Very interesting, EVS. Thanks for posting that. My thoughts are that reality is actually something very similar. I don't really think we can ever get close to the truth until we let go of all that Einstein dogma. That in my opinion, is holding science back.
Thanks, Numbers!
The real credit should go to spinnewise, as it was provided by this member.
Afraid of making you angry, I want to let you know this:
I think that our world is changing rapidly these years, and as you say, the Einsteinian
rules might not extend into severe quantum mechanisms, allthough Einstein was aware
that there was something "out of the ordinary" that was/is taken place in the Cosmos, even when
he noticed that these theories was beyond even his own theories. So, he actually admits that
there is something like "quantum entanglement", only he wasn't able to fit it into his
many verifiable equations at his time. In fact, these theories did make himself question
his great work on the "theory of everything" that actually was discussed at his time, and
by himself.
---o0o---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglementResearch into quantum entanglement was initiated by the EPR paradox paper of Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen in 1935,[8] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter.[9][10] Although these first studies focused on the counterintuitive properties of entanglement, with the aim of criticizing quantum mechanics, eventually entanglement was verified experimentally, and recognized as a valid, fundamental feature of quantum mechanics; the focus of the research has now changed to its utilization as a resource for communication and computation.
---o0o---
"Quantum entanglement is so strange, in fact, that Einstein called it â??spooky action at a distance.â?"
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-06/quantum-entaglementA group of scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology recently came a step closer to figuring out where the boundary lies between the quantum and classical physical worlds, and their discovery has big implications for the future of quantum computersâ?? which would have much faster and more powerful processors than our computers do today.
--o0o--
Additional reference:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/In 1935 and 1936, Schrödinger published a two-part article in the Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society in which he discussed and extended a remarkable argument by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument was, in many ways, the culmination of Einstein's critique of the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and was designed to show that the theory is incomplete. (See The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory and Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.) In classical mechanics the state of a system is essentially a list of the system's properties â?? more precisely, it is the specification of a set of parameters from which the list of properties can be reconstructed: the positions and momenta of all the particles comprising the system (or similar parameters in the case of fields). The dynamics of the theory specifies how properties change in terms of a law of evolution for the state. Pauli characterized this mode of description of physical systems as a â??detached observerâ?? idealization. See Pauli's letter to Born in The Born-Einstein Letters (Born, 1992; p. 218). On the Copenhagen interpretation, such a description is not possible for quantum systems. Instead, the quantum state of a system should be understood as a catalogue of what an observer has done to the system and what has been observed, and the import of the state then lies in the probabilities that can be inferred (in terms of the theory) for the outcomes of possible future observations on the system. Einstein rejected this view and proposed a series of arguments to show that the quantum state is simply an incomplete characterization of the system. The missing parameters are sometimes referred to as â??hidden parametersâ?? or â??hidden variablesâ?? (although Einstein did not use this terminology, presumably because he did not want to endorse any particular â??hidden variableâ?? theory).
--o0o--
But, I sure follow your eagerness to step into this new age, and it sure will bring even more compromises to the old way
of looking at our physical environment. Need I say, better telescopes, so that we can find even more strange worlds, better
microscopes etc. in order to find better healing methods, better Colliders, like the LHC...and I could go on..
Sure, the drones is working many more theories than this, so therefor we continue our search for this even newer technology,
maybe we someday make this our new "theory of everything"...new times, - new thinkers..
So, as you say, and then as I read it, Einstein was quite ahead of his time, may we also find ourselves to be excactly that! Please consider
this before dumping Einstein all the way! To pick up on his heritage takes/requires some deeper thinking!
Thanks,
EVS
PS: There's an even stronger postulate that Einstein might have been wrong, when his theories depends on that
there is nothing in the Universe travelling faster than light, see my previous post:
Neutrinos travels faster than light?:
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html
