Philosophy Now Forum

This experiment about setting up telescopes on opposite sides of a galaxy was never performed so it's not conclusive about time. This article seems to mix science fiction with nonfiction and I don't buy that measuring time will change a past event (I do buy quantum entanglement as it's based on actual experiments, it needs a mechanism to explain how one event can instantaneously influence another one across wide distances of space, so wide that light doesn't have enough time to cover the distance):

http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... -altering/

PhilX

I'm still reading but it appears as nothing new. The photon (as a string of a wave quantified) that has a direct effect on the screen where it's center hits the screen. It goes through both slits because the 'width' of the photon is actually large enough to go through both yet gets split by the barrier between the them. One of the two slits allows the 'center' of this width through but the other receives the extended portion of the 'wave' and bends it because the edges of the second slit act similar to refraction. The 'string' of the wave hits the edge from the barrier between the points first slowing that side down while the other end of the wave hits the far edge later.

Each point in the opening acts as a wall of different material that would normally cause refraction but the absent wall is still created by the 'string' as it enters the opening that resists being broken momentarily. I think that the mistake originated because the geometric model and the math only respects the amplitude of the light wave as a mathematical construct. But the wave actually moves as a string that weaves in literal sinusoidal waves. This may seem contradictory but it is due to each point having a spin component which constantly alters its direction. The path of the wave is not actually a line as it 'snakes' through the sinusoidal path. Thus, the inference of the experiment actually does not demonstrate entanglement. They just falsely assume that light as a photon OR a wave is actually a point since they cannot interpret it as having 'mass' when it does. The mass can be determined by the energy exchange upon contact with the screen. But the assumption that the photon appears wavelike, while not wrong, they falsely concluded that the photon must be without mass.

Also, since they cannot notice gravity let alone anything appearing to have affect on the wave/particle perpendicular to its general translation direction, they ignore that its speed is too quick and quantity too small to have enough time required to alter its direction easily without a large object like the sun. See here where I explain how this works using the analogy of light photons as cars of a train with gaps between the cars.