spooky action at a distance

I find myself mentally entangled with you.
I was up at 4am, sleepless; dozing till 5am when I undertook the first set of chores for the day.
I rowed for 30 minutes, falling just 60 yards short of the target in that time, but still short.  Then just two sets of weights.  It has been many days in a row without a break in exercise and I plan to swim today, outside in the near bitter cold to loosen weight tightened muscles.
How I wish your hands could sooth the hardened old muscle instead.
I have a big project which will take several hours and require much attention this morning, for now it is too early, too dark to begin, but that will change very soon, even though it is still early.

I moved a little closer to my concept piece.

Physics especially at the quantum level is famous for getting the right answer for the wrong reasons.

Observe: Albert Einstein famously said that quantum mechanics should allow two objects to affect each other’s behaviour instantly across vast distances, something he dubbed “spooky action at a distance”1. 

Physics is not about denying reality. It is about finding a suitable mathematical representation of that reality, one that not only describes reality accurately but can also be used to make sensible, verifiable predictions. Viktor T. Toth, IT pro, part-time physicist

The truth of entanglement is the lower dimensional sharing of lower ct information.  The entanglement of solutions which are closer to the information order sharing of ct3 which are shared, quite literally without a time component and hence at speeds which are only relevant once time is introduced.  They are, however, time limited in the sense that only so many pre-time changes occur when time is compared.  The number of these pre-time changes is huge.

There is another hidden truism, "vast distances" which must be differentiated from infinite distances.  In fact, the same limit issue with the number of changes during any period of time limits both the distance of near instant change; the entangled region of space affected by folding, greater for greater compression, etc; and the number of folds involved.

The article goes on to say "incalculable" complexity.  Again this is right for the wrong reasons.  The calculations themselves are simple, but they are so many that they are too complex to do except in the case of relatively simple solution.

Schrodinger, among others, has shown that they can be estimated and these estimates are used in science regularly.  The ability to get better estimates is built into the better math.

www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00120-6