Hi Ronald, thank for that thoughtful answer. I was busy with other things: what I call 1609 (after inventing 1619 stolen by the NYT, sort of, now they will have to steal that one), and a debate on fake US liberalism with a specialist author on the subject (in Aeon). You position seems related to that of my friend Ian Miller, whose objection to nonlocality I still do not understand.

I agree with what you said on Einstein.

Personally, long ago, as I got to know the subject, I became increasingly pro-Einstein, but decided to study mathematics and logics more in depth than he did. That was very arrogant on my part, as Einstein knew calculus very early on, he was taught by an uncle, and actually had an intuitive sense of the sort of math he used… of which I was singularly deprived of…

In recent times (last ten years or so), I have become increasingly critical of Einstein LOCAL DELUSION:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/einsteins-error-the-multiverse/

OK, more later.

Let me say this: there is an excellent reason for nonlocality: the WAVE FORMALISM ITSELF. A WAVE is intrinsically a NONLOCAL phenomenon. That desperately simple, but ultimate argument is from yours truly.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/quantum-waves-are-real/

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/sub-quantum-gravitational-collapse-2-slit-thought-experiment/

RIght, but isn’t non-locality just a placeholder in the mathematics? I think for Einstein it was just that … a way to temporarily reconcile his overall theory with quirks he did not understand. Towards the end of his career he reportedly allowed for the aether, and unofficially disavowed his previous work. At the end of his life, he regretted having studied the photon for his entire adult life, and knowing no more than when he started.

I am/was a programmer in my work days, so bit math is about as far as I go. But, to me non-locality is a placeholder that eventually will resolve to classical local theory with an underlying rationale that probably includes a provision for crystallographic aether echoes as the basis of “entanglement”. Consider that almost every known method for creating entangled photons depends at some point on the use of a hexagonally shaped crystal of some sort.

Every contrivance for creating the QE stream uses materials which are so based … BBO (hexagonal barium/boron oxide crystal), Boron nitride (hex also), and silicon nitride (hexagonal crystal structure). The honeycomb seems to be synonymous with entanglement. Which … starts to feel new-age-ish – which I definitely am NOT – but there’s some truth to almost every rumor.

]]>I think the deepest debate at this point in physics is whether NONLOCALITY is real, or an artefact (as friend Ian Miller believes).

I have long held the position that nonlocality is real. (Hence the necessity for TAU, and an absolute frame… However that seems a given, considering the math… )

But it’s a guess and QTT people (who, de facto, follow Einstein!) disagree, and they have experimental back-up data…

Some self-assembling liquid crystals build “tunnels” with hexagonally formed cylindrical “tubes”. As long as there is a source of heat and light, they will continue self-assembling to the end of the medium involved. Interestingly some nano-lipid self-assembling structures are LCD-like and take hexagonally formed cylindrical structure, but that’s another pretty wild story I’m sure you can infer … My quantumextinction wordpress has a recent writeup on all these (new to me) ideas …

]]>Thanks Ronald! There are two distinct questions: the global frame and the ether. They are related: if there is an aether, there is a global frame.

In my own SQPR, particles are like amoebas spreading at speed TAU > 10^23c), establishing the Hilbert spaces of the usual Quantum Physics. So they form local, dynamical aethers. That scheme implies a global frame.

Some physicists will scoff, because… they don’t know enough math, including, among their vast ignorance, the Whitney-Nash embedding theorems… (1930s-1960s)

In SQPR there is no global aether. But there is a global frame… Which we have mathematically, anyway… In SQPR, the new atoms are these transluminal, dynamic, always unstable amoebas… In complete contradiction with Einstein 1905 intuition in his (gratuitous and not necessary) description of the “Lichtquanten” in his (correct) explanation of the photoelectric effect (for which he got the Nobel in 1021… NOT for Relativity, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald-Larmor-POINCARE theory established prior… Einstein’s contribution, ironically enough, was to do away with an absolute frame… And that is non sense as my Russian Doll theory shows…

What’s a self assembling lyotropic liquid crystal?

And what would it be made of?

My newest twist on the aether is that it is much like a self assembling lyotropic liquid crystal that conducts mostly point-source (longitudinal/torsiona) energies. In this schema, transverse energy is a secondary derivative. This explains how atoms can chase energy fields that are point-source (and not the 10,000X bigger transverse waves) – but the light we detect with polarizers (transverse) does indeed exist! The answer is not either-or but instead all of the above.

]]>