This article raises several questions regarding current ideas on non-locality, isomorphism, quantum mechanics, gravity and singularity-x.com the acceleration of the universe, including the possibility that para-classical explanations might not be necessary in describing the laws of nature.
With admittedly little insight into the mathematical operations that underscore current interpretations of classical and quantum physical laws, this writer (having read numerous books on the subject) has yet ended up confused more than informed. Part of the reason has to do with the writing style of author-physicists who, admirably, seek to popularize complex topics. While some stick to concrete ideas and definitions others lapse into abstractions with no spatial, geometric or experiential foundation, i.e. concepts that don't seem to coincide with the world we live in; for example multi-verses, time travel and the existence of extra dimensions. Often unable to bring their explanation down to earth, they rely on cart-before-the horse mathematical models to create reverse resolution.
While this method is reasonable the speculation typically goes well beyond that into areas that might never be confirmed or refuted. At times it seems in their zeal to uncover a theory of everything, these thinkers come up with so many "every-things" as to be left with nothing. In this opinion, science should dovetail at least loosely with common sense. In that context, a series of items is discussed in concrete terms about current theory and the nature of our world.
On Gravity...
The confusion-driven search for a theory of quantum gravity is feverish in scientific circles. Confusion results from the fact that on a large scale gravity is lawful with regard to the influence of one body on another (whereby the more massive body will draw the less massive one in via an inverse square law based on the respective mass and distance between the two). However this only applies to objects with mass equal to or beyond that of an atom. The subatomic (quantum) world acts differently, particularly regarding massless particles which move around seemingly on their own, independent of surrounding matter and in a way that makes it impossible to track their position and momentum sequentially.
At face value this conflict begs for resolution which is why physicists have sought a theory of gravity that encompasses both General Relativity and particle (quantum) physics. But is this confusion justified?
Do we need a theory of quantum gravity?
One could ask: if gravity is a function of mass and particles such as photons and electrons have no mass, why they should behave as if in a gravitational relationship? How can something that "weighs" nothing attract something else? In addition, "mass" reflects the congestion of particles or atoms within a body; for example uranium, with an high density of atoms has greater mass than a more sparsely congested liquid such as water. As the density of a body decreases (at some point down to a single particle such as a quark) it would have less mass. With only one particle there can be no congestion unless the particle itself has internal components that congeal. Even then, (assuming there exists a root form of matter which cannot be further broken down) there would have to be a point where gravity could not pertain due to zero mass. In other words, gravity is ultimately a spatial, mathematical composite that cannot exist without at least two components pressing on one another. As an aside, this is something to consider when discussing the mass of any singularity. More specifically, once anything is whittled down to a single body can its information/communicative content reach a point where its implicit redundancy adds up to zero congestion and zero mass, despite the antecedent "crunching" of diverse elements that ended up in a singularity?
In that context one could argue that Einstein's model of gravity is sufficient; the search for a quantum/classical combine unnecessary.
Beyond that, since both gravity and massless particles travel at light speed wouldn't gravitational influence on the particle be canceled out as a result of relativity? For example if you travel at 100 mph on a highway and a wind of 100 mph is facing you, your car would come to a stop - all things being equal, and exhibit neither momentum or regression. Along the same lines; gravity would require differentials in mass, acceleration etc. (something that is discussed below in term of Information Theory).
Furthermore, celestial bodies do not simply adhere to gravitational relationships. All are hurtling through space at enormous speeds. As a result it isn't just gravity that is influencing their movements, but also momentum, centripetal and centrifugal force, inertia or "drafting" (as when a cyclist cuts down on friction by undercutting wind factors when riding directly behind a competitor) and the action/reaction principle as depicted in Newton's third law of motion - the latter holds that as a body thrusts forward it does so into an atmosphere containing some matter (not all of space is a vacuum), which leads to a counter-reaction in the opposite direction. Conceivably any and all of these forces are influencing planetary and galactic movement. Is it possible that the acceleration of the universe, as well as dark matter could be explained as some juxtaposition of all these influences rather than through a single explanation such as superstring theory, brane theory or hologram theory?
Eine Gedanke...
One interesting thought experiment would be to imagine gravity's influence if all bodies, notwithstanding mass and distance, were completely inert: that is, had no momentum, rotation, or any susceptibility to centripetal, centrifugal forces, drafting, or action-reaction mechanics. Presumably gravity could not exist in such a state because in an inert universe any sort of gravity-induced attraction/collapse would entail a change in momentum, i.e. movement. Thus, if lack of motion cancels out gravitation then one might assume motion is the most essential correlate, or even cause of gravity.
Non-locality...
At face value the notion that particles have no lawfully discernible locations or momenta and can act lawfully only when observed seems either weird or tautological, depending on one's perspective. One explanation for this phenomenon (the anthropic principle) holds that the observer is implicitly connected to the physical world, thus can never truly be an observer. In other words he is as dependent a variable as the particle being observed; it is as if only God can truly be an observer. Other explanations refer to the particle being virtual, darting in and out of reality or parallel universes, thus being beyond the circumscribed physical laws peculiar to our universe. Both explanations raise the question of why, even if the observer changes the particle's behavior, both wouldn't be subject to physical laws.
This point has been made far more eloquently. For example Witten believed the act of observing stimulated particles because the observer's vision could only occur by firing photons at the particles (Zimmerman-Jones, Robbins 2014) - leaving the observer in roughly the same position as someone bobbing for apples. Others, for example Bohr, argued against this idea, stating that the uncertain nature of particle behavior is built into the particle and nature itself; seemingly mysterious, then again, perhaps not.
Mind and Matter...
One way to address this issue is by discussing the layout of the human brain. Early Russian research, beginning with Pavlov, demonstrated the existence of a brain mechanism known as the second signal system. He demonstrated that the dual hemispheric makeup of the cerebral cortex leads us to categorize experience in two ways: one spatial/material and one associative i.e. symbolic/linguistic (Windholz 1990). The encoding of the former onto the latter - much like a card catalogue - enhances not only our communicative capacities but also our memory storage. For instance we don't have to commit to visual memory all items in the sequence... 'apple', 'orange', 'pear', etc. because we can assign the label "fruit" to each and access all of them by cross reference. As a trite, but perhaps amusing aside it appears that by conceptual symbolic thought our brains are able to override the quantum (individual, piece by piece) model of nature favored by quantum physicists through nifty, integrative mental mechanisms.
Yet while this neural mechanism provides a mnemonic and communicative advantage it can also lead to a hyper-categorization of experience. That is why Eskimos label a dozen types of snow when in fact the composition of snow is always the same.
If, due to that neuropsychological mandate, we cannot break free of a dual signal system then we cannot conceive of an un-categorical phenomenon like quantum mechanics. Due to the human penchant for categorical drift we are forced to attribute the uncertainty of particle behavior to something. That "something" might have less to do with reality than with the evolution of the human brain (which, after all is designed to survive, not just discover).
In that context one could ask whether we even need labels to describe non-locality. Perhaps there is no such (material) "thing" as a photon. Its apparent capacity to operate as a wave or a particle might really pertain more to our cognitive dispositions than to the photon's nature. Our brains are finite and until we can soundly, experimentally verify a theory (bearing in mind that neither an atom, electron or a photon has ever been observed) we might be looking at nature through a neuropsychological prism.
The