2 thoughts on “”

1. Interesting experiment, though I’m not sure he’ll get it to work — at least not for the reasons he’s hypothesizing. Seems like his “retrocausality” theory is really not that different than the old “the-entangled-photons-are-sending-signals-to-each-other” theory.

   To my lay understanding, it seems more logical that the two photons are not “communicating” over a distance in three-dimensional space, but simply exist at the same point in four-dimensional space. So, any action taken on one would effect them both. Imagine two people standing in close proximity to each other (maybe even embracing) — if you threw a bucket of water on one of them, the other would almost surely get wet, too. The same principle applies here, except in a four (or maybe more)-dimensional context.

   Cramer’s theory reminds me of those medieval astronomers who held forth that the heavenly bodies all had little “curly-q’s” in their orbits, in an attempt to explain retrograde motion while stubbornly clinging to their geo-centric view of the universe. In reality, the physical explanation to the phenomenon is much simpler if you think about it in a different paradigm.

   Anyway, just my under-educated two cents. (Curly-q’s is the scientific term, right?)

2. Epicycles, actually. But good enough.

   Yeah, I’ve long held that theory that two photons that seem to be affecting each other, or one photon that seems to be in two places at once, is really just one photon that transcends three spatial dimensions. I’m with ya, Eric.

Comments are closed.