Eckard,
Thank you for persisting. I expand on my brief answers as follows;
1) The question was about conservation of OAM. My reply meant that we can't know precisely unless we can mathematically 'fix' infinity. i.e. so can't know.
2) Dark energy is a foundation of the standard model of cosmology and also the only possible source of the energy of condensed matter (fermion pairs). We should perhaps be more familiar with it as it constitutes ~73% of the total matter energy of the universe! It's ill considered outwith astrophysics because we still don't tend to use 'joined-up-science' (cross discipline consistency).
3) QM's prediction plots as Cos^2. Bell showed that it can't be reproduced classically. I show it can by using a different starting assumption; that any particle with Q/OAM has both clockwise AND anticlockwise spin, but we can only MEASURE one hemisphere at a time. That is extraordinary (so resisted by any steeped in QM). However; spherical particles are only simplifications, or 'models' of what a 'quanta' of OAM really is, perhaps more like an oscillating smoke ring than a planet. Do you know? I certainly don't. So we test models.
4)-5) Our brains work Earth-centrically. Think of it as sun-centric against the previous Earth centred universe. We can't possibly imagine the next step until we've visualised, tested and become accustomed to it. Close your eyes and take Bob's place in another galaxy. Now tell me in which direction is Earth? How could you possibly know? It may be directly above or beneath you, or moving wrt the stars spinning around you. Now imagine holding two spinning spheres by the 'poles'. You can rotate both 360^o on both the y and z axis. You can touch them together at any latitude and spin direction, and do so while also rotating YOURSELF and the 'system' on all 3 AXIS wrt the local star system, which itself is spinning!! Our brains aren't trained to rationalise that or it's implications. Bob did, and found new truths - reducable to multiple Bloch sphere 4 vectors.
6) I'll correct the double negative. Very few CAN think beyond current doctrine so (I've found) few will countenance any fundamental change in understanding See my post to Israel above. They ignore K E Drexler quoted by Mohammed Khalil; "Predicting the content of new scientific knowledge is logically impossible because it makes no sense to claim to know already the facts you will learn in the future."
7. Mohammed well describes the problem as reduced by interdisciplinary research, following my cross discipline modus operandi. I've researched invoke and derive harmonious; Astrophysics, SR, QM, Optics, Cosmology, QED, QCD, Particle, Atomic, Plasma, HE and other physics, Classical dynamics, Electro and Hydrodynamics, Geometry etc. At present many of them simply don't fit coherently together and all have their own anomalies. Discrete field dynamics draws on them all to find a consistent (and rather simpler!) description of nature needing the minimum of re-interpretation of each 'false division'.
Honest objective testing confirms veracity. Yet the human animal is not naturally objective. Most turn away or run away screaming when beliefs are challenged.
I hope that clarifies my points, but if not please do ask.
Best wishes
Peter
PS; For clarity; In the DFM, The only 'Entanglement' required is conservation of spin axis, so also of equatorial plane, between the particle pairs. i/ i.e' In space spin behaves as it does in gyroscopes.
