At The End Of The Twig: Are There Limits To Entanglement? Is…

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 23, 2017

As I indicated yesterday, this has been a very strange week for me, for people have sent many articles detailing recent discoveries in technology and science, and as might be expected, many of them come from the wild and weird world of quantum mechanics, which seems to grow weirder by the week (as if it wasn’t weird enough already). Mr. J.K., Mr. V.T., and Mr. A. and a few others sent the following three articles:

Scientists Have Set a Limit For Quantum Entanglement – And It’s Really Freaking Powerful

Space time ‘fluctuates wildly’ claims new theory that could shed new light on how the universe is expanding

Scientists Achieve Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication For The First Time

Now, as one might expect, I’m going to crawl way out onto the end of the twig of high octane speculation here, where the weight of the speculation far exceeds the ability of the twig to support it. I can’t help it; I’m a hack from South Dakota, and it’s what hacks from South Dakota do. Besides, I’m also a Capricorn, and crawling way out onto the end of tree branches is also what goats do:

So, with that huge caveat in mind, there are a few statements in these articles that have me wondering. Consider this statement, when scientists subjected entangled particles to micro-gravitational, and then hyper-gravitational, acceleration:

“Our results show that quantum entanglement is unaffected by non-inertial motion to within the resolution of our test-system,” the researchers conclude.

“This represents the first experimental effort exposing a genuine quantum system to milli-g and hyper-g, and extends the experimental regime in which quantum effects can be said to exist in harmony with relativity.”

Consulting my Scientismese to Hack English dictionary, this translated to my simple mind as:

“entanglement is not affected by inertial systems”, or, “entanglement is not affected by gravity.” Now, granted, the scientists conducting this odd, but very important, experiment, are not saying that. What they want to do is scale it up, and see if in fact there is some limit or “boundary condition” where under extreme gravitation entanglement might be affected or perhaps broken. Would it break, for example, in the extreme conditions of a black hole? Or, conversely, would the conditions in a black hole actually be the matrix for a kind of “hyper-entanglement”? I suspect (here comes that standing on the end of the twig part) that no such boundary condition will be found, or, that if it is, under certain inertial or gravitational conditions, entanglement might actually be enhanced, and that as such, entanglement (which, let us remember, is the entanglement of information) might be a clue, perhaps, to anti-gravity or contrabary.

Which brings me to the second article, and these ideas:

New calculations suggest space-time is wildly fluctuating, swinging back and forth between expansion and contraction at a scale ‘billions and billions’ times smaller than an electron.

The researchers from the University of British Columbia suggest there is a huge density of vacuum energy in the universe, as predicted by some – but, in their calculations, oscillations between expansion and contraction cause it to nearly cancel itself out.

But, it doesn’t, and instead gives rise to a tiny net effect that slowly causes the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, they say.

Again, to my simple hack-goat-from-South-Dakota-on-the-end-of-the-twig mind, this sounds a bit like what we’ve heard before: the lattice of space-time is not a static phenonemon: it appears to be that way but upon analysis, those “nodes” in the lattice result from a kind of zero-summing at the node, but with a slight residual leading to a translation, and as a result of that, there is a slight asymmetry driving the expansion of the universe. If that even more wild and woolly speculation is true, then connect it with the first phenomenon: manipulation of that contraction and rarefaction might also be a clue to the engineering of that lattice directly (and note, a contraction or compression and rarefaction such as the authors are speaking is a longitudinal wave form… and who does that sound like?).

Then we have the following statements from the third article:

Quantum communication is a strange beast, but one of the weirdest proposed forms of it is called counterfactual communication – a type of quantum communication where no particles travel between two recipients.

Theoretical physicists have long proposed that such a form of communication would be possible, but now, for the first time, researchers have been able to experimentally achieve it – transferring a black and white bitmap image from one location to another without sending any physical particles.

If that sounds a little too out-there for you, don’t worry, this is quantum mechanics, after all. It’s meant to be complicated. But once you break it down, counterfactual quantum communication actually isn’t as bizarre as it sounds.

First up, let’s talk about how this differs from regular quantum communication, also known as quantum teleportation, because isn’t that also a form of particle-less information transfer?

Well, not quite. Regular quantum teleportation is based on the principle of entanglement – two particles that become inextricably linked so that whatever happens to one will automatically affect the other, no matter how far apart they are.

But wait, there’s more:

Direct counterfactual quantum communication on the other hands relies on something other than quantum entanglement. Instead, it uses a phenomenon called the quantum Zeno effect.

Very simply, the quantum Zeno effect occurs when an unstable quantum system is repeatedly measured.

In the quantum world, whenever you look at a system, or measure it, the system changes. And in this case, unstable particles can never decay while they’re being measured (just like the proverbial watched kettle that will never boil), so the quantum Zeno effect creates a system that’s effectively frozen with a very high probability.

Now, putting all this in Hack-ese again, one simply freezes the system by freezing the observation of it in a certain state. Granted, all this is at a quantum, sub-atomic particle level. But it doesn’t take much imagination to figure out that someone, somewhere, will want to test the whole idea by “scaling it up” to “see what happens”, or, in this case, what doesn’t happen. While all the focus of the experiment is on particle-less communication, I therefore cannot help but wonder the extent to which the whole thing might be tailored to the engineering of micro-timelines and “reality engineering.” (And, for those willing to crawl way out on to the end of this twig with me, I cannot help but wonder if the original Zeno paradox itself might be a legacy phenomenon of precisely this type of physics-observer-based thinking…. yea, I know, I’ve lost it. That’s too much of a whopper. But still… I can’t help but think of Plato and his “mathematicals”.)

Putting all this together, what it boils down to is that these experiments and ideas have truly cosmic implications, that mankind is taking the first faltering steps into a cosmological engineering capability.  For now, the capability is small… but… if they can be “scaled up…”

See you on the flip side…

Read More At:

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Dialectical Thinking – Zeno, Socrates, Kant, Marx by Tommi Juhani Hanjijarvi Ph.D.

Zy Marquiez
March 10, 2017

This particular book is a great foray for those beginning to delve into dialectics.

In Dialectical Thinking – Zeno, Socrates, Kant, Marx by Tommi Juhani Hanjijarvi Ph.D., the author seeks to show how valuable dialectical thinking is as he examines the minds of former dialecticians.

To accomplish this, Hanjijarvi sifts through critical data points spoken by the likes of Socrates, Kant, Zeno and Marx.  The author does make it a point to supplant additional data and couple it to specific dialectics discussed when the need arises.

For instance, while analyzing Marx’s foray into dialectics, the author delves into information brought about by Engel, Bernstein, Lenin and such.

As the author makes clear, dialectics have extensive uses.  More importantly, as the author argues “Dialectics are always about the dynamics of the self.”

Being someone who is delving into formal dialectics for the first time, it was quite mentally invigorating seeing the different dialectics employed by the great dialecticians.  Moreover, it was also interesting to note where some of their ruminations dovetailed and what paths it led them on.  That said, there were times that the text demanded a bit more from the readers as its complexity increased some.  Still, what the book offers is plenty even if it might be intricate at certain junctures.

These days, the benefit of thinking from opposite spectrums, as dialecticians do and this book showcases, would be a great skillset for individuals to learn.  Rarely do people put themselves on both sides of an equation; people usually end up just simply fostering their points of views without taking the other person’s view into consideration.  For instance, the mainstream media is the greatest purveyor of this and shuns anybody who wishes to think outside the box or question anything that is passed off as fact.  And if they show two sides to a coin, it’s always to stoke the flames of the divide and conquer left right paradigm that we see manifesting in countless forms.

Of course, in reality, there are many sides to countless issues.  This reason is why this type of book is vital, since it helps lay a solid foundation as an introductory volume into the discipline of dialectics.

Thinking unilaterally about incisive issues won’t help people think critically, nor will it help people to think outside the box.  Predictably, this prevents individuals from grasping crucial issues at their core.

For those reasons, and many others, this book is definitely to be considered for the inquiring individual.  In fact, am even going to suggest this book to some friends for homeschooling.  Look forward to reading more books like this.

As an introduction to the dialectical thinking employed by some of the greatest dialecticians, this book carries out its premise rather well.

This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and

Suggested resources reviewed below for those seeking ideas to self-teach and become autodidacts:

Socratic Logic V3.1 by Peter Kreeft Ph.D.
The Trivium – The Liberal Arts Of Grammar & Rhetoric by Sister Miriam Joseph Ph.D.
How To Read A Book – The Classic Guide To Intelligent Reading by Mortimer J. Adler & Charles Van Doren
Philosophy 101 – An Introduction To Philosophy Via Plato’s Apology by Peter Kreeft Ph.D.
The Complete Workbook For Arguments – A Complete Course In Critical Thinking [2nd Ed.] by David R. Morrow & Anthony Weston
The Imaginative Argument – A Practical Manifesto For Writers by Frank L. Cioffi

The following books reviewed below cover the disturbing issues within the public schooling system:

Rotten To The Common Core by Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.& Gary Lawrence
Dumbing Us Down – The Hidden Curriculum Of Compulsory Schooling by John Taylor Gatto
A Different Kind Of Teacher – Solving The Crisis Of American Schooling by John Taylor Gatto
Weapons Of Mass Instruction by John Taylor Gatto
Drilling Through The Core, by Sandra Stotsky & Contributors