Dear John-Erik Persson,

I posted the following on your page:

I enjoyed your essay and agree that theoretical physics today depends on more than 100-year-old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, some of which are in error. Like you, I feel that perhaps the easiest way to advance physics is to reveal old fundamental errors.

You discuss too many physical phenomena for me to critique, so I will focus on those aspects on which I believe we agree. For example, you state that

"Instead of by time dilation, observed effects must be explained by clock behavior."

Any analysis of atomic clocks must be based on clocks counting cycles, which are inversely related to time, while (per Einstein) frequency is directly related to energy. Thus clocks measure energy directly and time only indirectly. Einstein's idea of 'perfect clocks', located at every point in the moving frame and perfectly synchronized, is an erroneous idea. Formulated long before the development of atomic clocks (the only ones that show relativistic effects) Einstein might be forgiven his mistake, but why hold onto it?

You note that the "Lorentz transform is based on the absurd assumption that light moves with the same speed in relation to all observers moving with constant, but different speeds." Of course Rindler, whose name is associated with several aspects of special relativity, agrees with this, and I discuss this in detail in my essay.

Like you, I feel that Faraday's pedestal could be raised much higher.

You also note that experiments that detect the ether wind based on rotation of the planet surely cannot be interpreted to "assume our own planet to entrain the ether in the whole universe." I propose that light propagates in local gravity, and that this is compatible both with MM's null result and with the motion of clocks circling earth in opposite directions. I suspect that when you say that

"Such an ether wind can explain gravity as well",

you are in agreement with the fact that

"Local gravity can explain ether"

as detailed in my essay.

You note the absurdity of the twins paradox, which is a logical consequence of 'space-time symmetry' that vanishes in an 'energy-time conjugate' formalism (while retaining relativistic particle physics quite well) and note (as I do) that an older, wiser Einstein said "physics without ether is unthinkable."

You develop the idea of "falling ether", then state that "this falling ether describes gravity". I would respectfully suggest that the concept of "gravity as local ether" satisfies the goals you have in mind, but perhaps I need to study your essay more closely.

In any event, we are almost identical in our analysis of the problem, and I think in general agreement in our solutions.

I hope you enjoy my essay as much as I have enjoyed yours.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Jack James, [ I have left this comment on your page.]

You argue that rationalism (pure reasoning without experiential input) must have a vital role when it comes to revealing fundamentals. It is hard to find 'pure' cases (without experiential input) but I examine a case wherein a null result led to a theory based on pure reasoning, with the result that unreasonable assumptions (multiple time dimensions) took hold and have endured for a century.

Your point C discusses "our rational theories matching our evolved cognitive perceptions of reality". In the case of special relativity, our evolved cognitive perception of reality was that of universal time as universal simultaneity. Einstein's assumptions, upon which he rationally based his theory, led to conclusions that contradicted our evolved cognitive perception of reality. It's a real ball of wax.

Interestingly, an alternative rationale leads to the same mathematical result (the Lorentz transformation) by an entirely different path while yielding a theory that does match our evolved cognitive perceptions of reality. The difference is based on careful analysis of "perfect clocks".

The empirical confirmation offered by relativistic particle physics confirms the applicability of the Lorentz transformation without contradicting either the space-time symmetry of SR or the energy-time asymmetry of the 'real world' (one time dimension)-based theory.

I'm uncertain what the relevance of this is to your analytical approach, but it seems to provide a 'test case' for you to apply your approach to.

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. My sense is that your approach is a reasonable take on a difficult problem.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

I thought I would offer up some outsiders arguments for a presentist view of time, that you might find useful.

Our minds function as flashes of perception and so we think of time as the point of the present, moving from past to future. Consequently this is the basis of narrative, history and civilization.

The reality is that it is change turning future to past, as in tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns. This makes time an effect of action, similar to temperature, rather than space.

Duration is the state of the present, as events coalesce and dissolve, not evidence of some underlaying dimension.

Clocks can run at different rates because they are separate actions. A faster clock/action will use energy quicker, like an animal with higher metabolism will age quicker than one with a slower rate.

Time is asymmetric because action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not both.

The simultaneity of the present was dismissed by arguing different actions appear in different sequence to different locations, yet this is no more consequential than seeing the moon as it was a moment ago, simultaneous with seeing stars as they were years ago. It is the very fact these events radiated away the energy manifesting them that we can see them, as well as why they no longer exist.

There are philosophic issues as well, specifically determinism. It is the occurrence of an event which fully computes the input into it, such as information carrying light coming from opposite directions.

Predetermination assumes this calculation can be made beforehand. Yet events are first in the present, then in the past. They are determined by their occurrence.

Alan Watts used the example of a boat and its wake to show the problem with this, in that the boat creates the wake, not the wake tearing the boat.

The assumption is that prior events are cause of subsequent ones, but it is the underlaying energy which is cause of both. Prior events may predict subsequent ones, but are equally consumed by them.

Consider that energy exists as the present, thus is "conserved." So it is constantly creating new information and dissolving old. So the energy goes from past to future, as information goes future to past.

In the East, the past is considered to be in front of the observer and the future behind, because the past and what is in front are known, while the future and what is behind are unknown. In the West, we view the future as in front and the past behind, because we see ourselves as beings moving through our context and thus toward our future, while in the east, the observer is considered to be part of the context and only sees events after they occur, while the energy continues on.

Consider a factory, where the product goes start to finish, while the production line faces the other way, consuming material and expelling product. One future to past. The other past to future. Compare this to individuals and species, where the individual goes from birth to death, being in the future to being in the past, while the species is constantly moving onto new generations and shedding old ones.

Consider as well that galaxies are processes of energy radiating out as form gravitates in.

Hopefully this is of interest. Good luck in the contest!

Regards,

John

    Edwin

    You said: LIGHT PROPAGATES IN LOCAL GRAVITY and I say LIGHT AS WELL AS GRAVITY PROPAGATES IN THE ETHER. This means a slight difference. I regard gravity as a static situation in the ether, and light as moving oscillations in the ether.

    From _____________ John-Erik

    Ed,

    If you have the time, take a look at the essay by Declan Trail. He produced an EPR result based upon classical assumptions that is similar to the result you produced for a previous essay.

    Best Regards,

    Gary Simpson

      Dear Dr. Edwin Eugene Klingman,

      My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

      Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

      Dear Marcel-Marie Lebel,

      It's great to see you back in the contest. I've always felt that your 2009 essay "Physics stops were natural metaphysics starts" is one of the best of the hundreds of FQXi essays over the last decade. Your definition of truth as absence of choice, and use of this definition to develop logic is simply superb. Then, as now, you argue that one 'substance' exists by itself; the same point is made in my 2009 essay. This is where we diverge. You believe this 'substance' is time; I believe the substance is gravity. We both are faced with the problem of evolving our universe as we know it from this basic substance. That has, in one way or another, been the focus of many of my essays.

      My current essay addresses the non-intuitive concept of "the relativity of simultaneity". If the universe is happening now, I believe that 'now' must mean universal simultaneity. Having spent much of this year reviewing the history of special relativity (and Einstein's later 'second thoughts') I conclude that an energy-time interpretation of (clock-based) reality is preferred to the 'space-time symmetry' interpretation, and is compatible with relativistic particle physics of the twentieth century.

      Einstein claims "there is no space absent of field" which seems to place 'field' as the fundamental substance, leaving 'space' as an abstract category of 'empty container'. Of course Einstein mixes time and space as a 4D-entity while Hertz and others imply 3D-space plus 1D-time.

      You quote Unruh as presenting 'time' as something that does exist by itself. He notes "gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places...". This, and his following remarks are based on space-time symmetry. In my view it is the idea of time as measured by 'perfect clocks' that is in error. Time flows equably, not faster some places, slower others. Local energy of moving systems does however vary from place to place, and since clocks count cycles and thus measure energy, then it is false to conclude, as is done, that

      "We know that time does run slower closer to the ground."

      This is the standard GR-based misinterpretation of the Pound-Rebka experiment. It leads to all the space-time symmetry paradoxes of SR. The universe 'happens' at the same rate everywhere, but local vibrations are energy dependent and vary from place to place. To compare the interplay of logic in gravity, versus your treatment of logic and time, is impossible in a comment. I do enjoy your thinking, and always love your essays.

      My best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hi Gary,

      Thanks for the heads up. I had read Declan's essay, but not yet responded to it.

      Declan proposes an angle-dependent detection probability. If all hits are detected, then all hits count as +1 or -1 (in the QM theory). If certain hits are missed, this effectively lowers the 'average' reading to a number below +1 (or above -1). The +1 and -1 come from Bell's very first statement defining the problem, and reflects the consensus interpretation of the quantum mechanics of spin as a half integral "nonclassical" phenomenon. Despite Declan's contention that his model is essentially classical, he nevertheless accepts the QM interpretation of spin as a two state entity, which is generally true from spin statistics and magnetic fields, and never proved or experimentally demonstrated for single spins in magnetic-field-free space.

      In my classical model of the 'hidden variable' it simply the 3D nature of spin which yields an angle-dependent deflection that matches the Stern-Gerlach data which has the well-known 'lip' pattern. My model assumes 'perfect' detection since none of the atoms are lost; all reach the target. But the registered spin component is less than +1, dependent on the initial angle the spin makes with the magnetic field. This yields exactly the ab cos(theta) curve that Bell claims is impossible to achieve classically. It's only impossible when one forces all projections of atoms through the Stern-Gerlach apparatus to be maximum or minimum. Of course, the data shows that the atoms are deflected over a range of angles, but why be picky about experimental data that doesn't match a theory? Better to assume experimental error or some type of 'noise'.

      FYI, there is another SG-relevant paper, the essay by Anton Garrett which I find very interesting. Finally, I would call attention to a key problem in Bell tests. Bell's initial analysis (and the Stern-Gerlach experiment) are based on neutral atoms, while all Bell tests are based on photon detection, which, as Declan points out, are not perfect.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      A slightly more fleshed-our comment on Declan Andrew Traill's page:

      I am in full agreement with you that entanglement, "a nonlocal process inaccessible to the classical world", is a most serious problem facing those who wish a comprehensible universe. Like you, I find it possible to produce a classical model that violates Bell's theorem. In the following I will try to compare our two results, both of which lead to the 'impossible' result.

      You propose an angle-dependent detection probability. If all hits are detected, then all hits count as +1 or -1 (in the QM theory). If certain hits are missed, this effectively lowers the 'average' reading (for that angle) to a number below +1 (or above -1). This lowering of the average value is effected by the cos(a.b) term.

      The +1 and -1 come from Bell's very first statement defining the problem, and reflects the consensus interpretation of the quantum mechanics of spin as a half integral "nonclassical" phenomenon. Your essentially classical model seems to accept the QM interpretation of spin as a two-state entity, which is generally true from spin statistics and magnetic fields, but has never been proved or experimentally demonstrated for single spins in magnetic-field-free space.

      In my classical model the 'hidden variable' is simply the 3D nature of spin which yields an angle-dependent deflection that matches the Stern-Gerlach data which has the well-known 'lip' pattern. My Stern-Gerlach-based model assumes 'perfect' detection since none of the atoms are lost; all atoms reach the target. But the registered spin component is less than +1, dependent on the initial angle the spin makes with the magnetic field. This yields exactly the cos(a.b) curve that Bell claims is impossible to achieve classically. It's only impossible when one forces all projections of atoms through the Stern-Gerlach apparatus to be maximum or minimum. Of course, the data shows that the atoms are deflected over a range of angles, but why be picky about experimental data that doesn't match a theory? Better to assume experimental error or some type of 'noise'.

      Finally, a key problem in Bell tests derives from the fact that Bell's initial analysis (and the Stern-Gerlach experiment) are based on neutral atoms, while all Bell tests are based on photon detection, which, as you point out, are not perfect. I have some ideas about how to translate from atomic phenomena (SG) to photonic phenomena (Bell tests) but your approach is physically reasonable, and may actually be correct for photons. Thanks for a very interesting essay.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear John Merryman,

      Thanks for your comments. The presentist view of time, as I understand it, is that things are happening now. The future is an abstraction, with no physical reality. So to speak of the reality of change turning "future" into past, seems to perceive an abstraction as real. I do not view the "past" as real [i.e., as actually existing] but it is at least reflected in 'records' or 'echoes' that do exist now.

      Einstein dismissed simultaneity by inventing new time dimensions, which he 'attached' to moving objects, along with new coordinate systems. It is this invention of new time dimensions that demolishes time as universal simultaneity. His reason for doing this was never explained. I conjecture about this in my essay.

      You say 'events are first in the present, then in the past." This is mathematically 'reasonable' but I think presentism views 'events' as happening only now. Physical reality is the existing 'record' of earlier events, but those events are not "in the past". The idea of direction of an abstraction flowing into abstraction, is an abstraction, and thus a matter of choice.

      Having suffered over a century of "the relativity of simultaneity", it is difficult for physicists today to perceive time in the classical manner, while it is ridiculously easy to 'represent' time as one of four dimensions. The fact that the Minkowski formalism accurately maps relativistic particle physics in an energy-time perspective yet leads to nonsense in the space-time symmetry perspective seems to argue for the energy-time conjugation as the physically most appropriate model. But this is, of course, swimming against the current.

      You say energy "exists in the present" and is "constantly creating new information". I agree that information is created when energy changes local structure, thus creating a 'record' that is 'in-formation'. This occurs independently of whether one considers it flowing from one abstraction to another abstraction. I think Omar Khayyam captured the essence of presentism:

      "The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

      Moves on; nor all thy Piety nor wit

      Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,

      Nor all thy tears wash out a Word of it."

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Having written previous essays on Bell's theorem and Stern-Gerlach, I am pleased to see both Anton Garrett's essay and Declan Andrew Traill's essay in this contest. I wrote the following comment on Anton's page:

      Literally thousands of comments have been spent on FQXi concerning Bell's theorem, which, as you state, "is about logic, not quantum mechanics". Bell's first statement defining the problem is his equation (1) in which he defines measurements A and B to have +/- unit values. The logical outcome is completely determined from this point!

      Bell essentially asks for a "classical" explanation [the 'hidden variable'] while insisting on a "quantum" result. Stern-Gerlach did not find "quantum" results. Their deflection data is smeared over an upper "lip" and a lower "lip" which are arbitrarily called +1 and -1 to fit the naïve quantum picture of spin. But which picture? Pauli's, Dirac's, Feynman's? As you obviously spent time and effort on this topic I hope you might look at Spin: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac, Bell.

      Pauli conveniently chose half integral eigenvalues, which Bell uses unquestioningly, while Dirac, who many think more fundamental, derived a four component equation that is no longer an eigenvalue equation. Indeed, it is only "converted into" an eigenvalue equation by the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation which smears the particle with spin over a region of space. Only after this integration do we arrive at a Dirac-based eigenvalue equation.

      Perhaps if Bell had thought more deeply about spin he would've had more reservations than he did about this issue. Unfortunately, about the same time Bell developed his theorem, Feynman, deeply in love with the two slit experiment, decided to apply the analogy to Stern-Gerlach-as-two-slit and [of course!] the two state "wave function" worked. [What a surprise -- Pauli invented a workable 'wave-function' when he used O|+> = +|+> and O|-> = -|->.] Thus deBroglie's linear momentum-based wave function, with wavelength proportional to inverse momentum, compatible with experimental tests, was conceptually extended to angular momentum, with no logical justification for associating a wavelength with electron spin. [Spin waves in condensed matter or solid-state physics are not spin wave functions.] But, like Einstein, it is today verboten to question Feynman, so we are stuck with "wave functions" for spin analogous to wave functions for particles with momentum. This leads to superposition concepts for particles going through non-homogeneous fields that are entirely inappropriate but unquestioned, although never demonstrated.

      Nino says: "I presume physicists... are now looking for a theory that predicts what happens each time you put a particle through successive Stern-Gerlach apparatuses."

      Neo answers: "Actually we are not."

      Actually we are. Or were. Two other physicists and myself [one received the National Medal of Technology at the White House in 2014] began this experiment in 2015. We produced fine healthy silver atomic beams but finally decided that single atom detectors were far beyond our resources.

      If the first SG detector is used to prepare atoms from the oven in a particular state, say + (up), and the second SG detector is offset at angle theta from the first, then the deflection of the particle from the second device will be a factor of theta.

      Here's the kicker: according to my theory (which does violate Bell's theorem classically) only + particles will be detected from the second SG device. According to Feynman's two slit spin analogy, the wave function will predict some - states will be found.

      If spin is actually 3D, then the deflection of SG can be shown to depend on the angle between the spin and the field. This is what is actually seen in the SG data. But as you imply, no one wants to test this. Even suggesting it is to be drummed out of the corps.

      But if spin is actually 3D, then the measured deflection is not +1 or -1 but is ~cos(theta). This conflicts with Bell's definition A,B= +/-1. Using real theta-based measurement results (i.e., deflection) it is easy to show the correlation cos(a.b). Using Bell's +1 or -1 constraints it is logically (not physically) impossible.

      In Modern Classical Spin Dynamics see figure 6 on page 20 wherein the classical model overlays SG data almost exactly, and in Bell was simply wrong see page 6 where the energy-exchange model is shown to yield cos(a.b) while the Bell-constrained version cannot accomplish this.

      So, to repeat, if one accepts Bell's requirement that measurements be +1 or -1 , instead of actual deflection seen in the SG data, then one is logically bound to fail. If one allows actual deflection data the classical model obtains the quantum correlation cos(a.b) violating Bell's theorem and removing even the suggestion of "entanglement".

      This is further complicated by loose thinking, such as Nino's statement "but nevertheless only one of the detectors actually goes off." If this is applied to Stern-Gerlach, it means only that every particle is deflected up or down based on initial state, but does not imply A,B= +/-1. On the other hand, Bell is not tested with SG atoms but with photons which are detected (+1) or not (0).

      Due to Feynman's beloved two-slit-spin-analogy, people consider atomic spin wave functions and photon wave functions to be the same, thus on/off photon detection results are conflated with the SG deflection results. Confusion reigns.

      Nino says "quantization is indeed a mental rather than a physical procedure." Bell forces classical physics into a quantized mold that is mental rather than physical. When this artificially constrained logical problem leads to the conclusion that classical physics cannot yield the measured correlation we invented "entanglement". This nonlocality that has ruled physics for fifty years is a farce, but one which cannot be challenged without forfeiting one's establishment position. The natives should be restless.

      Congratulations on a very fine essay,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Edwin,

      We are in agreement. My point about events being present then past isn't to argue for a physical present, but to argue against determinism. The past irrevocably leads to present, events occur and then recede. That it isn't the present "flowing" from past to future, but events "flowing" through the present. So it is the occurrence of events that calculates the input and determines the outcome.

      Obviously the conceptual problem here is that our mental processes are temporally based, just as our physical existence is a fundamental manifestation of the thermodynamic environment in which we evolved. So trying to express anything involves the effect of sequence.

      I just submitted an essay, after having put it off, up until writing it out a few days ago.

      argue for a physical past.

      But events occur and recede

      Rushed.

      Erg.

      Edwin,

      I just read your essay, as promised.

      There is a lot in there (a bit early in th morning for me to process it all I fear!).

      Your essay is very interesting and also a novel and innovative format.

      I don't have time at the moment to leave a longer comment, but well done on a fine essay!!

      Regards,

      Declan

      Thank you for reading my essay.

      I find your essay interesting.

      I wrote something similar a few years ago

      [math]R_{munu}-frac{1}{2} g_{munu}R=frac{8pi(-k)}{c^4}T_{munu}[/math]

      where k is Coulomb's constant, and this could be the Maxwell's equations at high energy, with the same low energy approximation.

      Regards

      Domenico

        It is impossible!! The (verified) latex interpreter make many errors:

        [math]

        R_{munu}-frac{1}{2}g_{munu}R=frac{8pi(-k)}{c^4}

        [/math]

        I try to write the equation without web interpreter.

        Regards

        Domenico

        I give up:

        R_{munu}-frac{1}{2}g_{munu}R=frac{8pi(-k)}{c^4}

        each person that write in latex understand this equation

        Sorry

        Domenico

        Edwin,

        Nice essay. Fun format and moot points to your usual excellent standard (though AE didn't get much of a word in!) Of course I agree local 'ether' frames, but Einstein didn't get a chance (or forgot) to mention his key final concepts (1952 'Addendum'). Which I agree, and relate to your p5 'boxes'. Please advise what's wrong with this;

        1. First do away with the 1st (bottom left) box. If at rest in the ambient frame it's 'part of it'.

        2. As the waves reach the top box they're absorbed by the boundary fermions, re-quantized and re-emitted at local c in the new rest frame (now in Maxwell, Lorentz and radio engineers Transition Zone {TZ} and 'far' field). They are thus Doppler shifted to red. If they're sequential time signals? - they thus appear to be slowed (dilated) ..or 'contracted' (blue shifted, 'sped up', if moving the other way).

        3. If the lower box were also in some other state of motion that TZ process would also happen as it entered the ambient medium. (There would then be 3 local speeds c visible by displacement by the reader!!! though all signals do c locally.)

        4. In the case of the train, light within the train does c in the local train rest frame and on exit Doppler shifts to do c in the track frame. (We can substitute Earth and its ionosphere or any lens, for the box & train). Watch a pulse through the passing windows and it looks like c+v.

        5. The TZ is from (we know) a micron deep (at prisms & lenses) to a few parsecs for galaxy clusters, the more diffuse the medium the more gentle the curvature (& birefringence) and it's also lambda dependent (antenna engineers know all this). There's a short low quality video of a moving box if you'd like it.

        That's based on the discrete field model, (DFM) consistent with what Einstein forgot he'd said in '52 (too much to drink I expect!) describing inertial systems as "spaces with spaces, not thought of as bounded, in relative motion". I (now) don't find that "non-intuitive" at all!. It seems consistent with all evidence I can find & seems to resolves the issues. That's subtly but importantly different to Hertz's view. Can you identify where and why it may appear flawed. or raise any questions?

        The classical QM solution (as Declan employs) emerges from the same interaction model (though not just 2 states & 3 axes, and also including Cos2,- see Declans string).

        Great essay whatever. Another top score due I think!

        Very best

        Peter

          • [deleted]

          • Post #39

          Dear Peter,

          Thanks for your comments. I will address them one by one.

          1. The "boxes" are reference frames, so it makes no sense to do away with the rest frame. They're translucent, and, while redundant, I think the visual image of the frame is appropriate. An invisible depiction of space is potentially misleading. In any case, it changes nothing physical.

          2. You are adding layers of physical entities that do not exist, are unnecessary, and simply complicate the issue. (I've yet to discuss this theory with a true relativist who did not wish to redefine the problem immediately into terms he was comfortable with, almost always in terms of two inertial frames.) Your first paper, which impressed me greatly, dealt with plasmas in space, but there are no plasmas in this problem.

          3. The 'ambient medium' is the local gravitational field, and the behavior is completely defined by the Maxwell-Hertz equations. All signals do not do c locally, since one of the frames is defined to be moving with respect to the local gravity.

          4. Forget (box-car-like) "in the train" and use open flat-cars. The light moves with speed c in the local gravitational field (associated with the railway station and/or tracks). If by "local train rest frame" you mean the moving flatcar, then it does not do c in the flat-car's rest frame. That's the point!

          5. There is no transition zone in the perfect vacuum (filled with gravitational field, but no plasma). So this point is moot.

          In short, your ideas of plasma-filled space are very likely valid for interplanetary and even interstellar space but have zero application or relevance to electromagnetic propagation in the local gravitational field. After 100 years of special relativity based on "two inertial frames" (leading to Lorentz) it takes some mental work to re-conceptualize as "one inertial frame" (with energy-based Lorentz). My essay does not describe the 'discrete field model' and does not fit into your above comments, but I very much appreciate your taking the effort to transpose it to such a framework.

          Thanks again for your gracious comments.

          My very best regards

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Edwin,

          First of aal my reaction on the comments you have on my essay 5thank you for paying attention to it..)

          "In the so called space-time there is no absolute simultaneity". The so called means "emerging", as it emerges out of the Planck Area where time and space are all simultaneous, only at the border line that I described as vague and full of exitations, all simultaneity is lost once the "reality" emerged. The so emerging "reference frames" are each one differnt from the other which is in accordance with Einsteins relativity theory.

          "Backwards causation" Wheelers delayed choice thought experiment is no longer a thought experiment but has been executed and is a phenomenon that we have to count with. My model can explain it as you have read. I understand that is (like everything in quantum mechanics) a bit strange to get trusted with..

          The confusion that arises when I introduce "Total Consciousness" is understandable. The basic reason for consciousness is the experience and implementation of our emerging reality. In order to realise that we need a "first cause" that I call "INITIATIVE". This first cause cannot originate out of only emergent phenomena. There is of course "causality from emergent phenomena" but then the mergence has already "occurred".

          I also have read your essay and will give a reaction after this one

          Good luck and regards