My ideas about all that “IS”
There can now be little doubt that our space-time universe is “swimming” in a sea of sub quantum mechanics weirdness. The world of physics continues to largely ignore this reality yet it has known for nearly one hundred years such a deep level of physics exists (it has to if quantum theory is to be seen as a valid theory in physics). The reason for this is that in this abstract sea of weirdness is where the ‘legs’ of all that “IS” around us has emanated from this non-physical sea. I believe that the legs of reality are implicit and all other ‘things’ (including quantum theory) that ‘rest’ upon these abstract legs are explicit. You and me are both implicit and explicit. A fish is both implicit and explicit and so is a rock on a mountain. The universe is implicit and explicit. If these types of way-out ideas stimulate your imagination then I suggest that you consider what the following implications for physics might be is if this is true:
1] Both Einstein relativity models are incomplete.
2] Faster-than-light influences are possible.
4] Nature violates local [physical] causality. The common cause of all that “IS” is the ‘heart’ of sub quantum mechanics.
5] Physicists might have to consider a theory of common cause of reality.
6] Physicists might have to consider that causal influences are not limited to the speed of light in the universe, or alternatively, that events can be correlated for no observable reason.
7] Physicists might have to ask themselves if correlations do not imply a cause, then ask themselves if they should look for other causes of events.
8] Implicit measurements and outcomes can be known before they can be explicitly known.
9] The theory of Quantum Mechanics is incomplete (what is its sub base?).
10] Non-Locality (entanglement) can make the impossible happen in the universe.
11] Physicists might have to look again at reality and decide if they think it is irreducibly random, or alternatively whether it is without knowable cause and is non-local. This means how the settings of one measuring device can influence the readings of another instrument irrespective of distance, location or time.
12] Non-local correlations demonstrate that in any laboratory, nature can mathematically answer any question without knowing which questions are being put to it from another laboratory in another location.
13] Simultaneity in physics can be demonstrated and can be shown to not only be related to the speed of light.
14] Non-Local (sub quantum mechanics) theory addresses the following inexplicable type of phenomena in physics such as:
14.1] Consciousness and awareness
14.2] Where the properties of particles come from.
14.3] Where charge and mass come from.
14.4] How out-of-body experiences, clairvoyance, intuition, telekinesis and suchlike might occur non-locally and manifest themselves in the manner that they do.
14.5] Demonstrate how quantum non-locality (entanglement) is always lurking beneath the surface and events. This includes all things we might think about and do.
14.6] From my words above all things are possible in physics at the Quantum and sub quantum mechanics levels [possibilities to do “something”, whatever they might be].
What follows is a descriptive answer as to how the mystery of non-locality (derivative of ideas relating to sub quantum mechanics theory) can be better understood in physics
The following quotation is from an article written by Howard Wiseman in the 19 June 2014 edition of Nature magazine entitled “Physics: Bell’s theorem still reverberates”.
“Two shady characters, Rowan and Colin, approach you, claiming to have a large supply of these impossible squares. When you ask to see one, Rowan says: “No, it doesn’t work like that. For each of our squares, I will reveal one row, and Colin one column. But you can choose which row and which column you want to know.” You reply: “Do you think I was born yesterday? In each instance, Rowan can say any of his four possible answers (001, 010, 100 or 111) and Colin can choose whichever of his (000, 011, 101 or 110) do not conflict with Rowan’s. For example, if I ask for the second row and the third column, and Rowan says ‘001’, then Colin just has to choose an answer with 1 as the middle entry, either 011 or 110.”
But Colin persists: “What if you prevent me from hearing not only Rowan’s answer, but even the question put to Rowan? Take us far apart, and lock us in rooms that shield all forms of communication. We will still give consistent answers 100% of the time.” You think to yourself: “In this case, their best strategy would be to each carry (or memorize) a predetermined list of answers to all possible questions. In a given trial, the respective answers that Rowan and Colin carry would have to correspond to squares that differ in at least one of the nine entries, because of the constraints on the rows and columns. If I conduct enough trials, choosing the questions at random, I will catch them with inconsistent answers soon enough.”
So you agree to the trial as suggested; you ask questions in one room and an assistant in the other. To your consternation, Colin and Rowan give consistent answers every time. How is this possible? Are they communicating, despite all your efforts? No, they are using pairs of ‘entangled’ quantum particles — each pair of particles was jointly prepared in the same way, and then one kept by Rowan and one by Colin. With each trial, Rowan picks the next particle in his store, measures one of three different properties (depending on which row you ask for), and gives you one of his four possible answers based on the result of his measurement. Colin similarly processes his next particle, the one paired with Rowan’s. By the ‘magic’ of quantum entanglement, their results are correlated precisely so as to simulate an impossible square.”
You will discover many of my ideas with respect to these challenging questions and statements in my blog entitled “The words implicit and explicit seem to describe all that “IS”
What the theory of Quantum Entanglement is and what does it mean in science?
A significant amount of information in this blog is derived from Wiseman’s writings as well as from the Scientific American article entitled: How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality”, by George Musser on 1 November 2015.
Note: I believe that because my ideas with respect to all ‘things’ being either (non-locally) implicit or explicit cannot be tested in a lab that the onus is on unbelievers of my reality-science concepts to prove otherwise. I would be happy to hear from you at any time.