dennislmay

Never does it occur to them that freedom and opportunity brings the riches to people to avoid most of the problems they predict.

I don't agree that it doesn't occur to them. I think they know it, but what they want is the problems, giving them still more power. For instance, I think that Ehrlich knows that energy curtailment is a great way to produce famines.

Ellen

I agree that the leadership knows what they are doing, I should have said it never occurs to those who blindly follow Progressives. The leadership of the Progressives dare not openly explain what they are up to - even to their followers. Socialism is for the people, not the socialists [Wilkow]. Somehow the followers of Progressives think they will have an input on decision making in this grand scheme. That is not the case at all. Like in all previous authoritarian socialist schemes the first round of followers - who are true believers - are the 2nd group to go against the wall when the leadership consolidates power casting off any pretense of social justice or other platitudes that gained them power.

Dennis

It is absolutely astounding how ignorant, inaccurate, imbecilic and flat out wrong the marxists and progressives can be.

That assumes they are honest brokers - not the case at all.

Agreed. I think the lead honchos know just what they're doing.

Speaking of Ehrlich, here's a link to a Forbes interview with him from 1/16/2013.

Ellen

Marxist central planners always know best even when everything they predict is politically based and no more likely to be right than throwing dice. Never does it occur to them that freedom and opportunity brings the riches to people to avoid most of the problems they predict. Their view of people as one-dimensional livestock to be guided through the obstacles of life created by their crude nature is an indication of their own lack of mental development - not the reality of the world.

Dennis

It is absolutely astounding how ignorant, inaccurate, imbecilic and flat out wrong the marxists and progressives can be.

That assumes they are honest brokers - not the case at all. Marxist and Progressives re-use disinformation campaigns that have worked in the past. They know that an insufficient number of people are involved in actual independent thinking or research - recycled emotional ploys will work as they worked in the past. Green is the new Red, once the media and educational systems were entirely compromised Marxists and Progressives can have their way on pretty much any issue using simple repetitive emotional pleas. Repeating lies allow them to reach their goals, after their goals are reached distractions using other issues cause the low information voter to forget how the fog of lies got them to where they are at. The Marxist and Progressive method is to keep the public continually off balance introducing one instability after another all pushing [herding] toward collectivist authoritarian goals. No problem is ever resolved, no scandal ever settled, no final word ever allowed because another distraction is presented before a thought or conclusion can ever be reached by the low information voter. The media and educational system keep the fog of confusion and disinformation ever alive.

Dennis

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131101172313.htm

Very interesting genetic variation within an individual - has implications for careful screening when doing animal cloning for livestock production. Also implies that healthier strains may have more internal genetic variation as a strategy to avoid bacteria and viruses.

May also explain why cancer is a byproduct of a strategy to void bacteria and viruses which tend to kill you when you're young versus cancer that gets you when you're old.

Dennis

I've been saying to anyone who would listen since about 1991 that the universe would look the same no matter how far back you look. . . .

Dennis, I gather from this report you linked on BBC today, as well as from participants in the observation, that star formation rates were two orders of magnitude higher in the galaxies when the universe age from the initial singularity was only five percent of its age today. This is one way in which the universe does not look the same no matter how far back you look. The press report from Texas is here. It supplements the BBC report in interesting results, puzzles, and prospects.

There are also nearby newly forming galaxies with high rates of star formation but with low concentrations of heavy elements.

http://www.universetoday.com/10075/youngest-galaxy-found/

The reason the distant galaxy was seen at all is because it is involved in active star formation and they allowed the telescope to look at it for a very long time. Note this was not a survey intended to take a comprehensive sample of all galaxies in a certain volume of space.

When you do comprehensive surveys gathering all galaxies in certain volume into account space looks the same locally as it does far away. When you only look for the brightest galaxies at a certain distance you only get galaxies with active star formation.

If the telescope time was 100-1000X longer looking at the same region of space you would start seeing old galaxies with lower rates of star formation. This same issue has come up time and time and time again since the late 1980's. If you don't do comprehensive surveys you only gather the brightest objects which only tells you what the outliers are doing - not what is going on generally.

Dennis

Now you're using a measurement to measure. This is circular.

The speed of light is the currency of time measurement. The speed of light can be measured in any given reference frame by the round trip distance traveled in a certain amount of time.

If you observe another frame of reference [moving relative to you or having a different speed of light] you can make observations of the interaction between objects in that other frame to determine the physics of what is going on.

Big Bang proponents cherry pick observations supporting their view that space is expanding to create a red-shift - ignoring those observations which directly contradict that view.

Dennis

Please understand I'm not arguing physics--I'm abjectly qualified--merely pointing out that you seem to keep implicitly referring to time as some kind of thing. At least you don't say it isn't. It has no substance. Meataphysically Metaphysically it's nothing. It can neither act on something nor be acted on. It's not even a pilot fish on a shark. True or false I'd have no idea at all how that plays out on the physics you explicate on. Take "space-time." Nothing there either. There is no space just as there is no time. There is something or somethings (of X density or densities) wherever you are, wherever you go. Space between objects is only distance between objects. Exactly the same meaning. No metaphysicality for "distance" either. Just a measurement. If I have to go 100 yards to get somewhere else I must go through something, with something, on something--call it "a wing and a prayer." The wing has substance and the prayer is for comfort and/or entertainment.

--Brant

if you die and come back to life 2 billion years later it will be a snap of the fingers for you--no sense of time having passed for there was never any time to pass and, guess what, it's not passing now for the same reason--all the time you didn't live before you were born never happened and all the time you won't live after you die won't happen either just like all the time of your life isn't happening now: the clock is a profound metaphysical joke

Time is a relationship between objects - as distance is a relationship between objects. Light is involved in both relationships as a measuring device - and a substance/object unto itself. Tracking these relationships is physics.

Dennis

Now you're using a measurement to measure. This is circular.

The speed of light is the currency of time measurement. The speed of light can be measured in any given reference frame by the round trip distance traveled in a certain amount of time.

If you observe another frame of reference [moving relative to you or having a different speed of light] you can make observations of the interaction between objects in that other frame to determine the physics of what is going on.

Big Bang proponents cherry pick observations supporting their view that space is expanding to create a red-shift - ignoring those observations which directly contradict that view.

Dennis

The Cosmic Background Radiation is not symmetric, seems to correlate to nearby features, does not contain expected lensing features you would expect if it came from 13+ billions of years ago, and shadowing by nearby galaxies fills in with distance - something that cannot be explained by a primordial source.

The alternative. A non-linear QM effect where the speed of time is slowly increasing over cosmological distances-time. The speed of the passage of time was slower in the past so distant objects appear red-shifted and the observed speed of time of distant objects is slower.

It is not the steady-state theory of old but a form of a steady-state theory.

The same non-linear QM with spontaneous entanglement allows the dispersal of energy-matter from gravity wells so over vast amounts of time you don't end up with all your matter and energy concentrated in small regions.

But time is not an existent. It is only a measurement of motion. It has no "speed." How could it? In X amount of time the Earth goes around the sun. The planet does this. Time does nothing.

--Brant

The speed of light is the currency used to measure the passage of time. If a property of space itself is slowly changing which affects the speed of light - it also affects our measurement of the passage of time. If the speed of sound were the measure of the passage of time and we slowly pumped the atmosphere denser and denser we would find that sounds that came from far away happened when the speed of sound and passage of time was slower.

Dennis

You are such a dreamer.

Thank you.

Dennis

Since I believe in an infinitely old universe that will continue into the infinite future I also believe there has always been life and always will be. Unlike Brant I do not see life being so complex that it cannot arise all the time given what appears to be fairly common circumstances. If fact that is the dominant view in evolutionary biology - life will arise under a number of favorable circumstances given sufficient time.

Those favorable circumstances have grown into quite a list of possibilities - deep ocean volcanic vents, voids between various clay substrates [essentially mud/rock], crevices that cycle between warm and very cold, warm pools full of muck, and on and on. Essentially any place where organics can accumulate along with water and there is some source of radiant or chemical energy - which is to say trillions of places on Earth alone at any given time.

Before you have life you have a mess of things that aren't life as we know it but may be able to replicate, can form what are essentially cell membranes, and form all kinds of complex interactions. All of these things are seen in the lab.

You don't need a design - you need feedback and death/survival/replication mechanisms. Time will take whatever is there and what survives and replicates can grow more complex over the billions of generations available.

Dennis

Researchers Advance Toward Engineering 'Wildly New Genome'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144628.htm

"When an engineering team designs a new cellphone, it's a huge investment of time and money. They really want that cell phone to work," Church said. "With E. coli we can make a few billion prototypes with many different genomes, and let the best strain win. That's the awesome power of evolution."

How is this alternative referenced? What would be a falsification? Aren't you using "time" as more than a measurement?

--Brant

excuse me if you've already told us

This alternative is discussed on Physics_Frontier at YahooGroups.com and in bits and pieces here

at Objectivist Living.

*****

As there is no falsification of the Big Bang theory at the moment - even though it does not

match observation - this alternative theory needs to make new predictions and demonstrate

a new previously unknown effect in the laboratory before support will be forthcoming. In other

words it requires a higher standard than the Big Bang theory presently uses.

*****

It is assumed the rate of time is a variable dependent upon the environment [related to a new

non-linear QM model].

Dennis

There is the matter of cosmic expansion. There is very strong evidence that the cosmos is expanding hence it must have been smaller in the past than it is now. What was the cosmos when it was the smallest it ever was? When was that? etc. etc. The steady state theory of the Cosmos is just plain wrong.

What we have are the observations that: distant galaxies are red-shifted - more red-shifted the further away they are; and the rate of time of distant objects is slower [distant supernovas takes longer to evolve than nearby ones of the same type].

Supporters of the General Theory of Relativity view these observations through the lens of a theory where space can expand to cause these observations. The problem is the theory entirely fails at the scale of a single galaxy much less a scale many trillions of times larger.

Other inconvenient observations: the brightness and angular sizes of galaxies do not match the theory of space expanding in size. The chemistry and maturity of galaxies does not match the Big Bang theory. Some old chemically mature galaxies exist at the furthest reaches of observation. Once you remove cherry picking factors - by in depth observation - the composition of the universe looks the same no matter how far back you look - entirely opposed to the ever changing predictions of the Big Bang theory.

The Cosmic Background Radiation is not symmetric, seems to correlate to nearby features, does not contain expected lensing features you would expect if it came from 13+ billions of years ago, and shadowing by nearby galaxies fills in with distance - something that cannot be explained by a primordial source.

The alternative. A non-linear QM effect where the speed of time is slowly increasing over cosmological distances-time. The speed of the passage of time was slower in the past so distant objects appear red-shifted and the observed speed of time of distant objects is slower.

It is not the steady-state theory of old but a form of a steady-state theory.

The same non-linear QM with spontaneous entanglement allows the dispersal of energy-matter from gravity wells so over vast amounts of time you don't end up with all your matter and energy concentrated in small regions.

As mentioned before the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to open systems.

Dennis

Dennis,

You and I agree on everything you just said.

Given the widely held acceptance of the Laws of Thermodynamics in the scientific establishment how come the infinite universe view (IUV) is not favored over the Big Bang version or are advocates of the BB merely keeping this IUV to themselves?

I surmised that anything which existed before the BB was "broken" down into subatomic particles in the process and therefore no evidence of whatever preceded the BB survived. But I always believed that something existed before the BB.

Still the idea of an eternal universe was considered to be an example of a perpetual motion machine which was supposed to be impossible because of the issue of entropy. What role does entropy play in your understanding of the "infinite future" you mention?

GG

The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to an open system. Hence the assumption of an infinitely large infinitely old universe eliminates the issue of entropy from the discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases," - note "isolated system".

When the 2nd law is derived in undergraduate thermodynamics this point is made very clearly - it only applies to an isolated system - not open systems.

The Big Bang theory is an ever evolving target - pick a particular version of it any particular year and observation can at most support portions of the idea - but only then by including

a number of fixes with no basis in science what-so-ever. It is legacy science [primarily the failed General Theory of Relativity] which keeps cosmologists on the Big Bang wagon.

Since the Big Bang concept has no support in actual science the idea of what came before it is even further removed. General Relativity cannot even model gravity in galaxies - not

even close. It cannot form the basis of a universal cosmology.

Dennis

Since I believe in an infinitely old universe that will continue into the infinite future I also believe there has always been life and always will be. Unlike Brant I do not see life being so complex that it cannot arise all the time given what appears to be fairly common circumstances. If fact that is the dominant view in evolutionary biology - life will arise under a number of favorable circumstances given sufficient time.

Those favorable circumstances have grown into quite a list of possibilities - deep ocean volcanic vents, voids between various clay substrates [essentially mud/rock], crevices that cycle between warm and very cold, warm pools full of muck, and on and on. Essentially any place where organics can accumulate along with water and there is some source of radiant or chemical energy - which is to say trillions of places on Earth alone at any given time.

Before you have life you have a mess of things that aren't life as we know it but may be able to replicate, can form what are essentially cell membranes, and form all kinds of complex interactions. All of these things are seen in the lab.

You don't need a design - you need feedback and death/survival/replication mechanisms. Time will take whatever is there and what survives and replicates can grow more complex over the billions of generations available.

Dennis

Is evolution inevitably eternal?

Peter,

Now that's a hell of a question.

Eternity cuts both ways, to the past and to the future.

Michael

If some version of panspermia is true [lithopanspermia my favorite] then life on Earth may be the result of events reaching back many billions of years - even longer if The Big Bang theory is BS as I believe it is. Life may arise independently many times and may be seeded by lithopanspermia over and over - there is no reason to exclude many starts or multiple starts and restarts. As I've noted here and elsewhere high altitude balloon collection samples either indicate: A. panspermia rains life on the Earth constantly or B. Atmospheric transport modeling is entirely wrong [as is Ozone Hole and Global Warming modeling] or C. Both.

We know primitive life can hibernate for tens of millions of years and be revived, we know meteorites can be ejected and re-enter another planet without heating to the point of sterilization, we know many forms of life can withstand vacuum and intense radiation, we know even minor amounts of natural shielding makes a huge difference in being able to withstand radiation, we know some primitive life forms have evolved to thrive under harsh radiation, we know there are life form and pre-life forms more primitive than bacteria but very complex themselves and containing many of the ingredients of life, we know huge amounts of materials get ejected during solar systems and planetary formation, we know entire planets get ejected on a regular basis during solar system formation, we know that many stars pass close enough to each other over their lives that many overlapping encounters of outer bodies likely happen [passing comets, asteroids, and minor bodies between solar systems].

It seems likely that once life gets started it is hard to stamp out and has many possible means of escape from one star system to another, one galaxy to another and on and on.

Dennis

In the above IBM experiment light is slowed to a crawl, however, time is not slowed to a crawl for the materials inside the chip. Correct? I think you might say they are not tied together.

Do you envision any practical or theoretical applications for time travel, or is it all a fallacy?

If an astronaut neared the speed of light would there be physical changes to his mind or body, not tied to normal aging and the physical affects of traveling? If time has varied between the speedy traveler and those back on earth, would there be other variances?

Slowing light to a crawl using material properties of a media is not affecting time itself.

When the currency of time measurement [speed of light] is affected the rate of time is locally affected. I do not support the 4-dimensional view of space-time so there is no means of time travel in the sense normal envisioned in science fiction. You can't travel to the past, you can vary the rate of how fast your travel into the future in your local frame.

Astronauts should not be affected by a differing rate of time. Other effects - gravity, acceleration may occur but that is not time rate related.

Dennis

In great affairs men show themselves as they wish to be seen; in small things they show themselves as they are. -- Nicholas Chamfort

Events have drawn me away, but I am back. Thanks for your answer Dennis.

Dennis wrote:

My view of *time* is the classical physics view of time where it is a variable. Incorporated into a Lorentz Ether Theory version of relativity the apparent passage of time can differ from place to place because the currency of time keeping is the speed of light which is not a simple vector additive quantity but related to the properties of space it travels in.

end quote

I better understand your answer about *time* because of Science Fiction. Time is slowed or speeded up by gravity for instance. Well, of course, there is also the distance light has traveled. Would the traveling lights’ intensity matter? Does light change with gravity or distance traveled? Isn’t light always traveling? Can light be static? I remember a QM experiment where light was supposedly unmoving and frozen in speed. Are their any other variables? Please correct me when I am wrong if you have the time.

Would you be in agreement that space travelers (nearing the speed of light, traveling outward) then (returning to earth more slowly,) or (returning to earth more quickly,) would result in *the existence of and not just the sensory experience of time* being different for entities traveling through time at variable speeds? I am thinking of the plot twist where more time has passed on earth and upon returning the travelers are overwhelmed by the advances in the sciences and the strange, new society back home. Another SF story line I remember had the travelers experiencing difficulties in deep space traveling at sub-light speeds, but they were saved by the more time advanced and scientifically advanced culture back on earth that came to their rescue at faster than light speed.

Intuitively, I have always thought those theories were INCORRECT, and that no matter the percent of light speed attained in traveling away from earth, upon returning to earth, time would have factually passed the same for the travelers and the earthbound. And that is where human / Objectivist epistemology could lead us away from reality, as it does when more primitive humans are positive and don’t mind spouting their disbelief that the Apollo moon landing were a Hollywood type hoax. And no evidence will sway them from their wrongful thinking.

Peter Taylor

The simple answer again is that the currency of time keeping is the speed of light. Gravity bends light so it takes a longer path to get where it is going - thus slowing the passage of time. If you leave home, go very fast, then return home the use of currency in your frame of reference was affected during your trip so you have aged less than those who stayed home.

Light can travel in media where its passage is slowed to a near crawl - the passage of time is for the use of the currency in a vacuum so this slower rate of travel is not a slower rate of time but brakes on the free-flow of light - varying with frequency.

Dennis

And PS: The famous APS position statement on global warming was cobbled together at lunch by five, I think it was, five or six people, one of them dissenting, and was not submitted to the membership for a vote. Try to get the position statement changed.......

Ellen

And if you can't trust them when it matters - it means you can't trust them at all.

Dennis

It does not seem to matter to the politicians at the APS [now a joke organization] that there is no science going on and those working the field are incompetent or liars. Grease the APS leadership to keep their stamp of approval - the APS now is just an extension of a political party - no longer an organization related to science.

Dennis

L and I talk about the days - which we remember - when to be found out engaging in scientific fraud was the kiss of death for a scientific career. Now it just seems to get you more fame and money and eager audiences attending your lectures.

There are folks who have been trying for years to arouse scientific conscience in the APS leadership. "Go away, bothersome cricket" (more suavely expressed) is the leadership's attitude.

Ellen

I view the APS as I viewed CBS News when Dan Rather was the anchor. I knew what Dan Rather was so anything that came out of his mouth was suspect regardless of what he said. The APS has no credibility and should be entirely bypassed [the name is forever tainted so it should be dissolved]. Same for the Nobel Prize - because the name is also associated with Nobel Peace Prize it is forever tainted and should be bypassed [dissolved if possible]. Reform is not worth it when they've gone that far over the ever popular "Red Line".

Dennis

He has the title on paper without applying the methodology required by who actually engage in science. A PhD is often acknowledgement of time served - nothing more.

It's worse in this case. There are people who are lousy at methodology but aren't cheating within their limited lights. And then there are people who know better and are talented at lying and at manipulating data.

Ellen

It does not seem to matter to the politicians at the APS [now a joke organization] that there is no science going on and those working the field are incompetent or liars. Grease the APS leadership to keep their stamp of approval - the APS now is just an extension of a political party - no longer an organization related to science.

Dennis

He has the titles. Think James Taggart.

'Nuf said. Showing up in Google searches on the subject would be inconvenient.

Ellen

He has the title on paper without applying the methodology required by who actually engage in science. A PhD is often acknowledgement of time served - nothing more.

Dennis

And then we get this:

A landmark report from the world's top climate scientists this week is likely to say with heightened certainty that humans are behind the planet's rising temperatures, and that surface temperatures are not the only indicators of climate change.

Senior scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was a review editor on the report, says other signs that bear witness to changes include shrinking Arctic sea ice, melting Greenland ice, warming oceans (especially the deep ocean) and sea-level rise.

One quick question is whether warming oceans in the deep ocean is factually believeable.

Would warmer water stay submerged and not rise to the surface? Does heat function differently there?

When it appears surface temperatures are increasing that is evidence in support of global warming, when surface temperatures are not increasing that is not the important indicator.

When Arctic sea ice is increasing it is the trend of decline in previous years that matters - even though historically Arctic sea ice has varied all over the place.

Greenland was once a green land - nuff said.

warming oceans (especially the deep ocean) - since the heat capacity of water is 1,000x that of air that means you must sample it at 1,000x the volume density you sample air to get accurate heat information. They have only begun taking ocean temperature readings a few years ago in any useful quantity - but 8 orders of magnitude less than what would be required to do useful modeling even for short term predictions. And yes warm water rises. The circulation patterns do have an enormous influence on land air temperatures locally.

It has been known for several years that at least 1/3 of the rise in ocean levels is due to ground water irrigation run off to the oceans not being replenished as fast as it is being pumped out. There are other factors having to do with where/when they sample, natural variability and the mechanics of continental drift/lift/submergence which contribute to apparent change. The rise is trivial in any case and not anything like the modeling predicted.

Climate change modeling/predictions is not science - not even close.

Dennis

Dennis can you or anyone else integrate your scientific understanding of *Time* *The Uncertainty Principle* and *Quantum Mechanics* into the contextual philosophy of Objectivism?

the other is a graph with every vertex of even degree.

My view of *time* is the classical physics view of time where it is a variable. Incorporated into a Lorentz Ether Theory version of relativity the apparent passage of time can differ from place to place because the currency of time keeping is the speed of light which is not a simple vector additive quantity but related to the properties of space it travels in.

The *The Uncertainty Principle* is a short-hand notion for an inexact idea in orthodox quantum mechanics concerning the ability or inability to observe certain variables precisely that affect each other. The inexact quasi-legitimate nature of the principle means it is not in fact a principle at all but it has been treated as such for generations. A good friend of mine had a project in graduate school rejected because the professors were clueless about the exaggerated claims of *The Uncertainty Principle* - I told him at the time he was completely correct and some 20-25 years later the scientific community is finally starting to catch a clue.

It is my view that *Quantum Mechanics* is simply classical mechanics with chaotic synchronization and a faster than light process thrown in to allow chaotic synchronization to exist at distance for light and a host of other particles.

This means that QM implies nothing new philosophically beyond the assumptions of classical mechanics.

In the Eulerian modeling I am talking about a fixed 2-D or 3-D grid is established and materials and energy flow through the fixed grid structure. Energy and materials move a certain amount per time step increment then each grid cell is updated with the new material and energy mix. By that means physical turbulent mixing, chemical mixing and reactions, radiation effects, sound waves, shock waves, heat, and boundary effects can all be simulated.

Dennis

It is true --- or at least it was true when I was in school --- that physicists continue to talk about "probability waves." Of course, that makes little sense, except from the standpoint of an observer. That is, a probability wave cannot be something physical. A real system must evolve according to physical waves (or according to some other principle).

However, none of the above eases my concern with the idea of instantaneous action at a distance. So far, I have not been convinced that long-range quantum entanglement is possible. And what about its relationship to Relativity and causality?

The notion of one enormous Schrodinger wave equation governing everything also bothers me. It wouldn't bother me that much if one could neglect most of the terms, but the notion of instantaneous action at a distance means that it is not practically possible to neglect the states of other particles that aren't nearby. Of course, sometimes Mother Nature makes our lives difficult, so perhaps I'm just grousing, but it would seem to me that this could be a real impasse for the theory.

BTW, if you have any references for how to get around the Uncertainty Principle using weak observations, I would interested to see them.

Probability waves do indeed require a means to finally reach a conclusion - that can continues to be kicked down the road without resolution.

The de Broglie - Bohm interpretation in its original form required instantaneous communications. In reality observation only requires it be very fast compared to the speed of light - similar to the difference between the speed of water waves and the speed of light.

Long range entanglement in optical systems has been experimentally demonstrated in the range of 100 km or so. You can demonstrate non-linear chaotic entanglement in home experiments in the range of tens of meters using mechanical pendulum clocks, I'm sure it could be done in the km range if you had the money. Hurricane and weather systems demonstrate non-linear chaotic entanglement on the scale of thousands of kilometers.

There is no issue of causality violations in extended LET Relativity - which can modified to include supraluminal effects. Einstein's Special Relativity cannot adapt.

The view of everything being a single enormous Schrodinger wave equation would be like taking all the sound waves in the ocean and calling it a single wave equation. It might be helpful if you read the papers of Gregory S. Duane concerning what chaotic synchronization [entanglement] as applied to QM is really all about. In idealized QM everything everywhere is connected - in what you can actually experimentally determine the effects may be long distance but there is no reason to believe they perfectly extend to every part of the universe. A whale may be able to send out a call for a thousand kilometers but that does not mean the sound can be heard absolutely everywhere.

An older but very good reference about how weak measurements and the double slit experiment.

http://phys.org/news/2011-06-quantum-physics-photons-two-slit-interferometer.html

Dennis