Then explain how energy is conserved in a manner consistent with observation. If you can't understand
something as simple as that, why should anyone care what you think?
The observations don't change at all. The behavior of particle A is reproduced by particle B exactly as if there were a physical exchange of energy going on through space, except that there is no change to the empty space between them, and the observations attributed to the effects of space would be interpreted as causes of space-like effects.
The math isn't the same. If there is an "essential recognition" it always takes a certain amount of time to happen based on c and the distance. Exactly what you would expect from a propagating wave, but unexplained in your model.
No, I've played with a few explanations including:
1. a computational 'Seek Time' based on memory since the Big Bang, with longer distances requiring more catchup time between particles.
2. a spatial-sequential priority queue which is proportionate to distance due to information factors. Rather than distant points receiving fewer photons, the message received by the Observer Material (O) through the Measurement Material (M), must reflect and recapitulate the totality of the O+M+A+B+D relationship, including all of the empty space between them.
3. Time and space are both observation artifacts of relativity and scale. Since c is instantaneous, the temporal drag is an aspect of the scale of spatial coordinates involved rather than propulsion through physical space. If an energy event happens across a long distance, it is instantaneous on the scale relative to those larger scale phenomena. Intergalactic events may happen instantly from the subjective perspective of a pair of galaxies. Likewise, atomic events appear to occur much faster to us than do events on our level of human cognition. It's how the Cosmos organizes itself. Scale/frequency/energy are inversely proportional to distance/intertia/gravity.
The latency manifests a hierarchy of interdependence of forms, events, and consequence. Just as EM phenomena address different scales with different frequencies, the energy isn't speeding up, the excitement just resonates different scales of physical forms. It's the same excitement all the way up and down the line, it's just the relation of the Observer and Measurement to it that reflects back that measurement and observation.
Your model is particularly strange in that it requires superluminal communication between the sense particle and certain other particles, but it never happens between the sense particle and the original event.
In my model all particles are both sense-interpreters and action-events. There's no superliminal communication - just imitation - instantaneous through a vacuum, or rapidly and with qualitative transductions (amplification, attenuation, refraction, inversion, etc) through physical media.
The matter must be there at the precise time you would expect the photon to propagate from the source to that point. Without propegation of a photon, there must be some form of communication, or the sense particle must have a mechanism to determine which of countless billions of particles was in the precise spot to affect the reaction at each point in time for what may be billions of years in the past.
Think of the word photon to mean 'dance'. When we put our Measuring Material (M) between Particle A and Particle B at distance D, we take a reading from M which shows that when A is dancing fast, B changes it's dance to be faster - and that observation (O) can be reproduced and integrated consistently with our other observations.
I'm saying that A and B have a relationship - but that M and O not only modify that relationship but simulate that relationship at both M and O. O naively interprets the total experiment as an objective view of A,B, and D, but I think that what's actually going on is that O is observing M's observation of A and B and carrying it's prejudice into the experiment by projecting a space - D that's not objectively 'there'. It appears to be there because of the nature of O.
It's not worthwhile because it explains less than QM, introduces more problems, solves nothing, and has no basis in observation.
It solves the appearance of order, life, and consciousness in the Cosmos. It doesn't need to explain more than QM because it doesn't replace QM, it just augments it. It introduces no more problems. I've explained that it need not require any new form of energy or communications. It just requires that subjectivity be understood as having a fully physical basis (as opposed to arriving to the Universe as an utterly alien result of senseless collisions of inert particles.)
I explained that. You just don't understand high school physics.
High school physics isn't useful to explain the relation of light and consciousness. If people insist upon beginning from the assumption that I must be wrong, then all of what follows can only be a reflex recitation of the status quo.
Like all forces, the electromagnetic force requires energy, but your communication apparently doesn't.
What energy is required for 79 protons to communicate to each other to act like gold? My idea just acknowledges that the identity properties of matter continues independently of a vacuum. I think it works. I like it more and more.
Also, this mysterious undetectable energy that arises out of the void does not change the fact that you model requires a particle at one point to
have information about an event at another point faster than the anything could travel between them at light speed.
Our experience of communication is an evolution and extrapolation of these nano-scale phenomena through orders of magnitude of layers of forms and scales. You can't project our reliance on lower level carrier phenomena to conclude that such a carrier must be necessary at the bottom level.
We're looking at these things beyond our direct experience as a biased observer which is made of tissues, cells, molecules, and atoms of a particular nature. Everything we have ever experienced is a relation of those components with each other and with it's interpretations and measurements of what seems to be exterior phenomena. It's like an avatar in a video game observing the graphics that make up it's world and insisting that there would have to be some undetectable energy that arises out of the void which draws it all. Nothing needs to travel from one material object to the other if both objects know how to act out each other's condition - if both objects are acting out of the same essential, inherent set of possibilities and probabilities.
I think if you had a clue about what you were talking about, you would recognize it for the crackpot idea it is.
That's the thing. I know exactly what you're talking about. It could be a crackpot idea, but so far nobody has been able to come up with a compelling reason why I should believe that yet. All it would take is one commonsense example.
Why do ignorant people who don't understand the most basic concepts of current science seem to think they
should be taken seriously when they propose throwing it out? All though history, we find that the real innovators
actually understood the current state of their field better than their contemporaries.
What I understand is consciousness. I come to this idea about physics by accident, as a byproduct of mapping consciousness. I'm not suggesting that anything be thrown out, I'm just questioning the premises of the worldview which I see as obsolete and increasingly dangerous for civilization.