MJ kihara

We need deeper explanations concerning constancy of c,so that transition from Galilean relativity to SR becomes more appealing to the commonsense....otherwise,to the majority... without physics degrees, it will ever appear to be a conspiracy...I tend to think nature had enough reason to make common sense to be Galilean as our first step of developing intiution.

Not just straight forward definition...and more than the issue of shut up and just do the calculation....the issue here is about why and where from. Am not against mainstream physics...I use it to guide my reasoning...it's my guard rail. I believe we must have unbiased fundamental understanding of the universe, to be able to simulate it to the highest precision so as to unleash the next phase of exploration.

To have a deeper understanding of nature....i.e what is the real nature of energy and it's actual relationship with matter....why couldn't zero point energy which is massive just turn into matter...such like issues and of course why are we(human)conscious and intelligent.

I was responding to that...from the 'other concept' I don't intend to replace mainstream physics..my hope is using it's tools to be able to give alternative ways of understanding such issues.

Probability distribution maps virtual tube that contains quantum particles... information gained restrict the position/momentum of the qauntum particle within this virtual tube... shrinking of the virtual tube to approximately where the quantum particle is, is interpreted as collapse...in this regard quantum particle can be thought as being distributed within it's virtual tube...the periphery of this tube is highly flexible, therefore,it respond to any kind of interaction it encounters...also since it's below quantum formation threshold it's highly fragile,meaning it can disintegrate into virtual particles a.k.a spacetime particles(just like a bubble pop when pinched) when it encounters interaction above it's fragility...therefore probability distribution is real and wave function collapse is a real phenomenon.

All this; collapse, distribution-happens when you try to ring fence wave-particle duality...when you try to interpret wave-particle duality you end up getting wave function. The reason mostly from my perspective explain why on my 'other discussions' I never accepted to drop the terminology 'virtual particles'....since to understand the reality of the issue under the discussion there are other exotic terms like virtual tubes and mirrorness has to be taken into consideration. Cumulatively 'virtual particles' entangle to form basic structures...e.g virtual tubes....to conventional virtual particles(equilibrium point between primodial quantum to quantum as a unit) ....to actual particles we know of. When 'virtual particles' are emitted by particles they are highly entangled to it(contain more information about it) as the concentration of this particles(virtual particles) increase and depending on level of their stability they collapse on to themselves increasingly becoming mirror of their actual particle which is emitting them, therefore, forming virtual tubes to conventional virtual particles-As you are understanding this explanation, you are ring fencing to the actual particle,your distribution is narrowing to the peek.. that's amplitude of probability function. Let us digest that because it's the most critical part of wave function collapse mechanism....ring fencing wave-particle duality...does it sound outrageous? .......point of concern-It will be appropriate you let me here and in my other subsequent discussions use virtual particles to refer to spacetime particles and the other usual one i will be referring to it as conventional virtual particles...to me and my ideas the more fundamental 'virtual particles' accumulate while entangling to become conventional virtual paricle while conventional virtual particle having failed to reach quantum threshold disintegrate to fundamental 'virtual particles'...... Spelling...'paricle' it's particle.

According to my thinking...wave function collapse is real.... probability distribution is real..it is a real phenomenon describing real things....the issue of being real phenomenon and not real...it's not real to the majority cause the conventional concepts don't account for it...it's the case of, as from stringJunky post..'shut up and do the calculations'.

Transfer through which way? ....can gaining of knowledge regarded as transfer of information.

Is it away of spreading our real ignorance about the real situation of an aspect until we get the real answer through observation?

What caused Einstein to use 'spooky action at a distance' phrase?

Is wave function collapse real?

Is wave function collapse a real phenomenon?

Perhaps entanglement happens prior to the 'destruction' of the photon and prior to emission of the photon when the atom undergoes relaxation.......''anyway from my thinking,'the other concept' a photon causing excitation is not destroyed,and it still exists in photon zone within the electron,whereby it's then emitted when the election is deexicited.... sorry for being off conventional"

On the issue of knowing and issue of interaction on close proximity....to know you have to make measurements.... making measurements means coming into closer proximity to the quantum particle being measured for accuracy of your measurements to improve,closer to the extent uncertainties takes over...when the signal from test particle come back to you so that you know,entanglement is destroyed..if the signal you used for measurements doesn't come back and stick to the quantum particle being measured then entanglement is not destroyed. I think for quantum particle or quantum particles,any kind of interaction at closing proximity,it involves entanglement.....by knowing the state of entanglement you are destroying the existing interaction of the system and the system is no longer in the entangled form that you knew...iow i think AT CLOSE PROXIMITY for quantum particle/s you can't separate interaction and entanglement (interaction without entanglement is impossible).....detection/knowing, you are destroying the interaction since you have to get something out of the interaction to be the signal your getting to make you know.

Meaning that you can have an interaction of quantum particles(electron),but as long as you know the individual spin of the electron(A&B) prior to interaction entanglement of their spin won't take place? Iow interaction of quantum particle in close proximity without entanglement is possible.

Knowing the spin of A and B and bringing A and B into close proximity which one takes precedence for entanglement to occur?

Let's say AB were an entangled pair of electrons,A with spin up and B with spin down .....your taking them apart,your measurements flips spin of A... what will happen to the spin of B? Why does for entanglement to occur,it require close proximity interaction? This sound like a conspiracy...is it a must?

The device is the one detecting change of state.... entanglement in this case induces wave function synchronization of particle A and B. When measurements are done to particle A it's wave function collapse forcing particle B to change state,then the device back on Earth detects this change of state... Whichever the state of particle A and B are initially does not matter, in this case,what matter is any change of state induced by measurements affects the entangled system (A and B) no matter how part they are as long as they are entangled...no need to compare...what is needed is a signal no matter how trivial it is. The device is fictional because of our current civilization technological know how.

A device capable of detecting wave function of an entangled state...when quantum particle A is entangled to quantum particle B then these particles are separated held into different device,one device is carried by space ship and another left behind on Earth ...the one left behind holding particle B let's say initiates a reaction when it detects change of state of particle B of course caused by wave function collapse...once the crew reaches proxima centauri they take their device holding particle A interfere with it, the device left on Earth detect change of state of B then initiates a reaction,that way a signal has been sent...which happens instantly.

Radio device involves sending photons while entanglement communication device involves utilization of entanglement to communicate... which signal arrive first?

Let's have hypothetical ship moving at c,carrying entanglement communication device and a radio communication device...after reaching proxima centauri approximately 4.2 light year away...the crew decide to communicate with people back on Earth using light signal(e.g radio device) then using entanglement device...which device will pass the communication first?

How do you get to entangle particles? The act of entangling and probability function which come first? Can entangled system used for communication?

I totally agree with you caring about physics,that doesn't mean am wrong..you are free to say what you think.

I respect you views,Nothing else I can do to convince you otherwise.

If you could not get my explanation on moon receding away from Earth after I referred you back to my answer...I thing it's difficult for you to get my thinking on this. Be contended with that... don't be bothered by my thinking.