Ben,
Thank you for your kind comments.
As with so many things, I'm not quite sure by what you been by the misinterpreting the metric structure of space time in the context of nonlocality. I've been following entanglement since the early 1990's. It has taken me twenty years of beating my head against the concept of entanglement through popular literature and whatever papers I could get my hands on. I seemed to either get the math ... or thought experiments carrying a lot of linguistic baggage, but very little conceptual framework as to what allowed any of this to occur.
My understanding of relativity has considerably less depth. My degree is in Math & Comp. Sci, so I have a fair, but not adequate grasp of much of the mathematics. I do have a stubborn desire and ability to visualize and sketch consistent (or at least falsifiable or incrementally useful) metaphors for mathematical structures. Someone once said, "you can't visualize quarks" ... so of course, I've been trying ever since. Although this has led to some interesting visual metaphors, I haven't succeeded!
I do have a sense, though, that via the concept of duals, more than one kind of space can exist simultaneously with interacting references. (It occurs to me at the moment, that this is what I considered to be structure in the paper) These interacting-references show up in the orthogonal/complex-conjugating nature of the interactions of nature (measurements, observers, decoherence, colliders, etc.) as the jumpy and random aspects of quantum mechanics that seem so peculiar to a classical perspective.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of clear language to describe such things, and my confidence in my illustrations is still ... well, it is hard to *prove* an illustration if you can't describe the math! That may go a long way in explaining the hesitance in my descriptions.
Thanks again.
Dean
