21 December 2024
Modified from unanswered FQxI [blog] posts .[ forum replies]
21 December 2024
Science should not propose [a] phenomenn [/a] or entity that is entirely unknown in type, not adequately describable by the English language unlike any thing else in existence.[,when]
[T]the same happenings can be explained by waves. They are divisible can be recombined causing interference. That interference couold potentially effect the location in which the particle is detected. It just needs the void not to be empty but filled either with a very fine grained substance, smaller than the particles we know-maybe 'quark soup'. Or even less, a medium to host waves.
Entanglement is not something that really happens, It explains why under such circumstances the second measured particle has just the right state, as one would expect of a partner even though it has just become a singular material Universe. That is the universe of real existing things. There of having to be part of what does or has existed. A superposition is unlike anything known. So difficult to accurately describe with words because, we are told it is, though foundational, not a part of our experience, which words describe, limited to the macroscopic and astronomic scales.
Waves. however, are known., Waves are known at different scales. They don't require suspension of disbelief. Fractals or their quality,having been identified in a process that generated a fractal or the fractal product. it is unlikely that the very small quantum scale is utterly unlike lager scales rather than a smaller version of what exists. It is unlikely that the very small quantum scale is utterly unlike larger scales, That non locality applies to the smallest scale but not elsewhere and is not known from larger scales; It doesn't fit with self similarity found throughout nature.
Georgina Woodward