This post is a response to Kirsten Hacker‘s article “Disentanglement.” Kirsten is an extremely talented individual who happens to be quite knowledgeable about the fields of physics and cosmology, due to her earning a Ph.D. and twenty years in the field. She also has an insider’s perspective. Please read Kirsten’s article first and then come back for my response. Also, be sure to check out Kirsten’s intriguing books on Amazon.

Dear Kirsten,

I’m interpreting the title of your article, “Disentanglement,” as a double entendre and it’s spot on if that is the case. There is so much nonsense these days coming out of the physics and cosmology communities. The astronomers are mostly cool, so I’ll give them a pass, plus I have some pre-sympathy for astronomers because they are going to be enormously pissed off when they find out all the stuff the physicists and cosmologists got wrong and how much reframing that will require in astronomy. For example, the current redshift interpretation is wrong and that is going to be a huge mess to clean up. OBJECTS ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR.

There was a mention of infinite matrices and determinants in this post. I can only vaguely remember linear algebra from 1980, but I thought it was way cool. The word ‘infinite’ reminded me to make the following point: To any extent physicists are using integrals with zero and/or infinity as bounds for modeling energy in particle reactions they are wrong. There is a minimum energy a particle can have before its shell disintegrates and there is a maximum energy, the Planck energy, that only certain particles can have (others decompose at lower temperatures). This is why I don’t understand why there is all the nonsense talk about singularities and wormholes. There is a big CLANK when a particle gets to Planck scale in the core of an SMBH. There is nothing beyond that. No singularity. That seems so obvious to me, that it blows my mind that most physicists don’t see that and continue to say that Planck scale is just a result of dimensional analysis.

I also wanted to mention pilot waves, which I think my model of nature generates. I model spacetime as a dense superfluid of mostly cold particles (think CMB cold) that permeate nearly everything. Every particle has neighbors. In my model, all of the standard model particles have a shell. Imagine, say, three dipoles spinning orthogonally along some orientation of x,y,z axes. The wave equation of each shell is determined by the harmonics of energy stored in the shell. So think about what happens when the electrinos and positrinos in one shell come in proximity of the electrinos and positrinos of another shell. There will be a slight influence. Energy will flow and will then ebb back. This is continuous, not a discrete transfer of a harmonic. The usual case is no net transfer of energy, but there is a root mean square energy outstanding on average. I think this is the transmission method for the concept of mass. The more matter-energy a particle has, the higher energy it exchanges in the ebb and flow with its neighbor particles. And then since they are excited, they do the same thing with their neighbors. This happens at the local speed of light. You can see that if we equate energy with temperature, the spacetime superfluid has a temperature and that temperature is higher around dense matter-energy and increases as radial distance to the dense matter-energy decreases. This is the mechanism for gravity. Gravity is convection through the superfluid. The reason gravity is so weak, is that we are talking about the influence of neighbor wave equations on one another as electrinos and positrinos come into proximity. This is a tiny effect compared to the other three forces. Also the energy is dispersing in an expanding sphere, so its intensity decreases by 1/r^2, which falls off very fast.

Now consider that nearly every particle has this ebb/flow of energy, a yin/yang, a heartbeat – that is an incredible amount of information being continuously spread throughout the universe at the local speed of light. So the fact that distant particles may know something about each other is not surprising to me. I am still unsure about the spooky action at a distance, because it is not clear to me if the initial entanglement determined the ultimate outcome or some other mechanism.

J Mark Morris

San Diego October 14, 2019