Strange

! Moderator Note Moved to relativity

Exactly. But some people would say that it is just imitating the external phenomena, and that internally it is still just a machine. But the same can be said of "other people". (I don't think this is off topic, but maybe the OP should decide.)

We only know about dark matter because of Newton's law of gravity. That would be a fair comment if you were coming up with something new, but you aren't. All you are doing is "explaining" (to yourself) things that have been predicted, described, explained already by quantum theory. Yes, Einstein built on the work of others ("standing on the shoulders of giants" as Newton put it) but he advanced on that work and produced new theories that made new predictions. You are not doing that. All you are doing is going from "quantum theory tells us (in mathematical detail) how the result of the double slit changes depending on the measurement" to "the result of the double slit changes depending on what we observe". Not exactly a breakthrough, is it. You are just "rephrasing" the popular science explanations you have picked up. Not doing any new science.

This is explained by Newtonian gravity. Doesn’t even need GR, as far as I know. It is if they provide a radical new way of understanding the world. After all, your “theories” are just your repacking of the (mathematical) results of quantum theory. You wouldn’t have come up with them if quantum theory hadn’t already told us how the world works. So you are just taking the results of the pioneers and making up stories that you find satisfying. That is not science.

The news story says nothing about incineration.

There are theories out there that relate black holes to entanglement: "ER=EPR is a conjecture in physics stating that entangled particles are connected by a wormhole (or Einstein–Rosen bridge)[1][2] and may be a basis for unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics into a theory of everything.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR However, as far as I know, nothing in this suggest that "what is in the future can root back the past". That would appear to violate causality, which does seem to be pretty fundamental to the nature of the universe. And you don't have "theories". A theory is a model (in physics, a mathematical model) that has been extensively tested and confirmed. What is there to solve? The behaviour was predicted by quantum theory; when technology made it possible to perform the experiment, it (rather boringly) exactly fitted the explanation provided by quantum theory.

I agree that "higher" animals have some sort of consciousness. The trouble is that this quickly opens up the rabbit holes of what one means by "consciousness" and how one can know if a particular thing has it or not. After all, there is no real way of knowing if another person is conscious or just does a perfect imitation of being conscious. There are some people who think that however close we get to "real" artificial intelligence, machines will never be conscious in the same way. Even if a robot writes poetry, claims to have fallen in love, gets drunk, cries at the movies, gets angry in an argument, etc it will not be "really" conscious. Yes. It is possible that only humans have a sense of self awareness. But, again, can we really know? There is the mirror test, that suggests that quite a few animals can recognise themselves. But does that mean they are aware of their existence? Of their mortality? It may also be an illusion! Agreed.

I was asking why you think that is the case. Why does it have to be made of anything? It is just geometry. Why do metres and seconds need to be "made of" something? Only by Einstein, as a derogatory description. If there were some evidence for that. But it seems bizarre and unnecessary to say a mile or an hour is made of "quantum entanglements" . And what is entangled? Entanglement doesn't exist by itself. However, there is a lot of research on the suggestion that EP=EPR. Which is kinda like what you are saying (if you half-close your eyes and turn your head sideways). I don't think you understand how competitive science is, and how strong a case you would need to get someone to spend scarce resources. It needs to be a lot more compelling than some ad-hoc idea, not based on any existing theory.

Do you have anything (math, evidence, citation) to support this? If not, why are you so certain of it? I left the math out. How much detail would you need? They are not "deeper". They are shallow. Because they have no explanatory power: you cannot predict anything from them, you are just coming up with your own explanations for what current (deeper) theory tells us. Your own explanations inevitably make more sense to you because they are pitched at exactly the right level: you came up with them based on what you know and what you can understand. So they seem just right. To anyone who knows even a little of what science tells us, your "explanations" are just post-hoc stories.

The position of a particle is defined by a wave-function (effectively, the probability of detecting at any location). If there is a barrier, then there can be a finite probability that the particle will be detected on the "wrong" side of the barrier. Good. That is the way science works. Or, it should be good. But you seem to reject the repeated confirmations of science and prefer to make up your own explanations which lack both a model and evidence to confirm them.

This isn't a hypothesis (because it isn't based on any science). It is just a wild guess. However, I would assume that it is impossible (but will happily defer to someone with more expertise). Would it? Of course. Red/blue shift can be caused by a change in gravitational potential. And, conversely, it changes the energy of the photons. And therefore changes their gravitational effect (in well understood ways). But this would not create antigravity, just different amounts of gravity. And being entangled or not would have no effect.

They do. But scientists will do this by using science. Not throwing together a mish-mash of buzzwords that they don't fully understand.

I am pretty sure that even Feynman did not think they had any physical reality; it was just a calculating tool. I would assume that the reason it works (and why a photon can (appear) to go through both slits, and why the measurement of a photon that didn't go through the slits, and why erasing the information later affects the the results, and why entanglement appears to communicate, and ...) is because quantum effects are non-local. So, to calculate what happens, you need to consider all possible effects, however remote. The path integral is a way of approximating that.

Although the evidence is pretty good. And increasing all the time. (Your "something else" is getting smaller by the year.) well, obviously. But there is no reason to think science won't come up with an explanation. Maybe there are invisible pink unicorns around every corner. But both science and philosophy rely on evidence. Not warm fuzzy feelings.

Once upon a time we dint have an explanation for magnetism. That doesn't mean that it had to be "something else".

I did. They have no evidence to support your claims.

So, again, what testable predictions does your model make? Therefore, you do not have a scientific theory. Also, when you copy and paste text you should provide a source. Otherwise it is plagiarism.

If we can only observe / measure one dimension of time, how is that different from there being only one dimension of time? if these other time dimensions are not detectable then they may as well not exist. You seem to agree that your idea is not testable and therefore it is not science.

Argument from incredulity? Never very compelling.

OK. Do what quantitatively testable predictions does your model make that would allow it to be tested and compared to current theories?

The Einstein field equations in GR do not use the Lorentz transform (although, they will reduce to that in some limited cases). "The Einstein field equations (EFE; also known as Einstein's equations) comprise the set of 10 equations in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity that describe the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by mass and energy.[1] First published by Einstein in 1915 as a tensor equation,[2] the EFE relate local spacetime curvature (expressed by the Einstein tensor) with the local energy and momentum within that spacetime (expressed by the stress–energy tensor).[3]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations The only equivalence principle I am familiar with is the one related to general relativity.: "In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

What evidence do you have for your theory? What quantitatively testable predictions does your model make that would allow it to be compared to current theories?

Time is a fourth dimension. You can tell, because you need to specify four bits of information: where (3 spatial coordinates) and when (1 time coordinate). For example, two men meet on a street corner and decide to meet up again later for lunch at a restaurant, on the tenth floor of a building 5 blocks East and 7 blocks North of where they are, in 3 hrs.

So, general and special relativity are the main physics theories that are based on spacetime having four dimensions. Thee have both been extensively tested and so have a lot of evidence for them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity If you are proposing an alternative theory, then it is up to you to provide some evidence for it.