MJ kihara

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.

🤯 GR mathematics part of what i have been outlining partially on this concept...linearised gravity... https://www.google.com/url?q=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearized_gravity&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi5ys_77q3_AhWrVqQEHSgCARAQFnoECAMQAg&usg=AOvVaw096VvVCGNwhJPrAQ9b42ne

👀😎 😴🤐🤐

The red marks/ticks won't change what is the reality....17 February 1600 Giordano Bruno burnt for going against the establishment of his time.... always happen when people forget history,and become overconfident of themselves that they can not stomach challenges... nothing new.

If that is the notion...good luck while you try to look for answers about issues of the Universe like baryogenesis...hope you won't take forever.

You posted the answer...as I said I hope those diagrams will defend themselves for a long time.. I think am done with what I was to discuss concerning the thread.

Pliz don't misrepresent and manipulate the concept...just to wash it under.....I understand the importance of mathematics,it's an indisputable fact...that doesn't mean any kind of reasoning is useless. Tell me about your understanding of E=mc^2 so that I see how my understanding is wrong.

A good example if one were to plot the probability function for the quantum uncertainty principle. One wouldn't get a bunch of wavy sinusoidal lines. It would look more like a probability cloud around a vacuum potential baseline Back to my point.... Leave the emoji and consciousness....the diagram is having CLOUD like layer....it just not waves....I think nothing I can write here will make sense because people around are defending their perceptions fiercely.... anyway those clouds have a lot to say.

It is seems I don't know what to say...what am doing is not some kind of a movy or a video...look at this.... Am NOT wrong...you refuting those diagrams you ARE dead wrong...that single diagram....its just a wonderful summary...of how many physics mathematical formulars? Just count. You want to make me think am hallucinating...am not ... simplicity make science accessible to the masses just like a simple formular E=mc^2.

Remember those five diagrams....if not the explanation...I hope they will defend themselves for a long time to come...they are easier to visualize,when writing pages and pages of mathematics becomes hectic...let's have the spirit of making science accessible and universal to the crackpots,laymen and strawmen and to the majority without degrees in physics.

Those diagrams I didn't dream about them I used simple mathematics....up quark charge +2/3 and down quark charge -1/3 I tried to come up with a diagramatical way of understanding such issue...it worked that way....I wonder what is wrong with using simple mathematics over complicated math to understand the working of nature. All said and done...as you have already said. Those simple math,simple diagrams and simple concepts helps me understand the way nature work...at least I sleep knowing am not in the wilderness of the unknown...the universe, am part of it...no issue of being born and no issue of dying...it's just the way it is. Its unfortunate to some, nature doesn't work the way they feel it should or would want to force it to work.

The issue is that you didn't not look at my diagram and you are judging based on that...put the issue of consciousness aside, dark energy and dark matter is fundamental not just found somewhere else in the universe,it's at the core of elementary particles i.e dark matter has dark matter particle...not just a place holder term....it's there in the diagram....infact as per this concept as the universe was evolving from past to present those early galaxy left behind dark matter (dark matter particles) at the centre of their blackholes which formed cosmic voids. The concept am outlining has an explanation on that,and it has something to do with universe expansion...I have diagrams to illustrate that...all that, it's in a book...I know the rules doesn't allow book advertising,it's there a 125 pages, i just put here samples of what i see relevant....the main point,is that, it has to do with expansion of the universe and thermodynamics equilibrium. Not just buzzwords, Yes a correlation of states,for us it's just a correlation of state since we are limited by measurements problems but for spacetime particles(a.k.a virtual particles) correlation indicate extend of exchange of information through their eigen space. To me saying just a field and not explaining it's source,why and where from? sounds not just pseudo-scientific but magic.

Am just visualizing those diagrams that you dismissed, to give me answers and help me interpreting issues such as sterile neutrinos.

After reading Wikipedia article to have an overview of sterile neutrino...is that they are massive,they interact only through gravity,they are supposed to be right handed,they are candidate of dark matter. From my concept is that they don't exist in this universe,may be exist in parallel universe if there is such a thing. They are not candidate for dark matter,if we follow that route to search for dark matter we may end up spending another millennium searching for it. Fundamental understanding of gravity should be through entanglement... dark matter mass should not be expected to be obtained through the normal mechanisms..i.e Higgs mechanism e.t.c Those points are from my understanding of the concept am trying to lay out. What are the issues of baryogenesis? Of course just explanations.. just a few.

I will do it of course..however What about this,

What are sterile neutrino?...i.e their properties briefly,of course not using mathematical symbols just explanation ,so that I see how I can deal with them using this concept.

The issue is that anything new, stones are thrown to it....can you speculate about old already proven fact...there seems to be a taste of how things should be.

This is math.... simple math. Talking of consciousness is off topic,outside this thread remember it was quantum gravity ''simplified"...I talked of gravity, through gravitational waves from massive graviton decaying to massless spin 2 spacetime particles(virtual particles)...I said since it's massive and cause of E=mc^2, energy conservation the energy released becomes gravitational potential energy carried by gravitational waves...I showed through a diagram how components of Einstein fields equation relate to those diagrams giving an overview of spacetime curvature...my mission of simplifying I have already talked about it....the intention was not to complicate the already complicated issues of gravity. The discussions here is just one component of my overall agenda, where consciousness comes into place, meaning it belong to another thread..... Anyway you can't keep doing the same thing in exactly the same manner and expect different results otherwise I could have opened a thread to start doing exactly what has already been done.