MM Explanation for Quantum Entaglement

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />hence, the "spooky action at a distance"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In MM, near-instantaneous FTL propagation of real information via gravitons is routine. So it would not lead anyone to think of it as "spooky". -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, its true that WE take near-instantaneous gravitational effects for granted, but mainstream physics denies that there is any cause and effect involved. QM is different in that there are no obvious roles for gravity or EM or anything else that is known to account for phenomena like entanglement. Another difference is that most of the physicists and theorists involved in QM haven't completely drunk the Copenhagen koolaid and are at least open to the idea that there is an underlying reality and a mechanism to explain the strange things that they study. If MM were developed sufficiently to provide a minimal physical model for QM it would have a good chance of getting support since AFAIK no competing physical models exist. Also, since QM and SR/GR from what I understand are fundamentally irreconcilable, they are not going to be concerned about MM's standing among Relativists.

Overall it seems to me that QM is more fertile ground for MM than other areas, though I guess you never know what discovery might come along to change the equation.

JR

JR,

Some interesting points. I think I'll lurk the QM groups on usenet for a while ...

Thanks,
LB

MM has been minimally developed into the quantum domain in the MRB paper "The structure of matter in the Meta Model". (Non-Members can order individual copies of MRB in our web site store at metaresearch.org/home/store/advanced/default.asp ) This shows potential ways to understand atomic structure and forces in terms of gravitons and elysium. If we are ever to make sense of QM and entanglement, we will need plausible physical models such as this, and not self-contradictory models such as Copenhagen. -|Tom|-

I'm a bit disappointed that more work hasn't been able to be done to flesh out MM in the quantum area. It would seem to me that this would be an important area to work on. After all, without a good understanding of the quantum realm in terms of MM, it seems you may be underestimating the number of types of particles reacting at our observable scale. How do you know that gravitons and elysium are sufficent to explain the quantum phenomena? Perhaps other particles and mediums may be required to account for observations and the effects of these are not currently being accounted for in MM at scales you are currently investigating.

JR

I'm pretty sure that no volunteers have been turned away ...

===

There are several discussions just getting started in the Member's Only section that are attempting to explore some aspects of this.

LB

I get really suspicious when claims are made about Quantum anything. The very tools used to measure it are my first suspect in the possible chain of things that could be dead wrong. So much of the results of a lot of things in this whole field SEEMS to consist of a uber-complicated mathematical formula being developed based on an existing set of accepted concepts, and then tests are run, and due to the limitations of equipment and understanding, only some things can truly be measured, so they look for very specific results and then extrapolate that data into the areas they are unable to truly measure.

Like sub-atomic particles... There is a belief that they exist and that there are some known types, and that they will behave certain ways. This disregards the fact that directly viewing these things is quite difficult, and with today's equipment quite possibly not possible at all.

Nobody REALLY knows if particles instantly effect each-other billions of miles away, because nobody has ever actually travelled billions of miles and on top of that, it's something so small it exists primarily as a mathematical entity.

I think why we see things as particles some times, and waves others, is like putting a ball on one side of a plywood wall, and then punching the other side. Your fist is a particle, the force going through the wall is a wave, and the ball then moves as a particle. Seems simple enough to me....

It's not that I don't think there's potential in Quantum Physics, it's more that I get irritated with how absolutely certain some people act about the mainstream theories.

---

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965