I guess this depends on who you speak with
You may find this video presents an interesting argument.
I guess this depends on who you speak with
You may find this video presents an interesting argument.
Nonlocality describes the apparent ability of objects to instantaneously know about each other’s state, even when separated by large distances (potentially even billions of light years), almost as if the universe at large instantaneously arranges its particles in anticipation of future events.*
* I conceptually suggest temporal ‘things’ like within a without time ‘universal-environment’. This is where the past, the present and the future are the same (exist simultaneously). This is as Einstein postulated in his later life. It might be said that the universe is not only aware of itself but also of all things going on within it. I also suggest that we have both a temporal consciousness that relates to space and time, as well as an ontological consciousness (or ‘awareness’) that is not related to space and time. This link demonstrates how this might be the case. Does this evidence of how we are intimately ‘connected’ to the universe as well as our connection with it last for as long as the universe (at least ontologically) exists?
Non locality (also known in physics as entanglement theory) is an operative effect (influence) that can be demonstrated within our mind and brain nexus. This theory is professionally discussed in this video presentation. Nonlocality has been regularly demonstrated by experiment in the physics community. I suggest that this is an internationally respected source.
October 25th 2021
If this is the case it could help solve a long standing physics mystery.
See the story here
We have been told that in physics that it is not possible to travel back in time. However, around seventy years ago a highly respected physicist by the name of David Bohm pointed out by analogy that in his opinion there exists a ‘layer’ of universal reality that he referred to as the implicate order. His analogy was along the lines of this experimental quotation:-
“…It consists of two concentric glass cylinders. Between them is a viscous fluid, such as glycerine. If a drop of insoluble ink is placed in the glycerine and the outer cylinder is turned slowly, the drop of dye will be drawn out into a thread. Eventually the thread gets so diffused it cannot be seen. At that moment there seems to be no order present at all. Yet if you slowly turn the cylinder backward, the glycerine draws back into its original form, and suddenly the ink drop is visible again. The ink had been enfolded into the glycerine, and it was unfolded again by the reverse turning.
Suppose you put a drop of dye in the cylinder and turn it a few times, then put another drop in the same place and turn it. When you turn the cylinder back, wouldn’t you get a kind of oscillation?
Yes, you would get a movement in and out. We could put in one drop of dye and turn it and then put in another drop of dye at a slightly different place, and so on. The first and second droplets are folded a different number of times. If we keep this up and then turn the cylinder backward, the drops continually appear and disappear. So it would look as if a particle were crossing the space, but in fact it’s always the whole system that’s involved…” (I italicised the text)
I present you with two video references that demonstrate what these words mean. I also draw your attention to the fact that these experiments visually demonstrate how it is possible to reverse time under everyday conditions. Demonstrations one and two establish this point.
This appearing and disappearing of the insoluble dye in the cylinder represents what I symbolically see as being the mechanical relationship between ordinary ‘things’ and events going on around us (represented by the diffused dye in the clear glycerine) and something ‘bigger’ than us that is conceivably without time. This is the openness of the empty inner cylinder. As observers looking from the outside of the walls of the larger cylinder they would see the whole of the two glass cylinder apparatus system as though it were a single unit. This is until such time as the dye droplet was introduced to the system. In the process we would not notice that the droplet was confined to the space between the outer walls of both the larger and the smaller cylinder. I am suggesting that the progressive diffusing of the dye as a thread as it moves ‘ahead’ in clock time is related to the speed of the clockwise movement of the outer cylinder.
However, as observers outside the system we would not notice this separation of the wider complete system. In this sense we might say that the empty inner area of the smaller cylinder of the system is an area (or continuum) without knowable dimensions or time. The area outside of it containing the glycerine is an area that we can observe with clock time. This is because we can measure the speed of the diffusing thread of dye as the outer cylinder rotates. It follows from this that visually we would not know that the ‘area’ inside the smaller contained cylinder existed in the first place. From this we might say that the dye is diffusing throughout the complete system as distinct from it moving from just one part of it. We might then say that there exists within the system two areas (continuums) as though they are one. I say that as the turning larger cylinder later reverts to moving in an anti-clockwise state of motion, it progressively re-establishes its former non diffused (nearly complete) droplet state. This is notionally both within the without time (informational) reference frame of the invisible ‘contents’ of the inner cylinder as well as the adjacent clock time reference frame containing the glycerine and the dye. It is within the clock time reference frame that the dye is backward enfolding itself on itself as though it had a memory to exactly do this. This suggests that it is moving backwards in time commensurate to some sort of universal order and rules that scientists do not yet understand. We might then assume that the same unknown rules and conditions are applicable to the empty contents of the smaller cylinder as well. In other words it might then be argued that these same rules and universal conditions are applicable to the universe as a whole. If this is the case then these words support my notion that the universe is a two layer one and as such this is consistent with Bohm’s theory that there is both an implicate and explicate order in the universe.
Taking my ideas one step further, I feel that what we must consider in this instance is that this without time reference frame of ‘something’ in the smaller cylinder is one that might be of an analogical ether type (although it is perhaps easier to visualise it as being a ‘blob’ of informational consciousness). I am suggesting that this ether of information is conscious of both itself as well as the happenings (day to day effects) of mechanical things and events taking place around it. In this case it is within the space (continuum) between its outer wall perimeter and the outer wall of the larger cylinder.
As the outer cylinder reverts to moving in an anti-clock wise direction (with its contents of dye moving from a diffused state to a indiffused state, we observe the mechanical effects of the dye progressively re-threading itself to its original droplet state.
I am suggesting that the dye within the time cylinder continuum is conjunctionally moving in both relationship to the clock time continuum within which it is moving as well as an mechanically indeterminable without time informational ether blob like continuum. It is this blob of ether information (through its consciousness) that ensures that the coding (like a bar code) of the information of diffusing and refusing of the dye is never lost. This is although observably to us it seems to be moving only in clock time in both of the directions that the cylinder moves. In other words as the quotes says “…it is always the whole system that’s involved…” with all things and events going on around us at all times.
This is consistent with both the proof of concept as described in the quotation as well as the two video links cited above as well. I suggest that the following physics quotation relating to droplet ‘path memory’ is complimentary to this debate as well.
“… In each test, the droplet wends a chaotic path that, over time, builds up the same statistical distribution in the fluid system as that expected of particles at the quantum scale. But rather than resulting from indefiniteness or a lack of reality, these quantum-like effects are driven, according to the researchers, by “path memory.”Every bounce of the droplet leaves a mark in the form of ripples, and these ripples chaotically but deterministically influence the droplet’s future bounces and lead to quantum-like statistical outcomes. The more path memory a given fluid exhibits — that is, the less its ripples dissipate — the crisper and more quantum-like the statistics become. “Memory generates chaos, which we need to get the right probabilities,” Couder explained. “We see path memory clearly in our system. It doesn’t necessarily mean it exists in quantum objects, it just suggests it would be possible…” (I italicised the text)
From these ideas you may assume that I am suggesting that ‘universal reality’ is dualistic. This is analogous to a two dimensional ‘layer’ universe about which the informational layer (Bohm’s invisible and indivisible implicate order layer) is the ‘dominant player’ in this universal system and Bohm’s explicit layer is materially visible and divisible quanta that include particles. If you consider the analogy and my commentary, you might say that these particles are not only crossing material space but also the whole of the described system as well. This includes the ether continuum described. This analogy might also demonstrate how mechanical clock time can ‘comfortably’ co- exist with a wider informational blob of without time ‘nothing’.
I am committed to the notion that all things and events taking place in the universe (including the ‘workings’ of you and me) are in this dualistic state that I refer to as an explicit and implicit state.
If you care to know a little more about the wider back ground of Bohm’s ideas in this area you might find that this reference is a useful link in order to do so.
He talks about the concept of ‘now’ in his new modelling
Unlike in his earlier life in his 1952 book ‘Relativity’ Einstein tells his readers that he had changed his mind and that the past, the present and the future all existed simultaneously. He believes that there is a single existence along the lines I suggest in this blog*. In this sense Einstein is debating that physical reality is a four dimensional existence. He extends these words by saying:
“What nature demands from us is not a quantum theory or a wave theory; rather, nature demands from us a synthesis of these two views which thus far has exceeded the mental powers of physicists. Do not be troubled by your difficulties with Mathematics, I can assure you mine are much greater..”
In material contained in the links below Einstein reminds us that “…it is an illusion to think otherwise…” about simultaneity as being the dominant property of the universe. The late distinguished physicist Richard Feynman talks about this possibility in his book ‘Sum Over Histories’ and seems to summarise his point with these few words (as quoted by another author):-
“…Events in nature are probabilistic with predictable probabilities P.
The probability P for an event to occur is given by the square of the complex magnitude of a quantum amplitude for the event, Q. The quantum amplitude Q associated with an event is the sum of the amplitudes associated with every history leading to the event.
The quantum amplitude associated with a given history is the product of the amplitudes associated with each fundamental process in the history...” *
*A belated complimentary quote from this article:-
“… Yet even the great Einstein despaired of understanding the flow of time and the meaning of now. Einstein’s quandary was described by Rudolf Carnap:
“….”Einstein said the problem of the Now worried him seriously. He explained that the experience of the Now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics. That this experience cannot be grasped by science seemed to him a matter of painful but inevitable resignation. So he concluded ‘that there is something essential about the Now which is just outside the realm of science.’ “…” (I emboldened the text)
In another blog (also cited above) I talk about this topic in relationship to Bohm’s Holomovement theory and predeterminism. This blog also includes a link to a BBC video on the same subject. I feel that this video is compelling viewing.
*I believe that the Planck line in physics is a field of symbolic ‘nows’. Now’s are without time. Temporal fields (with time) exist on one side of the Planck line and ontological fields (relating to the rules of quantum mechanics) exist on the other. Both the temporal and ontological fields are in a concurrent relationship with each other as well as the Planck field of now’s. I think that this is what Bohm might be saying with his Holomovement theory (also known in other works as the implicate order).
Click here to view a copy of the original quoted text that I gleaned ideas and quotes from.