Entanglement doesn't exist, it's a miss-understanding of the phenomenon.

JES

Dear Ismail: The 2022 Nobel Prize was given to the scientist who verified the apparent non-locality of this phenomenon. Nonetheless, up to today, there has been no detailed explanation of how nature acts in that way. From 2021 there is a novel interpretation (Theory of space) that clarifies this and many other quantum characteristics mentioned in your 8 points. For example, it says that quantum systems can be divided and still be one system; i.e., beam splitter mirrors, two-slit experiments, etc. Now, entangled particles are one divided system where one particle is at one zone and the other at the other zone. The key idea is that existence in 3D is in oscillation with the 4th D (4thD = C*tau, where tau = h/Energy or Planck´s periodicity); so, the system can be quite separated in 3D space BUT it still is LOCAL at this 4th D. A simple model that explains this crucial quantum behavior. I recommend the attached paper where many of your points are answered (read projected probability for the measurement problem). I hope that it will inspire you in your research, regards.

This is a serious question that has never been answered before.

Cairo Statistical Theory of Techniques shows a rigorous way to combine classical and quantum physics!

Below we prove beyond doubt how any classical energy density (such as EM energy density, gravitational energy density, etc.) evolves spontaneously and inevitably towards an initial quantum steady state.

By quantum steady state here we mean a stationary solution at ψ^2 (ψ^2=ψ. ψ*) rather than ψ itself and in a secondary step, ψ can be found as the SQRT of the solution.

Note that the quantum vector V1 is the projection of the initial unit space of the energy density situation of classical physics which means,

V1 is a 3D spatial state quantum vector for a classical physical situation of 4D energy density.

V1 is a 1D spatial state quantum vector for a classical 2D initial physical situation, as shown in the presented figures.

Here, the starting conditions of the classical physics situation are:

Infinite free space that has neither BC nor source term.

The classic system is contained within a closed control volume with a classic inward-pointing tangle.

For more clarity, we can compare the formation and explosion of the numerous Big Bangs which are subject to the same physical process.

In the following, we present the correct answer to this question through two illustrative examples A (3D geometric shape) and B (2D geometric shape) [1].

1-Example (A) 3D-Cube discretized into 27 equidistant free nodes as shown in fig.1.

Fig,1-Cube discretized into 27 equidistant free nodes as shown in fig.1.

The statistical theory of Cairo techniques defines the transition matrix B of classical physics (27x27) for the control volume.

B(27x27) for RO=0 (RO=0 means free space) is given by,

.0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0

1/6   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0

0 1/6   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0

1/6   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0

0 1/6   0 1/6   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0

0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0

0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0

0   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0

0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0

1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0

0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0

0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0

0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0

0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0

0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0

0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0

0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0

0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6

0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0

0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0   0

0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0

0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0

0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0 1/6   0 1/6   0

0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0   0   0 1/6

0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0 1/6   0

0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0 1/6

0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0   0   0   0   0 1/6   0 1/6   0

And the time-independent stationary transfer matrix D(N) for a sufficiently large time N (N is the number of iterations or time jumps dt not to be confused with n the number of free nodes) is given by:

D(N)={1/(I-B) -I}

The numerical values ​​for the inputs of D(N) are,

. . . . . . .  . . . . .Line1- 0.11217139924042430 0.39097856453321000 4.6769216489284893E-2 0.39109945997946949 9.3594337527814389E-2 2.8917725571791415E-2 4.6825121038529496E-2 2.8936273137263536E-2 1.1071538930203321E-2Lin2-  0.39245121669051708 9.3427323090059911E-2 2.8815705697913047E-2 9.4099292136797519E-2 5.7873202288345083E-2 2.2118458029200764E-2 2.9057496590432032E-2 2.2174362578445368E-2 1.0013027641488021E-2

. . .  . . . .

. . . . . . .  .

The matrix D(N) when multiplied by any classical energy density state GT zero will yield the quantum stationary state vector V1 as given below,Line14- 5.9522930308185402E-2 0.11488249791384746 5.7197832143438897E-2 0.11653613666887269 0.45840470771955916 0.11532751395682590 5.8069610117386164E-2 0.11560704495552804 5.7678086265005757E-20.12615384982071848 0.45295668203854378 0.11322885915882226 0.46218312607510498 0.28858852722237699 0.45753292974561188 0.11653613666887269 0.45840470771955916 0.115327513956825900.12138552253472995 7.5702048174876219E-2 5.0296486271624162E-2 0.12615384982071848 0.45295668203854378 0.11322885915882226 5.9522930308185402E-2 0.11488249791384747 5.7197832143438897E-2Etc . . .“To be completed with a double symmetry”

V1=[27/272 37/272 27/272 37/272 25/136 37/272 27/272 37/272 27/272 37/272 25/136 37/272 25/136 67/272 25/136 37/272 25/136 37/272 27/272 37/272 27/272 37/272 25/136 37/272 27/272 37/272 27/272}^T

Note again that:

1- Any classical physical system of energy density contained in free space will evolve towards the quantum state vector provided it is contained in a closed control volume and driven inwards towards the center of mass CM (midpoint MP)

2-From this state it evolves towards another vector depending on the applied external potential V(x,y,z,t) included in the Schrödinger equation (central potential field, finite or infinite potential well, etc.).

3- The quantum vector V1 is the projection of the initial unit space of the energy density situation of classical physics which means,

V1 is a 3D spatial state quantum vector for a classical physical situation of 4D energy density.

V1 is a 1D spatial state quantum vector for a classical 2D initial physical situation, as shown in the presented figures.

Note that all Figures 1,2,3 are classical and quantum entanglement results.

1-Useless Math -The Complex Untold Story

• International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology ,
• October 2024
• DOI:
• 10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24OCT1091

Dear colleagues,

The question of entanglement and its relation to time is indeed one of the deepest puzzles in physics. Many great minds have tried to reconcile entanglement with a consistent picture of time, but significant challenges remain. Pure Time Theory (PTT) suggests that the key to resolving these conflicts lies in redefining time itself, rather than treating it as a background parameter.

---

1. The Problem: Entanglement vs. Time

Quantum mechanics treats time as absolute—a universal clock ticks the same for all quantum processes.

General relativity treats time as relative—it bends, stretches, and depends on local conditions.

Entanglement forces us to rethink both perspectives because it seems to create "instantaneous" correlations that ignore spatial separation, leading to paradoxes.

This conflict suggests that time itself may be structured differently than we currently assume.

---

2. PTT’s View: Entanglement as a Temporal Synchronization

In PTT, time is not an external background but an evolving, structured entity. This leads to a radically different interpretation of entanglement:

🔹 Entanglement is not a direct space-based link but a synchronization of time-relaxation states across different locations.

Instead of thinking that two entangled particles "communicate" instantly, we propose that they remain synchronized in their local relaxation time , which determines when information becomes observable.

This explains why measuring one particle instantaneously determines the state of the other without requiring faster-than-light signals.

🔹 Quantum states are linked by a deeper time-structure, rather than space-based nonlocality.

When two particles become entangled, they share a common temporal evolution that persists even when separated.

What appears to be "instantaneous" is actually a reflection of the coherence of their relaxation times.

---

3. A Possible Solution to the Arrow of Time

If time is an evolving, structured entity, then the arrow of time may be linked to how quantum states relax over time rather than being an intrinsic, universal property.

Entanglement may appear to "break" classical causality because it operates on a level where time does not flow uniformly.

PTT predicts that time’s arrow emerges from how states stabilize over cycles of relaxation, rather than being a fundamental property of spacetime.

---

4. Entanglement, Statistical Mechanics, and Hilbert Space

Projection from classical statistical mechanics onto "pre-space" (as mentioned in the discussion) can be reinterpreted through time relaxation.

Instead of assuming that quantum states exist in a fixed Hilbert space, PTT suggests that the space of possible states itself evolves as time unfolds dynamically.

This aligns with Page & Wootters’ idea that time emerges from entanglement, but in PTT, it is not just energy entanglement—it is the synchronization of relaxation states across different systems.

---

5. Testable Predictions from PTT

✅ If entanglement is time-synchronization, then the effects of entanglement should change under controlled modifications of relaxation time.

✅ In systems where time relaxation is artificially slowed or accelerated (such as in optical lattices or Bose-Einstein condensates), we should observe predictable shifts in entanglement behavior.

✅ This could lead to new ways of manipulating quantum information, offering a different foundation for quantum computing based on time-state synchronization rather than nonlocality.

---

Conclusion

The "untold story" of entanglement may lie in a deeper structure of time itself. If entangled particles remain synchronized in their temporal evolution rather than in a fixed Hilbert space, then many of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics—such as nonlocality and the measurement problem—may have a natural resolution.

PTT suggests that entanglement is not about "spooky action at a distance," but rather about the structured, evolving nature of time at the quantum level.

Would love to hear your thoughts on whether this perspective aligns with existing experimental results or suggests new ways to test entanglement’s fundamental nature.

Best regards,

Essam Allou