Replies

If you are referring to the phenomenon of quantum entanglement (I assume you are), it's important to point out that one of the biggest misconceptions about it (which I've even see a few physicists fall into) is that the implied 'action-at-a-distance' somehow implies a violation of relativity. It simply doesn't. (This question has been explored extensively.)

I LOVE this stuff! I had to do a report on the EPR paradox as an undergrad and it was one of the things that made me love physics enough to seek a career in it.

Just an extension on your explanation: I've also heard an analogy drawn to the movement of a shadow or a point of light from a laser pointer. If you shine a laser onto the moon, then change the angle of the laser quickly enough, you can make it appear as though the laser 'dot' is moving faster than the speed of light. However, there is no real 'thing' that is actually moving. The photons from the laser obey the rules and there is no transfer of energy, momentum, or information that exceeds the speed of light. Even if you were to have observers at points 'A' and 'B' on the moon and move the laser between them, there would be no way to confirm that the dot had 'traveled' without having the observers compare notes and agree that they had both observed the laser. This comparison must be done at normal speeds.

Oh! And don't forget tachyons! Everybody loves tachyons!

I have Einstein and Rosens book laying around somewhere.

I guess what I am trying to say is this: We have a model that fits closely. But we are continuing to find things that cause the model to have to be tweaked. (dark matter, dark energy, non-locality, hold on to your hats, there's more to come!)

So there comes a time when we have to decide "Can we continue tweaking the model? Or do we have to go back to the basic axioms?"

An example would be Puthoff's work on gravity being a result of quantum field effects, based on Sakharovs theories. (Covered in Physical Review, March, 1989, I can email it to anybody who wants it).
The net result would be gravity is a somewhat local phenomena, and it may be that there are not any sufficiently large structures in the universe that we can see that can prove or disprove it.

I have had a somewhat similar idea for a long time, based on gravity at least having an effect on the local density of the quantum "foam", but I don't have the math training or patience to perfect it.

And I agree Einsteins models have been largely verified. The problem is, for any given set of results, there are an infinite set of models that match. Doesn't mean they are all correct!

Like has been said, Einsteins work really gives us a geometry, not a causality. Tells us where and when. But not who, what, or why. Bells work covers these aspects more.

My personal feelings are that we can't tweak anymore. That we will discover something basic that shows we are seeing only a slice of what the universe is truly all about. And it will be so revolutionary, it will shake the foundations of existence and meaning and life itself.