Non-Locality

I parsed emeritus professor John W. Moffat's book, Cracking the Particle Code of the Universe.  The definition he uses is about the same one as one finds on the net. Nonlocality is synonymous with action-at-a-distance. The concept refers to a direct action between two separated objects, say atoms or stars, WITH no perceivable mediator, agent, or nexus or any perceivable mechanism. Notice the word perceivable. Some definitions modify with perceivable and others do not.

Einstein described the quantum non-locality of so called quantum entanglement as "spooky action-at-a-distance". Before him, Newton whined that action-at-a-distance is "so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it". It is only an absurdity if no mediator is supposed to connect the two separated objects that are stated as a matter of fact to be in direct action.

One of the core strengths of EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory is that to attempt to address these issues of non-locality. Direct action between two objects separated at great distances WITHOUT some sort of mediator of a mechanism is irrational. How is an electron that moves in one location suppose to influence the electron across the Universe without some inherent physical connection, mediated by a real object?  Nature doesn't perform miracles like God.  Angels don't mediate atomic electron transition.
So we need to suppose and visualize a nexus, or an agent, or a mediator, that connects these two atoms and make manifest how it works. This mediator must be an object with form. It must have some unique properties like it can superpose with another similar to it. It can wave and yet signal like a particle. Even two mainstream boson sparticles, are suppose to overlap and share the same quantum state, whatever the hell that means in reality. They supposedly transmit action-at-a-distance and are called force-carriers. These sparticles carry verbs like push and pull. On the other hand two or more fermions supposedly cannot overlap. In Thread Theory we have our own terms like EM Rope, Thread, Critical Thread Density, electron thread, magnetic thread, electric thread, etc. Atoms and stars are already connected by mediators constantly activated by atoms which account for a mechanism. The underlying assumption is that a single closed looped entity underlies all the atoms of the Universe. Matter is a web, and atoms serve as matrices.

Bosons are very roughly like Thread or EM Rope. Fermions are very roughly like Critical Thread Density or derive from a CTD. Thread Theory notions of proton, neutron, electron are completely different then that of mainstream Standard Model. Suppositions and explanations are also somewhat different. Mainstream seems to want to continually divide up a supposed fundamental entity and its similar yet radically distinct opposite in the atom, as well as their actions it into hundreds, even thousands of categories and state these categorical particles as if they were proven fact (when they cannot even be perceived), even going so far as to name one type of particle a 'wino'. Lol . Mainstream also seems to want to treat concepts as objects. Mainstream also tries to thrive off of ambiguous, ill-defined, and irrational concepts such as wave-particle duality, spin-orbit, superposing quantum states. Much of the problem of mainstream modern physics is communication (which individuals and organizations are at fault for).

On the other hand Thread Theory takes a non-pluralistic approach and strives to live up to a clear cut and cutthroat rational analysis and critical thinking. Plurality should not be posited without necessity. Concepts should be clearly defined. One should be able to visualize and give illustrations, make movies, and be ready to answer for them (as lowly and as simple as they maybe). One should be able to provide some reasonable explanation for action-at-a-distance, other than having to circumvent and lead the audience into a maze of literally millions of ill-defined concepts, absurdities and circles. One should be forthright.

It is not as if rigorous modern research, experiment, data-collection, technology, math equations etc. aren't neat and a great starter but someday someone has to start to put the pieces of the puzzle together and try to clearly explain just what the hell is happening. There must be a somewhat reasonable and unified explanation that can be worked out here. Marshaling relevant information provided by all sorts of scientists is important. Brainstorming is very important. Critical thinking and rational analysis is important. Thinking outside the box: important. Understanding the difference between an object and concept is important. Trying to get back to that attitude that you are child-like and detached from fame, status, qualifications, money, etc. is important. Striving to be a sort of like a renaissance man is important. Explanations stand or fall on their own merit. Having a good attitude and not being extreme is important.