, and standard GR does not predict any inflation, we have a clear conflict between GR and observation in the early universe. Yes, there are theories which give inflation based on some effects of field theory related with a change of the vacuum state. But they are yet speculative, they have to make quite speculative assumptions that there exists some GUT and that there are different vacuum states with certain very special properties in this theory.

    Sorry, but "totally well" is something completely different. I would recommend you to understand the meaning of dark matter and energy. The simple definition of dark matter is \(T_{mn}^{dark} = G_{mn}-T_{mn}^{visible}\). That means, whatever we observe as the metric and the energy-momentum tensor of matter, we can always define appropriate dark matter so that the GR equations hold, trivially. So, if you want to know how well is GR, all you have to do is to ask if there is dark matter, and how much. This is simply another language for if there is disagreement between observation and Einstein equations, and how much.

    Just to be clear: Yes, dark matter is a reasonable possibility to explain these differences, at least in part. And it is named "cold dark matter", because the assumption that it consists of a special form of dark matter, which would be created by simple massive particles which do not interact with usual matter, would be sufficient. But, nonetheless, "totally well" GR would be only without dark matter.

    And the situation is even worse with dark energy. The basic situation is the same - "dark energy" is simply a nice name for the difference between the GR prediction and observation. But dark energy is more problematic, because it denotes a difference which is not explainable by usual dark matter. The CC is one possibility, but this would not be sufficient for inflation.
     
  11. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    297
    As an aether theorist, I might inject an interpretation of "dark matter" and "dark energy" alternative to the consensus, or quantum empiricist's, view, as stated by Schmelzer. -In my aetherist's view, "dark matter" is actually the universal aether, which is still not detectable to our earthbound quantum-mediated observation. -"Dark energy" does not represent a "negative" energy driving the universe farther apart at its outer regions, but rather, the universe is approaching another, younger, more energetic, universe, which is pulling gravitationally in an ever-stronger way, upon the bodies in the outer regions of our universe. -This is analogous in every way to the cases where a pair of galaxies collide with each other.
     
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    This would be your ether theory, and would be very different from my ether theory. In my ether theory, all fields - of visible as well as of dark matter - describe properties of the ether.

    That all fields are properties of the ether is quite important - because the speed of light is the sound speed of the ether, and why would some other form of matter, different from the ether, use the same equation as the ether sound waves? This would be unproblematic for properties of the ether - that different properties of matter distribute their oscillations with the same fundamental waves is not obligatory for every condensed matter, but at least plausible. That other, ether-independent matter would use the same wave equation would be extremely implausible.
     
  13. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    297
    Our two models of the ether operate from different bases. I gather that yours is based on the use of empiricism, which means earthbound quantum-order forces, such as waves.

    My model of the ether is posted in Alternative Theories, if you want to check it. -My model is based on based on a rationale for how our world could have developed from original space. My model views quantum order spin/vector forces as earth-surface spin-offs of an underlying elemental ether matrix which works through a process of vibration and resonance, and which originated in space.

    In my model, waves represent patterns of resonance between forces on scales intermediate between etheric and quantum, exhibiting the pattern of waves, due to the linear entrainment of curvilinear magnetic processes at work, as the elemental ether resonances line up with larger entrained subquantum and quantum units.
     
  14. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    297
    My last post needs an addendum. -The concept of "linear" forces in my ether model is that the vibration/resonance process occurs at the level of the elemental ether unit, and occurs only between elemental ether units. Thus, this kind of resonance occurs from one elemental unit to the next one, linearly. -Non linear forces occur at larger energy scales, such as the molecular, quantum, and nuclear ("thermonuclear") scales.
     
  15. HarryT Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    Yes, that is clear. But I guess what I mean to say is: why does that exclude the possibility that there is empty space beyond the non-empty space?
    I am assuming that the gravity field of a particle is not infinite instantaneous at the moment of creation of that particle. And if I also assume all particles have been created at some point without instantaneous gravity fields then there is empty space out there beyond the point where the oldest gravity fields are expanding towards (at whatever speed).
    But even if the gravity field of a particle would be infinite instantaneous it would make no difference. In my mind space is nothing but an infinite 3D void in which things do or do not happen. It just seems incomprehensible to me why anybody would even consider to think that this space needs to have been created, or could be expanding or shrinking. Of course, one could model it that way and maybe that would make the math more interesting or something like that. But to me it just feels like a silly thing and makes things much more complex to understand. Things are complex enough, so voluntarily adding complexity does not seem a clever move to me.
    Whether or not GR is valid or if there was a singularity or not in the beginning makes no difference to me. Space is just there, it is infinite and at any given point there is something going on or not. Why make things more complex than that?
     
  16. HarryT Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    If we forget about the MMX and any other experiments (dis)proving the presence of ether: I can see how an ether model could work very well as a model for reality. The key word here to me is “model”. To me the fact that a model works does in no way prove that the model is an accurate description of reality. But let’s forget that also. Think about the implications of the existence of an ether. That would imply an infinite space filled with a non-zero energy something (ether) that is needed for everything we see (energy and matter) to exist. That just feels so non-elegant to me that I just cannot believe this to be true. In fact I see much more simple and very elegant way how things could work the way they do without an ether. So forgetting everything else, just this last thing for me is the decisive factor to dismiss the possibility or need for the existence of an ether.
     
  17. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    297
    Harry T:

    I don't see the ether of my Model as being conceptually hard to accept. -As you said, it would be a universal energic matrix underlying the forces visible to us. -This kind of ether would represent a background of linear-type forces (in which energic impulses are transmitted from elemental ether unit-to-elemental unit, linearly, and "coolly." -Other energic systems, like quantum forces, represent larger-scale "spin off"systems derived from the ether. Space and the cosmos ought to be more understandable than it is now, the ways we have been going, using earth-based quantum forces, only, as a theoretic framework.
     
  18. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    297
    I just composed a new description of my aether model of "Quantum Entanglement:" So-called quantum entanglement just represents radiated packets of aetheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental aether units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the quantum units kinetically "walled off," like "cool" arms of a quiet purring vibratory aether mechanism which can turn itself on and off by itself, at any time.

    I believe action-at-a-distance could lead to a serious revamping of energy theory by itself, if scientists would start taking notice.
     
  19. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,693
    You believe that because you do not understand current physics and have the mistaken belief that your arm waving guesses have some merit.
     
  20. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    297
    origin,

    My aether model is not from "guesswork." -I claim to have derived the model from an obscure source using a unique pathway, codebreaking.
     
  21. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,693
    It is easy to claim anything. It is much more difficult to supply compelling evidence. The evidence clearly shows that light propagates through empty space and not through an aether.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2015
  22. HarryT Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    I strongly believe so also. Although: as long as we are not able to unify the existing models/theories accepted by “main stream” science we have to keep an open mind to all possibilities. If not anything else: I find it interesting to try and understand reasoning of an ether model theorist.
    ”Obscure source” is not a word with a positive ring to it in my vocabulary and do not understand “unique pathway, codebreaking”. Please explain ?
     
  23. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    It almost rings of a divine or other world.., as in alien origin.

    My point is that anywhere other than Alternatove Theories, one would be expected to cite the source and eliminate misunderstanding.....
     

Share This Page