Flowing Space 201 -- S.A.A.A.D.

Yes, it's saaad but true... we've become entangled in an
enormous traffic jam. Far ahead, the green light has just
come on, but we are still sitting here, just waiting for all the
cars in front of us to begin to move. It seems to take ages,
and by the time we get even close to the green light, ON
comes the amber light and then ON comes the red light.
Dammit!

The above is sort of a slow motion example of what some
have termed the "domino effect". One of its more profound
applications is with dominoes themselves. You may have
seen where someone has set dominoes together vertically
into a complex pattern. Then on cue, the first domino is
tripped into the second domino. The results can be very
impressive. The dominoes begin tripping each other into
the next, and this can go on for a minute or more.

Let's get disentangled from this domino effect, because it
may not be easy to see how it can explain SAAAD. What's
SAAAD? If you haven't guessed it already, we'll be coming
back to it in just a moment.

After Einstein published his ideas on relativity, he spent a
good deal of his time working to invalidate the other strong
physics theories which tried to explain the realities of the
world. While he spent most of this time defending his ideas
against the long-standing ether theories, he also recognized
quantum mechanics as a looming threat. He didn't see these
quantum ideas as in any way compatible with his relativity.

So he got together with two other scientists, notably Boris
Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, and worked to show that
quantum mechanics was invalid, or at the very least, that the
theory was incomplete. And they came up with something
that was eventually called the "EPR paradox" after the first
letters of their last names. They were able to show that, in
accordance with the principles of quantum mechanics,
subatomic particles could become linked and that a change
to one such particle would instantly be reflected in its
counterpart, even if separated by a universe.

This linking of one particle to another soon became known
as "entanglement,"--Einstein liked to call it "spooky action at
a distance". And i have acronymphed Einstein's view into
"SAAAD". This is believed by many scientists to be one of
the strangest of the strange properties of quantum mechanics...
perhaps even _the_ strangest!

And now, here is one of the *really* strange parts--

This SAAAD, this entanglement has been shown beyond
any shadow of doubt to actually take place just as Einstein
and his colleagues described in their EPR paradox!

Now, the mathematics of this, the empirical studies of this
which have taken place over the years since Einstein first
attacked quantum mechanics, these i will leave for the
reader as an in-depth study. For our purposes, suffice it
to say that entanglement can be seen as superbly strong
evidence that space is "something" rather than just a void
lacking any substance at all. If you are not yet convinced
of this, then you must ask yourself...

How can information be transferred *instantly* through
light years, parsecs, billions and billions of miles of nothing?
Doesn't it seem more likely that space is made of something
that is _so_ dense, the "domino effect" is instantaneous?

This seems to be, as i said, superbly strong evidence for an
extremely dense energy field perhaps on the order of
Nightbat's unequalized, non-uniform base energy field. This
field i have dubbed the PCD or the primary constructive
dynamic. This PCD gives rise to fluctuations of high-energy
particles of matter and antimatter, electrons and antielectrons
(positrons). These particles meet by the billions, explode in
tiny, undramatic fashion and spawn other dense, high-energy
fields at sub-Planck wavelengths.

The constant action of this PCD throughout the Universe gives
each cubic centimeter of space a tremendous energy-density,
and puts great pressure on all other surrounding areas of space.
Space is *so* dense with the PCD that it is able to transfer
information instantaneously across light years, even billions of
parsecs, in the manner which Albert Einstein first described so
many decades ago.

Einstein firmly believed that if SAAAD could be theorized to
happen, this *must* mean that quantum mechanics was, at the
very least, an incomplete picture of reality. He also seemed to
strongly feel that if SAAAD were ever proven to be true, this
would negate his relativity theory. And he appeared to feel the
same troubled way about ether theory as well.

Today it looks as though he was wrong about this. Rather than
negating relativity, quantum theory, along with its entanglement
(SAAAD) and its strong tendency toward showing that space
is "something" rather than "nothing," fills in the gaps of Einstein's
relativity so that _together_ these excellent, well-tested theories
give us a more complete picture of reality.

Wouldn't you agree?

If all this hasn't been enough to encourage your continued
study of flowing space, there is still more evidence for you to
consider...

hd&ssn
Paine
tbc

"Double-A" wrote in message...
om...

"Painius" wrote in message...
...

How can information be transferred *instantly* through
light years, parsecs, billions and billions of miles of nothing?
Doesn't it seem more likely that space is made of something
that is _so_ dense, the "domino effect" is instantaneous?
[snip]

Domino effects are never instantaneous.

'Lo Double-A --

Never? You can speed up the domino effect by increasing
density. Pack dominoes closer together and they knock each
other over much faster. In some offices people keep the
following interesting object...

http://www.oakland.edu/physics/physi...es/1n30_10.gif

Five spheres suspended together. If you raise and drop the
first sphere into the second, the energy is transferred from ball
to ball until the fifth ball flies away and swings upward. If the
middle three balls are allowed to touch, then they seem to
hardly move or not move at all while transferring the energy.
The transfer can appear instantaneous, but we know that there
_is_ some time involved albeit just a fraction of a second. And
this is merely transfer of energy through spheres of matter.

What do you suppose might happen if, instead of spheres of
matter, the medium is an extremely dense field of energy at
wee, minute wavelength? Is it so hard to see that a disturbance
at one point in this dense field might be felt throughout the
entire field with no time elapsed?

It seems to me that the instantaneous transfer of information across
the universe by entanglement is evidence which better supports the
argument that no "real" distance exists, and that space is illusory.
Then you would have truly "void" space.

Double-A

Space is not illusory here on Earth, is it? If two particles are in
the same room here on Earth, and you change the spin on one
of the particles, the spin changes on the other particle. What is
the mechanism for this? Einstein proposed and several other
scientists have empirically shown that this does happen. It will
happen if the two particles are in the same room here on Earth,
it will happen if one particle is here on Earth and the other
particle is on the Moon.

What exactly is it between the particles, wherever they happen to
be, what is it that lets the other particle "know" that the change has
taken place, thereby causing this other particle to change as well?

Even if one particle is here and the other particle is somewhere in
the Centauri group, the other particle will change when the first
particle changes... instantly. And i'm proposing that what is
between these particles, however close together or far apart they
happen to be, is an exceedingly dense energy field at a wavelength
so small, we as yet have no way of sensing it. All we can sense
this to be at present is... nothing, a void. And it is so much more
than that!

hd&ssn
Paine
tbc

"Painius" wrote in message
...
"Double-A" wrote in message...
om...

"Painius" wrote in message...
...

How can information be transferred *instantly* through
light years, parsecs, billions and billions of miles of nothing?
Doesn't it seem more likely that space is made of something
that is _so_ dense, the "domino effect" is instantaneous?
[snip]

Domino effects are never instantaneous.

'Lo Double-A --

Never? You can speed up the domino effect by increasing
density. Pack dominoes closer together and they knock each
other over much faster. In some offices people keep the
following interesting object...


http://www.oakland.edu/physics/physi...es/1n30_10.gif

Five spheres suspended together. If you raise and drop the
first sphere into the second, the energy is transferred from ball
to ball until the fifth ball flies away and swings upward. If the
middle three balls are allowed to touch, then they seem to
hardly move or not move at all while transferring the energy.
The transfer can appear instantaneous, but we know that there
_is_ some time involved albeit just a fraction of a second. And
this is merely transfer of energy through spheres of matter.

Space is not illusory here on Earth, is it? If two particles are in
the same room here on Earth, and you change the spin on one
of the particles, the spin changes on the other particle.

Change ? Change? - who said anything about "changing" the spin on the
other?

Changing implies that the spin is moving from one known state to
another.

No, at best you can say it goes from an 'unknown' spin to a 'knowable'
or 'known' spin instantaneously, but here there is a question mark about
the meaning of 'instantaneous' on the large scale implied to here.

"OG" wrote...
in message ...

"Painius" wrote in message
...

Space is not illusory here on Earth, is it? If two particles are in
the same room here on Earth, and you change the spin on one
of the particles, the spin changes on the other particle.

Change ? Change? - who said anything about "changing" the spin on the
other?

Changing implies that the spin is moving from one known state to
another.

No, at best you can say it goes from an 'unknown' spin to a 'knowable'
or 'known' spin instantaneously, but here there is a question mark about
the meaning of 'instantaneous' on the large scale implied to here.

'Lo Owen --

and thanks for your input. When i think about it, you bring up
a very good point. Perhaps i do not know enough about this
entanglement. What i can get from my reading is that if you
know something about one linked particle, say, the spin, then
you know the spin of the other. So if you change the spin of a
linked particle in your vicinity, then the spin of the other linked
particle instantly changes.

Here you seem to be saying that the faraway particle is spinning
and the experimenter does not know how it's spinning. When
the spin on the near particle is changed, only then does the
experimenter *know* how the faraway particle is spinning.

Okay, so now that the experimenter *knows* how the faraway
particle is spinning, and also how the near particle is spinning,
let's say the near particle is changed again. Now the faraway
particle must also change from a known spin to a different
known spin, isn't this so?

As far as i can see when i read about this stuff, the Einstein
et al. team, as well as the experimenters since then, have all
agreed that the action at a distance called "entanglement" (a
term coined by Erwin Schrödinger, i believe) happens
instantly using the normal, everyday meaning of "instantly".
They don't seem to make any adjustments to the meaning
for large expanses.

And this is precisely what torqued Einstein's jaws, because
relativity does not allow info exchange faster than the speed
of light in vacuo. "Instantly" makes for a bit faster info xfer.

Is there some reference you've come across that puts the
meaning of "instantly" for large expanses in question?

hd&ssn
Paine
tbc

"Painius" wrote in message
...

Two points, one about entanglement and one about the meaning of
'instantly'

What i can get from my reading is that if you
know something about one linked particle, say, the spin, then
you know the spin of the other. So if you change the spin of a
linked particle in your vicinity, then the spin of the other linked
particle instantly changes.

So long as they are 'linked' or entangled you could describe it like
this.

Here you seem to be saying that the faraway particle is spinning
and the experimenter does not know how it's spinning. When
the spin on the near particle is changed, only then does the
experimenter *know* how the faraway particle is spinning.

Yes. But once the spin has been measured, the particles are no longer
entangled. SO changing the spin further has no effect.
I could be wrong, if so feel free to provide references.

As far as i can see when i read about this stuff, the Einstein
et al. team, as well as the experimenters since then, have all
agreed that the action at a distance called "entanglement" (a
term coined by Erwin Schrödinger, i believe) happens
instantly using the normal, everyday meaning of "instantly".
They don't seem to make any adjustments to the meaning
for large expanses.
Is there some reference you've come across that puts the
meaning of "instantly" for large expanses in question?

Simply, my understanding that relativity makes it impossible to assert
synchronicity of 2 separated events across all frames of reference, so
use of the word 'instantly' needs to be defined.

Imagine an experimenter here on Earth and another on Alpha Cen.

If the Alpha Cen experimenter makes an observation and sends a message
towards us 'at the same time' as someone makes the observation here on
Earth, what does that mean? Did he make it 4.3 years ago so we get the
result at the same time on the earth-bound lab? Alternatively, does he
make it so that we receive the results here on earth in 4.3 years time.

If the former, then we 'know' that the measurements were taken at
different times.

If the latter, what about a hypothetical 'someone' travelling through
the galaxy in a high speed, so that his measured separation between
earth and Alpha Centaurus is less than 4.3 light years; he would not
necessarily agree that the measurement in both labs took place at the
'same' time.

Hence, the question over the meaning of 'instantly'.

In message ,
Painius writes
"Double-A" wrote in message...
. com...

"Painius" wrote in message...
...

How can information be transferred *instantly* through
light years, parsecs, billions and billions of miles of nothing?
Doesn't it seem more likely that space is made of something
that is _so_ dense, the "domino effect" is instantaneous?
[snip]

Domino effects are never instantaneous.

'Lo Double-A --

Never? You can speed up the domino effect by increasing
density. Pack dominoes closer together and they knock each
other over much faster. In some offices people keep the
following interesting object...

http://www.oakland.edu/physics/physi...%20pictures/1n
30_10.gif

Five spheres suspended together. If you raise and drop the
first sphere into the second, the energy is transferred from ball
to ball until the fifth ball flies away and swings upward. If the
middle three balls are allowed to touch, then they seem to
hardly move or not move at all while transferring the energy.
The transfer can appear instantaneous, but we know that there
_is_ some time involved albeit just a fraction of a second. And
this is merely transfer of energy through spheres of matter.

What do you suppose might happen if, instead of spheres of
matter, the medium is an extremely dense field of energy at
wee, minute wavelength? Is it so hard to see that a disturbance
at one point in this dense field might be felt throughout the
entire field with no time elapsed?


Only if relativity is wrong.
I'm coming very late into this discussion, but am I right in thinking
this theory is like the one proposed by Lesage back in 1784?
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/LeSage_%28gravity%29
"Greywolf42" mentioned Lesage gravity in a thread on sci.astro
(Message-ID: , Subject: SR time
dilation on remote objects ?) so I looked it up.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the full Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"OG" wrote...
in message ...

Two points, one about entanglement and one about the meaning of
'instantly'

"Painius" wrote in message
...

What i can get from my reading is that if you
know something about one linked particle, say, the spin, then
you know the spin of the other. So if you change the spin of a
linked particle in your vicinity, then the spin of the other linked
particle instantly changes.

So long as they are 'linked' or entangled you could describe it like
this.

Here you seem to be saying that the faraway particle is spinning
and the experimenter does not know how it's spinning. When
the spin on the near particle is changed, only then does the
experimenter *know* how the faraway particle is spinning.

Yes. But once the spin has been measured, the particles are no longer
entangled. SO changing the spin further has no effect.
I could be wrong, if so feel free to provide references.

Either of us could easily be wrong, Owen. So far, i've seen
no references that support either of us on this point. But i
will hunt for some.

As far as i can see when i read about this stuff, the Einstein
et al. team, as well as the experimenters since then, have all
agreed that the action at a distance called "entanglement" (a
term coined by Erwin Schrödinger, i believe) happens
instantly using the normal, everyday meaning of "instantly".
They don't seem to make any adjustments to the meaning
for large expanses.
Is there some reference you've come across that puts the
meaning of "instantly" for large expanses in question?

Simply, my understanding that relativity makes it impossible to assert
synchronicity of 2 separated events across all frames of reference, so
use of the word 'instantly' needs to be defined.

Imagine an experimenter here on Earth and another on Alpha Cen.

If the Alpha Cen experimenter makes an observation and sends a message
towards us 'at the same time' as someone makes the observation here on
Earth, what does that mean? Did he make it 4.3 years ago so we get the
result at the same time on the earth-bound lab? Alternatively, does he
make it so that we receive the results here on earth in 4.3 years time.

If the former, then we 'know' that the measurements were taken at
different times.

If the latter, what about a hypothetical 'someone' travelling through
the galaxy in a high speed, so that his measured separation between
earth and Alpha Centaurus is less than 4.3 light years; he would not
necessarily agree that the measurement in both labs took place at the
'same' time.

Hence, the question over the meaning of 'instantly'.

Admittedly, a ticklish situation... made even more ticklish by
my asserting that this particular quality of quantum mechanics
only *appears* to defy relativity.

Since relativity and quantum mechanics are both "tried and
true" theories of reality, then it has become important to find
evidence that supports them both together as representatives
of reality. For me, it follows that if both theories pass the
grueling tests of science, then we have good reason to suspect
that any incongruencies between the theories, such as this one
regarding entanglement, have only the _appearance_ of
contradiction.

I shall hunt for those references and get back to you.

hd&ssn
Paine
tbc

Painius wrote:

[snip]

As far as i can see when i read about this stuff, the Einstein
et al. team, as well as the experimenters since then, have all
agreed that the action at a distance called "entanglement" (a
term coined by Erwin Schrödinger, i believe) happens
instantly using the normal, everyday meaning of "instantly".
They don't seem to make any adjustments to the meaning
for large expanses.

Actually IIRC Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen favoured instead the notion
of "hidden variables", saying that the entangled systems could have
*local* properties that are unaccounted for by QM: there need be no
long-range communication between such particles if they can somehow
carry the required information with them from their point of
separation. Bell's theory of "inequalities" would rule this
possiblity out, but I don't think the experimental evidence
accumulated so far has settled the question to everyone's satisfaction.

--
Odysseus

Hi Odysseus I think Neil Bohr shot down this Einstein Podolsky Rosen
idea. It had great problems from the start,and very surprised Einstein
g0o for it. bert

"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote...
in message ...

In message ,
Painius writes

What do you suppose might happen if, instead of spheres of
matter, the medium is an extremely dense field of energy at
wee, minute wavelength? Is it so hard to see that a disturbance
at one point in this dense field might be felt throughout the
entire field with no time elapsed?

Only if relativity is wrong.
I'm coming very late into this discussion, but am I right in thinking
this theory is like the one proposed by Lesage back in 1784?
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/LeSage_%28gravity%29
"Greywolf42" mentioned Lesage gravity in a thread on sci.astro
(Message-ID: , Subject: SR time
dilation on remote objects ?) so I looked it up.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the full Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

'Lo Jonathan --

Yes, one or two small aspects of relativity may have to be
modified for this to be right. One which readily comes to mind
is the idea that light and other radiation exclusively express their
particle natures rather than their wave natures to propagate
through space. This enables relativity to require no medium to
be "waved". While this is the presently accepted paradigm, it
might just be that it is a mere accomodation rather than a need
vital to relativity theory.

Einstein himself in his last writings when discussing the problem
of space was very clear that we should not just accept this idea
without question. His references to Descarte and the concept
of relativistic field theory or "space as field" appear to say that
we must continue the search. These many years seem to have
shown him to be right.

LeSage could have been on the right track, but his ideas took
a turn for the worse under close scrutiny. His "light gas"
mechanism by which gravity was supposed to work, while
"fluid," does not allow for the compression needed to push
space so hard that stars can compress into neutron stars and
black holes, let alone keep billions of stars in orbit around a
galactic hub.

His denial that no pull force was involved, no "universal
attraction of matter," stared starkly into the face of Newton's
ideas and comes up short when trying to explain certain
observations. However, the models we are studying, while
some may allow for a pull force, the attraction is not matter
for matter, but energy for energy. The energy which makes
up space, already under tremendous pressure to spread out
due to what might be called quantum hyperfluctuation, is
attracted by the energies involved with each and every atom
of mass.

Rather than "fizzling out" when it comes into contact with
mass, as some people seem to think, the energy fields of
space are the maintenance supply for all the atoms of mass
they encounter. How long would the strong and weak
nuclear forces last without constant and consistent resupply
of energy? How long would the energetic electron maintain
its orbit and possibly its charge, without an inflow of energy
from space? This may apply to the complimentary electric
charge on the proton as well.

As an example, the strong nuclear force must continue to
be very powerful in order to overcome the tendency for
like-charged protons to fly apart. This repulsion force is
an extremely strong electromagnetic force, and yet it is
constantly overcome by the strong nuclear force to keep
each and every nucleus of each and every atom stuck
together in a sometimes very high-quantity group of
protons and neutrons. Are we to believe that the strong
force operates perpetually without any resupply from
some kind of energy source? And where else would this
energy source be if not space itself?

Any model of flowing space must follow certain rules to
be viable. The most important rule is that it must be based
upon the vital premises of both relativity theory and of
quantum mechanics. And i find myself daily believing more
and more that the flowing fields of space may play a key
role in uniting these two pillar theories of astrophysics.

hd&ssn
Paine
tbc