by Joy Christian » Tue Mar 08, 2016 9:06 pm
Hi Tom,
The phrase "classical orientation entanglement" is just fine. I have used it, you have used it, and that, in essence, is indeed behind what I have been arguing for. But "classical orientation entanglement" is a completely different concept compared to "quantum entanglement." The latter is dependent on the superposition of remote quantum states, whereas the former is an entirely classical concept, describing one of the key topological properties of the physical space itself. And yes, teleparallel gravity is indeed one of the ways to get a handle on it; and spinors --- which underpin much of the works of Paul Dirac, Herman Weyl, and Roger Penrose -- is another.
Hi Tom,
The phrase "classical orientation entanglement" is just fine. I have used it, you have used it, and that, in essence, is indeed behind what I have been arguing for. But "classical orientation entanglement" is a completely different concept compared to "quantum entanglement." The latter is dependent on the [u]superposition[/u] of remote quantum states, whereas the former is an entirely classical concept, describing one of the key topological properties of the physical space itself. And yes, teleparallel gravity is indeed one of the ways to get a handle on it; and spinors --- which underpin much of the works of Paul Dirac, Herman Weyl, and Roger Penrose -- is another.