"Nobel Prize Awarded For Proving Einstein Wrong"

Mainstream scientific press confirms THREE findings from Spun-Light view of matter.

[Posts are sequential, to be read/heard in date order - opposite to the order they’re generally displayed in. Paid-for posts have technical content. To see a full list of posts in sequential order, with a brief summary of each, click here .]

Click the arrow below to hear an audio version of this post (14 mins 44 sec).

My next scheduled post, Beyond Einstein: Why E = mc squared (II), will be along shortly. In the meantime, here’s a selection of major recent news reports from the scientific press that bring into sharp focus various ways in which the Spun-Light paradigm of material reality is way ahead of the curve in explaining key aspects of the underlying drivers behind our physical experience.
This post documents no less than three key findings from the Spun-Light perspective on material reality that have recently been confirmed in the mainstream scientific press.

First:
“Scientists Win Physics Nobel Prize For Proving Einstein Wrong”, “Nobel Prize winners prove Einstein wrong”.

These are typical examples of the headlines in the scientific press following the Nobel Prize awards for Physics in 2022. The second of these two gave further detail in that headline: “– entangled particles interact faster than the speed of light”.
And there we have it, in a nutshell: Einstein said that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light - and here we have, proved time and time again by experiment, some form of communication between particles some distance apart, faster than the speed of light.

Einstein didn’t like it. He went so far, with a couple of colleagues, to question the very foundations of Quantum Mechanics in a paper that became known as The EPR Thought Experiment. Einstein himself referred to this quantum phenomenon as “Spooky action at a distance”, since it contradicted outright a basic tenet of Special Relativity, that the speed of light is absolute, a universal speed limit. From this he concluded that there must be something not quite right, not quite complete, about Quantum Mechanics.

This Nobel Prize, though, is recognition that the not-quite-rightness is not in QM but in Einstein’s own thinking. The experiments recognised in this award confirm beyond doubt that there are no local hidden variables which could explain this effect without breaking that light-speed barrier. In short, that barrier is not so inviolable as Einstein believed it to be.

This element of doubt in the reliability of Relativity theory has been largely dismissed by observing that quantum entanglement - the subject of those Nobel awards - can’t be used for communications purposes, since we can’t set quantum states without breaking that entanglement. But that’s actually beside the point, since information is being passed between particles at faster than light speed.
More than that, quantum entanglement is being used to good effect, including over large distances, in various areas of technology: sensors, secure communications, quantum computing. Whilst these aren’t direct data communications using entangled states, it’s beyond question that usable information is being transferred by those states - and that information transfer is known to to be faster than light. The inclusion of the visionary physicist Anton Zeilinger in those Nobel awards is explicit recognition of the importance of this quantum effect in current technological advances.

Whilst it would be too much to suggest that Relativity has been broken by this new perspective on reality - all the formulae still hold true - it‘s definitely been seriously dented.
We can draw a clear distinction here between measured effects and assumptions about objective physical reality. The former are in agreement with all known experimental and observable results; the latter are not. In other words, the conclusions drawn from all those measurements are incorrect: the true reality is not as it’s proposed in Special Relativity, and as it’s been believed to be for the past 119 years.
It’s not enough to say “Well, it seems the speed of light isn’t an absolute limit - but all the other conclusions still hold”. The Lorentz transformation, which is the foundation stone for all those formulae, hinges on the absolute status of the speed of light. If that goes, then all of Relativity goes with it - unless a different rationale can be found as a basis for the Lorentz transformation.
That rationale would show this transformation to be a consequence of real effects of a state of motion, coupled with subjective motion-related effects on a human observer or any other moving object - what we’d normally refer to as ‘observer effects’. In other words, experiences induced in a material object (including a person) by its own state of motion, rather than some esoteric unexplained property of the surrounding universe.

This is precisely the conclusion arrived at in the Spun-Light* understanding of material particles - with substantial compelling evidence to support that conclusion. This perspective leads directly to the Lorentz transformation as a mathematical tool for defining subjective experience of objects/observers in motion; it also leads directly to all other experimentally verified findings of Special Relativity.
[* AKA Cyclic-Photon.]
Where it parts from SR, though, is in SR’s attribution of these effects as resulting from some overarching property of the cosmos, rather than consequences in the moving object/person of their own motion. The Spun-Light perspective shows all such effects as being local to the moving entity; this eliminates all the bizarre spin-off effects imagined (i.e. not experimentally verified) by SR, as well as the assumption in SR of the absolute nature of the speed of light - which has now been proved false.

In short: the Spun-Light understanding of time, matter and energy is more consistent with experimental evidence to date than the Special Theory of Relativity as it is understood and taught at all levels in today’s scientific community.

And now for something completely different

- but equally consistent with the Spun-Light understanding of matter.

“Rethinking reality: Is the entire universe a single quantum object?”
This headline from New Scientist in July 2023 almost coincided with my post: Quantum Randomness: Where did that come from?, in which I state: “the whole universe - every smallest subatomic particle, every tiniest thread of energy - is one unimaginably vast and complex wave function”. I go on to add: “In the words of the mystics: ‘Everything is one’.” This exactly mirrors the observation of the author of the above article that “All is one”- originally voiced by Greek philosopher Heraclitus some 2500 years ago.

One might be forgiven for thinking that I was plagiarising this author’s work (which I hadn’t in fact seen until this year). But this is just a restatement, in other terms, of my observation in my earlier post (24th May 2023) that “the universe is holographic: every tiniest part of the universe carries an interference-pattern imprint of every element in the universe, whatever its size or distance; a hologram is an interference pattern”. That in turn was a restatement of a similar observation in my 2016 book Atoms of Light.

My later post The Cosmic Quantum Wavefunction - and What About Consciousness? (Oct 2023) spells this out even more explicitly, as well as drawing attention to the central role of consciousness in the cosmic process - another feature of increasing prominence in today’s scientific narrative.

And so again we see the Spun-Light perspective on material reality mirroring aspects of that reality only now coming to light (pun intended) in the mainstream of scientific research.

And there’s more…

“Scientists propose sweeping new law of nature, expanding on evolution”, “Scientists and philosophers identify nature's missing evolutionary law”, “Scientists propose a "missing law" for evolution in the universe”.

With headlines like these, a whole bookshelf of popular science magazines recently broke the news: Darwinian evolution of living organisms is only a small part of the evolutionary story. The evolutionary process covers a vast panorama of cosmic developments, from the galactic/intergalactic to the planetary to the microscopic and sub-microscopic scale.

This won’t be news to anyone who’s read my 2011 paper, published in a leading systems-science journal: Elementary sub-atomic particles: the earliest adaptive systems. This details the absolutely first step in this evolutionary process, as revealed by the Spun-Light understanding of matter: in the first picosecond or so after the Big Bang, the tiniest building-blocks of matter evolved in that energetic maelstrom by a random ultra-high-energy process of try, try and try again, turning one in a billion or so of those photons of primal energy into stable closed loops which we now refer to as ‘particles of matter’.

The rest, as they say, is history.

This paper, and the description of those first elementary particles, includes a clear explanation for the dramatic imbalance of matter and antimatter particles in the cosmos, based on this cyclic-photon structure. Without that imbalance there would be no history - and no evolving cosmos.
Mainstream science is still puzzling over that imbalance - and will continue to do so until it squarely addresses the issue of the nature of the structure of material particles.

So there we have it. The Spun-Light perspective on matter, as a natural consequence, includes various features of the material realm now appearing as breaking news in the mainstream scientific press. In other areas this most straightforward commonsense perspective is still waiting for mainstream science to catch up.

Next up

Next up: Beyond Einstein: WHY E = mc squared (II): With High School Maths YOU can know something Einstein didn't know.
In the meantime, be sure to check out Transfinite Mind for a wealth of free resources, including non-technical articles and presentations, as well as books to suit every level of scientific (or non-scientific) background.
Also, if you find these articles interesting and thought-provoking, and you know others who may also find them of interest, please be sure to point those others in this direction. Thanks.

Be with you again very shortly!