Thank you for your reply!
Nah, the particles and waves and eqs. are not the reality. They are mental contstructs used to know and understand it.
Then what is your definition of reality?
The experiments have already been done. Superluninal comm is impossible and there are no hidden variables.
Here you are speaking only of the violation of Bell’s inequalities at distance which show that the measurement of one entangled particle will determine the other regardless of the spatial separation – 10 kilometers, on the moon, other side of the galaxy, etc. For the Lurkers:
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 414 February 11, 1999 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein THE FIRST ENTANGLEMENT OF THREE PHOTONS has been experimentally demonstrated by researchers at the University of Innsbruck (contact Harald Weinfurter, harald.weinfurter@uibk.ac.at, 011-43-512-507-6316). Individually, an entangled particle has properties (such as momentum) that are indeterminate and undefined until the particle is measured or otherwise disturbed. Measuring one entangled particle, however, defines its properties and seems to influence the properties of its partner or partners instantaneously, even if they are light years apart. In the present experiment, sending individual photons through a special crystal sometimes converted a photon into two pairs of entangled photons. After detecting a "trigger" photon, and interfering two of the three others in a beamsplitter, it became impossible to determine which photon came from which entangled pair. As a result, the respective properties of the three remaining photons were indeterminate, which is one way of saying that they were entangled (the first such observation for three physically separated particles). The researchers deduced that this entangled state is the long-coveted GHZ state proposed by physicists Daniel Greenberger, Michael Horne, and Anton Zeilinger in the late 1980s. In addition to facilitating more advanced forms of quantum cryptography, the GHZ state will help provide a nonstatistical test of the foundations of quantum mechanics. Albert Einstein, troubled by some implications of quantum science, believed that any rational description of nature is incomplete unless it is both a local and realistic theory: "realism" refers to the idea that a particle has properties that exist even before they are measured, and "locality" means that measuring one particle cannot affect the properties of another, physically separated particle faster than the speed of light. But quantum mechanics states that realism, locality--or both--must be violated. Previous experiments have provided highly convincing evidence against local realism, but these "Bell's inequalities" tests require the measurement of many pairs of entangled photons to build up a body of statistical evidence against the idea. In contrast, studying a single set of properties in the GHZ particles (not yet reported) could verify the predictions of quantum mechanics while contradicting those of local realism. (Bouwmeester et al., Physical Review Letters, 15 Feb.)
Although the phenomenon is superluminal in that it occurs regardless of spatial separation (a nansecond is about a foot) – no particles are being transmitted, hence the speed of light is not being violated per se. There was a lot of excitement at the time that it would facilitate superluminal transmission (information theory at the quantum level). The snafu to that idea is that one cannot clone an unknown and hence there can be no error correction and thus it cannot be used for superluminal transmission – it can however be used for quantum cryptology. I’d appreciate your explaining how you see quantum entanglement involved in P.S. Wesson’s 5 Dimension/2 Time Theory!
Concerning Wesson’s theory you oberved:
Wesson's space-time-mass theory is ~equal to higher 10/11d compactified string theory- brane theory. Wesson's is a 5d theory. In it a 4d spacetime hyperspace exists on a 5d manifold. ie. a 4d on a brane well. The 5th d is either timelike, or space like. It's not compacted and you don't see it. The 5th d is the normal to the 4d hypersurface. The 5d space is Ricci flat and "looks" empty. That's where that, "looks like a single particle on the 5th" comes from. It's not really a single particle. I would guess that 5th coord. is spacelike for 2 reasons. It doesn't make sense for the normal to this hyperspace to represent time. In interactions with the mass that exists within the 4d hyperspace, because of the 5th, c is the limiting comm signal between here and the vacuum(IMO, the "flat", the "particle" of 5d). Also, hypothetical hspace interactions would have some "c". I think proper time(t2) for this 4d hyperspace is simply linear in this model. That's really another t, but it's not needed, because there's no dynamics.
The Space-Time-Matter consortium’s work differs considerably from the Kaluza/Klein compactified models of ordinary string theory. As they say:
We are a group of physicists and astronomers working on a five-dimensional version of general relativity. Our work differs from Kaluza-Klein theory (the basis of superstrings) in that we do not assume compactification of the extra dimension. This means that new terms (those involving the 5th coordinate) enter into physics, even at low energies. In 4D spacetime these can be interpreted as matter and energy. We move them to the right-hand side of the 4D field equations and take them to describe an induced energy-momentum tensor. In fact, we have shown that no 5D energy-momentum tensor is required. 4D matter of all kinds can arise as a manifestation of a higher-dimensional vacuum. This is one way to realize Einstein's dream of transmuting the "base wood" of matter into the "pure marble" of geometry -- that is, of unifying the gravitational field, not just with other fields but with its source.
For Lurkers interested in more: General Formulation of STM Theory Doctor Stochastic, I'd appreciate your comments on the above - he addresses the Minkowski gauge and curvature points in the body. The violation of physical causality was raised by Cumrun Vafa's f-theory. Somewhere I have a bookmark to an interesting debate between Vafa and Tegmark on that very point. I'll see if I can find it for the Lurkers.
Wesson's 5D/2T model calls for both an additional spatial dimension and an additional temporal dimension and for dynamics. The particles actually exist in the 5th spatial dimension and may be multiply imaged in 4D. The abstract reads:
It is possible that null paths in 5D appear as timelike paths of massive particles in 4D, where there is an oscillation in the 5th dimension around the hypersurface we call space/time. A particle in 5D may be regarded as multiply imaged in 4D, and the 4D weak equivalence principle may be regarded as a symmetry of the 5D metric.
Concerning the brane in the 5D/2T Theory:
The case N=5 continues to be a major focus, because it is the basic extension of general relativity and the low-energy limit of more extended theories. Thus N=5 induced matter theory and membrane theory are widely regarded as the best options for resolving the cosmological constant and hierarchy problems for the energy density of the vacuum and masses of particles, because they both drop the hobbling cylinder condition (no dependence on the extra coordinate) typical of old Kaluza-Klein theory. The versatility of 5D relativity has recently been illustrated again by the demonstration that timelike paths in 4D can be interpreted as null paths in 5D. This implies that what we regard as massive particles moving through spacetime, with finite separations in ordinary 3D and 4D proper time, are photon-like objects in 5D with no ‘separation’ in supertime. Such an interpretation should not be viewed as merely a neat concept, because if we use the 4D proper time of conventional relativity to parametize the motion of a particle in 5D, the geodesic equations for the latter show that in general there is a fifth force which acts parallel to the 4-velocity in both induced-matter and membrane theory and is in principle open to observation. The implicatons of this are major, irrespective of whether we live in a world where matter is the manifestation of an unconstrained fifth dimension or in one where we are constrained to a hypersurface in a shadowy five-dimensional “bulk”. The two approaches appear to be equivalent, at least mathematically. In what follows, we wish to extend what has been noted above and derive several new results in two-time 5D relativity that are remarkable.
And the conclusion:
There are non-unique times in 4D statistical mechanics, 5D relativity and N(>5)D string theory. In 5D, particles which are dynamically massless can appear to be massive in spacetime, and are acted upon in general by a fifth force which can manifest itself in both induced-matter and membrane theory though these approaches are mathematically equivalent. In the present work, we have outlined the main consequences of 5D relativity with signature [+(---)+]. Though technically referred to as “two-time” metrics, there is no problem with closed timelike paths because the second timelike coordinate is related to the (inertial) rest mass of a particle in both induced-matter and membrane theory. To derive physical results requires the specification of a gauge, as in (1) or (2). However, we have given the components of the 5D Ricci tensor: RAB for a general non-electromagnetic gauge in (3)-(5). These for field equations RAB = 0 lead to expressions for the embedded 4D Einstein space, namely (6) for the curvature scalar and (7) for the energy-momentum tensor. The exact solution (8) illustrates the new physics derivable from two-time metrics: it describes a wave moving through a deSitter vacuum. The general two-times metrics (9) describe waves in the fifth dimension that oscillate around the hypersurface we call spacetime. This can be used as a model for multiply-imaged particles. The dynamics of the latter are governed by the relations (10)-(12), which show that the fifth force typical of induced-matter and membrane theory is absent if the weak equivalent principle is invoked as a symmetry of the metric.