Hello!

[JP Michael]

I want to remind the jury that one lone star shining for eternity will produce an infinite number of photons.

There can be no such thing as cooling off unless we have extinction of energy. But we do see cooling off, hencely we must have extinction of energy somewhere.

An infinite number of photons at inifinite temperature is not observed. Why is it that, instead of trying to prop up the antecedent with some magical annihilation hypothesis that must be there (it isn't), why don't you admit, simply, that the universe is not eternal and had a beginning? Problem solved!

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” R. Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

[crawler]

The essence of my argument is not how far a photon can travel, it is that a photon & its energy are eternal.

Therein lies the rub. You're ignoring the fact that there *is* a practical limit as to how far photons can travel in *all* tired light models. At some point (distance), there simply are no more photons reaching us from distant sources due to scattering, absorption, redshift, etc. There is no infinite energy source reaching every point in spacetime.

Yes we all agree that a photon cant travel to infinity or live for eternity, if it hits something solid, which eventually it must (if the universe is infinite). But if the photon's energy remains in our quantum world then sooner or later that energy will create a new photon that heads off in any direction. Hencely every infinite energy source does eventually reach every point, if the universe is eternal.

A tired light that kills a photon must result in raising temperature, in which case eventually a new photon is created.

Actually even that assumption is not necessarily accurate in all cases, and the new photon is going to typically be released at a *lower* energy state than the original photon. It's possible that multiple photons hit and are absorbed by the same piece of dust, but since they all come from different directions, the net result might be little or no net overall (total) directional movement of the dust particle itself, so all that happens is that high energy photon momentum is ultimately turned into lower energy photons. You're assuming that an absorbing particle has to always increase in temperature, but relative to what? If two photons hit the same dust particle from opposing directions, the net overall movement might be zero.

No. If dust say is hit by photons then its temp must rise until it emits a photon. Temperature is not relative, or if u like it is relative to zero temperature. Movement of a particle will become temperature when the particle hits another particle.

And in this case it doesn't matter which way it travels.

Actually it does matter since the emission might have some overall effect on the momentum of the absorbing particle too. It also matters that it's likely to result in a lower energy state photon.

Movement of a particle will become temperature when the particle hits another particle. The energy state of the emitted photon is not important, because a lower energy state photon will simply leave energy behind which eventually will create another lower energy state photon, ie ten low energy photons can be equivalent to one hi energy photon, when talking about Olber's.

Hencely Olber's Paradox is not explained by any old or new tired light theory that i have seen, but it is explained by Ranzan's cosmic stretching of aether theory.

This is a strange mantra that you have going which simply discounts the possibility of multiple photons being absorbed by the same particle but from different directions which results in little or no net overall movement of the absorbing particle, and a decrease in the energy state of the emitted particles.

The energy of the particle can be in its temperature or in its momentum, it doesn't make any difference eventually. Ten low energy photons can be equivalent to one hi energy photon when talking about Olber's.

That there invincible ignorance fallacy describes u fellows. I am perfectly open to science.

Not really. You have offered *no* mathematical model to support your "infinite temperature" argument, and your "verbal" explanation seems to ignore physics entirely, particularly the vast distances between suns, and the inability for light to propagate freely through any plasma medium over infinite distances. In fact your verbal explanation doesn't even deal with the fact that emitting sources are not emitting "infinite temperature" photons to begin with, and they're absorbed and scattered by the much larger medium.

My model(s) is a math model. An infinite number of shells must produce an infinite amount of energy everywhere if the universe is eternal, unless some process robs energy from our quantum world. That statement is pure math. We don’t need infinite temperature photons, all we need is infinite sources. That statement is pure math. We all agree that light is not able to propagate over infinite distances through plasma etc. The argument is whether old & new tired light models make mathematical sense with respect to the conservation of energy.

Show me where my sniper calculations are wrong & i will then have to change my mind.

Well, for starters, photon "bullets" do not actually have an have an infinite range. Their range is limited by friction with the plasma medium, just like a bullet's range is limited by friction with air molecules. A better analogy would be to assume that any shots fired from more than say 1 mile away are physically incapable of reaching their target due to friction.

My sniper model is based on there being no plasmas etc. It shows that we must have an infinite number of bullets hitting the target. This is the starting point for the argument. Only then can we argue about why is it that we don’t see an infinite number of bullets (photons) in our real world. The sniper model is of course naïve, in that the snipers themselves will block bullets, but it is merely accepted that a sniper cant block bullets, ie that bullets pass through non-impeded.

And yes, it is a losing battle, because my arguments are true.

No, it' s a losing battle because you *believe* that your arguments are true, when in fact they are *not* true.

There has not been even one true criticism of my statements. Whereas i have pointed out the shortcomings in opposing statements.

[crawler]

I want to remind the jury that one lone star shining for eternity will produce an infinite number of photons. There can be no such thing as cooling off unless we have extinction of energy. But we do see cooling off, hencely we must have extinction of energy somewhere.

An infinite number of photons at infinite temperature is not observed. Why is it that, instead of trying to prop up the antecedent with some magical annihilation hypothesis that must be there (it isn't), why don't you admit, simply, that the universe is not eternal and had a beginning? Problem solved!

Yes i agree that the old & new tired light theories for redshift can be ok if the universe is not infinite or if not eternal.
We don’t observe an infinite temperature, hencely if the universe is infinite & eternal (which it is) then we need different/better tired light models.

[Aardwolf]

If the first sphere/shell is 1 mile radius, & if there are 5 snipers on the first sphere, then the next sphere will have 20 snipers, etc. If the 5 snipers on the 1 mile sphere have a 100% accuracy then the 2 mile sphere is likely to have a 25% accuracy, etc. If the 1 mile sphere has 120 hits per day then the 2 mile sphere will have 120 hits per day, etc.

This results in an infinite number of hits per day, if an infinite number of spheres. And if per eternity instead of per day then the number of hits is still an infinite number of hits per eternity. The numbers go like this (your numbers are in parenthesis)………….

1 mile sphere = 5 (5) snipers shoot (24) times with 100% (10)% accuracy = Hit 120 (12) times.
2 mile sphere = 5*4=20 (25) snipers shoot (24) times with 100/4% (1)% accuracy = Hit 120 (6) times.
3 mile sphere = 5*9=45 (125) snipers shoot (24) times with 100/9% (0.1)% accuracy = Hit 120 (3) times.
4 mile sphere = 5*16=80 (625) snipers shoot (24) times with 100/16% (0.01)% accuracy = Hit 120 (1.5) times. And so on…

My example wasn't trying to provide an accurate theory of sniper accuracy, it was merely to show that just because you have infinite terms in your calculation, it doesn't necessarily result in an infinite answer.

In reality I was overstating the accuracy of the stars in question. Our star has an accuracy in its first sphere of hitting its nearest star of about 0.000002% (surface area of 4.2ly radius sphere compared to surface area of the sun) and that’s in a relatively dense part of the universe so after multiplying out and adjusting for the vast space between galaxies, ultimately the amount of light received is statistically nil even with an infinite amount of stars.

[crawler]

If the first sphere/shell is 1 mile radius, & if there are 5 snipers on the first sphere, then the next sphere will have 20 snipers, etc. If the 5 snipers on the 1 mile sphere have a 100% accuracy then the 2 mile sphere is likely to have a 25% accuracy, etc. If the 1 mile sphere has 120 hits per day then the 2 mile sphere will have 120 hits per day, etc.

This results in an infinite number of hits per day, if an infinite number of spheres. And if per eternity instead of per day then the number of hits is still an infinite number of hits per eternity. The numbers go like this (your numbers are in parenthesis)………….

1 mile sphere = 5 (5) snipers shoot (24) times with 100% (10)% accuracy = Hit 120 (12) times.
2 mile sphere = 5*4=20 (25) snipers shoot (24) times with 100/4% (1)% accuracy = Hit 120 (6) times.
3 mile sphere = 5*9=45 (125) snipers shoot (24) times with 100/9% (0.1)% accuracy = Hit 120 (3) times.
4 mile sphere = 5*16=80 (625) snipers shoot (24) times with 100/16% (0.01)% accuracy = Hit 120 (1.5) times. And so on…

My example wasn't trying to provide an accurate theory of sniper accuracy, it was merely to show that just because you have infinite terms in your calculation, it doesn't necessarily result in an infinite answer.

In reality I was overstating the accuracy of the stars in question. Our star has an accuracy in its first sphere of hitting its nearest star of about 0.000002% (surface area of 4.2ly radius sphere compared to surface area of the sun) and that’s in a relatively dense part of the universe so after multiplying out and adjusting for the vast space between galaxies, ultimately the amount of light received is statistically nil even with an infinite amount of stars.

The sniper model can be used two ways, without tired light, & with tired light. The critical way is "without", which is what i did, & which is what others did earlier in this thread. Without sets up the start of the argument, ie it shows that the temperature must be infinite if there is no extinction. Even if only one photon from each shell hits the target, then an infinite number of shells must give an infinite temperature. Therefore we need proper extinction of energy, & the present tired light models don't do the trick.

Your sniper model is a "with" model, ie it includes tired light. But the tired light in your model has proper extinction. Where did the energy go?

And its worth repeating. An infinite temperature can be given by one photon with infinite energy. And it can be given by an infinite number of ordinary photons. But i don't think that Olber's Paradox needs an infinite temperature, a very hi temperature would do, ie 3000 K instead of 3 K.

[paladin17]

Maybe put this into a separate topic? This 3 page discussion is completely irrelevant to the OP.

[balsysr]

The argument about an infinite universe existing for infinite time requires the night sky to be white proves that the universe cannot be a steady state infinite place was put forward a long time ago. I can see the sniper argument and how it works. But then to my understanding light in an electromagnetic wave, so it has a wavelength and frequency (but no mass) and propagates at c (unless the dielectric or permittivity is not fee space). Clearly the amplitude of the phonon decreases with distance travelled but it can (probably) propagate forever. The space it travels through is not empty and it can be scattered (compton) or reflected (eg Landons new tired light). Space is so empty that once in space the photon rarely interacts with anything. So back to the color of the sky, is it black or is it white at night ? (trick question). The answer is it seems to be a black body at a temperature just a few degrees above absolute zero. If temperature is a proxy for energy then the entire sky is lit up (albeit by only a few degrees above 0 K). So the sky is white as the temperature is above black (0 K) no matter in what direction you look. Temperature can be defined by motion, it can also be defined as IR radiation which is an electromagnetic wave (as is light), just at low wavelengths. All that is needed for this to occur is that photons lose energy over distance (via interaction with matter) thus changing wavelength and frequency. This will be to lower and lower energy states the further light travels, thus it will decrease in wavelength. It is the average residual wavelength of light of the stars at something less to and up to infinity that gives the sky its temperature.

Cheers,

[crawler]

The argument about an infinite universe existing for infinite time requires the night sky to be white proves that the universe cannot be a steady state infinite place was put forward a long time ago. I can see the sniper argument and how it works. But then to my understanding light in an electromagnetic wave, so it has a wavelength and frequency (but no mass) and propagates at c (unless the dielectric or permittivity is not fee space). Clearly the amplitude of the phonon decreases with distance travelled but it can (probably) propagate forever. The space it travels through is not empty and it can be scattered (compton) or reflected (eg Landons new tired light). Space is so empty that once in space the photon rarely interacts with anything. So back to the color of the sky, is it black or is it white at night ? (trick question). The answer is it seems to be a black body at a temperature just a few degrees above absolute zero. If temperature is a proxy for energy then the entire sky is lit up (albeit by only a few degrees above 0 K). So the sky is white as the temperature is above black (0 K) no matter in what direction you look. Temperature can be defined by motion, it can also be defined as IR radiation which is an electromagnetic wave (as is light), just at low wavelengths. All that is needed for this to occur is that photons lose energy over distance (via interaction with matter) thus changing wavelength and frequency. This will be to lower and lower energy states the further light travels, thus it will decrease in wavelength. It is the average residual wavelength of light of the stars at something less to and up to infinity that gives the sky its temperature. Cheers,

I agree with paladin that Olber's deserves its own topic. But Olber's Paradox is stargazer's question No1, & there hasn't yet been a question No2.

I am not a scientist & i don't understand how blackbody radiation works & how the CMBR 3 K works. However i think that the average wavelength is just one factor that gives the 3 K, i reckon that the numbers of photons per cubic metre are more important (would this be lumens/square metre?)(just joking).

If photons lose energy, then where does the lost energy end up?
Ordinary tired light models can only convert lost energy to kinetic energy & ultimately to temperature, in which case the temperature of the universe would be infinite (if the universe is infinite & eternal)(which it is), in which case we need a better tired light model (which i would be happy to answer in new insights & mad ideas).

[Michael Mozina]

I am not a scientist & i don't understand how blackbody radiation works & how the CMBR 3 K works. However i think that the average wavelength is just one factor that gives the 3 K, i reckon that the numbers of photons per cubic metre are more important (would this be lumens/square metre?)(just joking).

It would be an issue of lumens/cubic meter actually, and average density of the dust. Ultimately Eddington figured the averaged temperature imparted to the dust was around 3.18 degrees, within 1/2 of a degree of the correct temperature on his first try. Now *that's* a good estimate. and it's based on static universe model. The first big bang "predictions" on the other hand were off by over a whole order of magnitude. So much for the "predictive" value of a expansion models. The numbers have been "postdicted to the correct number" ever since.

If photons lose energy, then where does the lost energy end up?
Ordinary tired light models can only convert lost energy to kinetic energy & ultimately to temperature, in which case the temperature of the universe would be infinite (if the universe is infinite & eternal)(which it is), in which case we need a better tired light model (which i would be happy to answer in new insights & mad ideas).

The energy is never never "lost", it's simply passed on to (transferred to ) other particles in the ISM and IGM as momentum, but much *less* momentum per cubic unit as you seem to imagine. The particle movement pattern (and ultimately the temperature) depends on what angle the different photons hit it. That's one of the flaws in your "infinite" temperature concept. The particles of dust in the ISM get hit from different angles and the net speed of the particle is the *average*, not added together in a single direction.

[crawler]

If photons lose energy, then where does the lost energy end up?
Ordinary tired light models can only convert lost energy to kinetic energy & ultimately to temperature, in which case the temperature of the universe would be infinite (if the universe is infinite & eternal)(which it is), in which case we need a better tired light model (which i would be happy to answer in new insights & mad ideas).

The energy is never never "lost", it's simply passed on to (transferred to ) other particles in the ISM and IGM as momentum, but much *less* momentum per cubic unit as you seem to imagine. The particle movement pattern (and ultimately the temperature) depends on what angle the different photons hit it. That's one of the flaws in your "infinite" temperature concept. The particles of dust in the ISM get hit from different angles and the net speed of the particle is the *average*, not added together in a single direction.

I have always had difficulty imagining a molecule (dust) getting hit by a photon. Firstly i assume that a free photon has mass (either fixed or depending on frequency or energy)(the mass of say 1,000,000 free photons equal the mass of say one confined photon, eg an electron) & i assume that a free photon has momentum. Photons have mass if photons annihilate aether, because mass is due to the annihilation of aether. Momentum isn't so simple. A free photon doesn't have a speed, it is a propagation of a process in the aether. A bit like a colour change propagating along a squid. The momentum of a confined photon (eg an electron) is somehow a bit different, an electron is a free photon that has formed a loop, & consequently a moving electron involves a sideways movement at v m/s in addition to the loopy propagation at c km/s.

If a free photon hits a molecule then is it absorbed & say re-emitted, or is it deflected or reflected. I think that deflection & reflection are a possibility, but i am alone here (but anyhow this is not critical to my argument today).

Lets ignore all of thems complications & lets assume that when a free photon hits a molecule then it bumps an electron & the electron bumps a nucleus & that bumps an adjoining atom which bumps other atoms. Whether the free photon is absorbed & how, & whether it or a new photon is now or later emitted, are i think not critical to the argument. Anyhow such bumping must immediately increase the temperature of the molecule, & at the same time change the velocity of the molecule, possibly in equal measure (energy wise).

If so then a molecule being hit from every direction can have a very low velocity (low macro momentum) & a very high temperature (micro momentum). A free electron being hit from every direction can of course have a high velocity & (by definition) zero temperature. A lattice electron (if such exists) can have low velocity & high temperature.

But all of the little contributions to macro momentum, when they negate, are not somehow lost. No, we cant say that all of these little bumps of energy have evaporated in mathland. The energy of each bump lives on, because if the collision tween the molecule & photon is head-on then it is more violent, & it manifests as a bigger bump (compared to the smaller bump of a head to tail collision).

Anyhow eventually the molecule must emit a photon when its temperature is hot enough. And no energy is lost overall, which we all agree, & which gives us Olber's Paradox (which standard science & Don Scott & Miles Mathis & Co have not been able to explain)(or which is supposedly explained by using tired light)(or which is explained by using a (faux) finite universe).

Don Scott has a nice math proof of the sniper model, showing that rr/rr=1, but Don fails to see that we can have an infinite number of faint stars in near alignment.
Mathis fails to see that rr/rr=1 , he more or less simply assumes that it is <1.
Standard tired light science fails to see that if energy is conserved then tired light doesn't explain Olber's.

[balsysr]

The question was asked where does the lost energy go - we do not allow for non conservation of energy, fair enough. For a long time I was fascinated by E = mc^2 (+1/2 mv) but people usually ignore this last bit. This is what brings us the atomic and hydrogen bomb and nuclear energy through the equivalence on matter and energy. However, equivalence goes both ways so matter can be converted to energy (the bomb), but it should also be possible for energy to be converted to mass. It's just that we do not talk about this as, no process makes this obvious. But think about it, when we say an atom absorbs a photon raising an electron to a higher energy level what has really happened is the total energy of the atom has increased and through equivalence the mass has increased. Clearly matter exists, where did it come from? Perhaps matter is condensed light, a really, really large amount of light. So the missing energy may in fact be found as matter. This requires an as yet unkown process that converts photons (e/m waves ie energy) to mass. If this occurs then the energy is not disappearing, merely changing to another (more condensed) form.

Cheers,

[crawler]

The question was asked where does the lost energy go - we do not allow for non conservation of energy, fair enough. For a long time I was fascinated by E = mc^2 (+1/2 mv) but people usually ignore this last bit. This is what brings us the atomic and hydrogen bomb and nuclear energy through the equivalence on matter and energy. However, equivalence goes both ways so matter can be converted to energy (the bomb), but it should also be possible for energy to be converted to mass. It's just that we do not talk about this as, no process makes this obvious. But think about it, when we say an atom absorbs a photon raising an electron to a higher energy level what has really happened is the total energy of the atom has increased and through equivalence the mass has increased. Clearly matter exists, where did it come from? Perhaps matter is condensed light, a really, really large amount of light. So the missing energy may in fact be found as matter. This requires an as yet unkown process that converts photons (e/m waves ie energy) to mass. If this occurs then the energy is not disappearing, merely changing to another (more condensed) form. Cheers,

U raise some interesting questions there. But firstly, if every star etc in the infinite universe somehow converted all of its mass & energy to photons then we would not have an infinite temperature. And even if every photon then somehow converted all of its energy to some kind of pure energy then we would still not have an infinite temperature. Even if the universe is eternal. We would have a certain amount of average density per cubic metre, ie density of photons or density of pure energy (there is no such thing), & a certain finite average temperature. That is the gist of what most are saying, & i agree. If we have an infinite universe with a finite average density of matter & photons etc then we cant ever have an infinite temperature even if there is no redshift & no extinction of energy.

Hencely if the universe involves a continuous recycling of matter photons & energy then we cant have an infinite temperature, even if the universe is eternal (which it is). But a continuous eternal recycling is impossible according to our laws of thermodynamics. Enthaltropy says that the universe should not have any hotspots, it should all be at an even temperature etc. But that is not what we see. Therefore there is an unknown process happening that creates energy. And this will give an infinite temperature, unless there is an unknown process annihilating energy (ie extinction). And we don't see an infinite temperature, hencely that is why i have been saying that we need a redshift (or something) that gives extinction, & tired light models cant do the trick, but they might do the trick if we can add some smart process to them (but that process must break conservation laws as presently understood). And that is the gist of my argument.

And the correct tired light or redshift model will involve the subquantum aether, energy will be being recycled tween the quantum world & the subquantum world, & this will appear to break our (known) laws. And stargazer's question re Olber's Paradox (ie the OP) specifically asked what role was played by aether.

Anyhow, in other words, one answer to Olber's Paradox pertaining to an infinite eternal universe is that stars cant shine for ever (ie their shining cant be eternal even if the universe is), & the universe must lose its hotspots. But that is not what we see, hencely that answer is wrong.

But getting back to balsysr's points. I too have often wondered how exactly could an orbiting electron capture & absorb a photon, & store it, & emit it later. I reckon that a free photon is a quasi-particle, with a front end & a rear end. And an electron is a confined photon, ie a free photon that has bitten its own tail & formed a loop. So, does a captured free photon still exist, ie is it orbiting the electron, or perhaps passing in & out of the electron (ie here it is a semi-free photon). Or does a captured photon no longer exist, ie does it convert to pure energy by simply adding to the energy of the electron.

Hell, i am very sceptical re the existence of the nuclear atom, eg electrons orbiting a nucleus, & re the existence of electrons protons & neutrons. But i do believe in free photons & confined photons.

Me myself i don't believe that E=mcc. And i don't believe in pure energy (except if in the form of kinetic energy & potential energy). And i don't believe that 1 kg of mass can be 100% converted to pure energy or to any other kind of energy. If it were possible to convert 1 kg of mass to free photons, then the mass of thems free photons might be less than say 0.000 001 kg, & the 0.999 999 kg would simply disappear. And the 0.000 001 kg of photons might be fixed or it might not, perhaps the mass of a free photon depends on its frequency/length or perhaps not. There is a possibility that as a photon is stretched that its mass decreases (& its energy), in which case it might be possible to stretch photons out of existence. And if that stretching does not transfer energy from the photon to something else in our quantum world then here we have the extinction that i have been looking for. But the problem with tired light models is that they stretch photons by transferring energy to something else in our quantum world, ie they don't have true extinction.

[balsysr]

Something else to keep in mind when considering energy - and that is the possibility of negative energy. I am not sure if you have read Hotsons' work, https://issuu.com/infowarbooks1/docs/ho ... ac-s-equat

He has some really interesting insights, the idea the universe is mostly a Bose-Einstein condensate is intriguing. I also like the time quantisation and the explanation for how gravity works and how it connects over mega-light years in almost real time. His results are pretty impressive. There are a number of takedowns of his work but I judge there is plenty of worth in his ideas.

Cheers,

[crawler]

Something else to keep in mind when considering energy - and that is the possibility of negative energy. I am not sure if you have read Hotsons' work, https://issuu.com/infowarbooks1/docs/ho ... ac-s-equat

He has some really interesting insights, the idea the universe is mostly a Bose-Einstein condensate is intriguing. I also like the time quantisation and the explanation for how gravity works and how it connects over mega-light years in almost real time. His results are pretty impressive. There are a number of takedowns of his work but I judge there is plenty of worth in his ideas. Cheers,

That link didn't work for me.
But i did read that hotson has a tired light theory. Can u find it? Does his sea of negative energy feed on light?

The following questions-comments arise...........
Re negative energy i don't like the idea.
Why does every root of Dirac's equation have to have physical meaning? (In asking the question i don't want to give the impression that i understand the equation).
Can electrons & positrons orbit each other?
How can we have a sea of negative energy when we don't even have a sea of positive energy? Energy only exists in mathland. What exists is force, & a force cant exist on its own, it needs at least two things (something that makes it, & something that feels it).
Electrons vibrating in an imaginary direction smells fishy.

[balsysr]

Try this link to a website. It has links to all three of the articles by Hotson. Rather than try to (inadequatly) explain Hotson I urge you to read the work. A few paragraphs from the start hopefully will encourage this.

"

Dirac's complete equation, however, describes a quantum spinor field, which has as solutions four different kinds of electron: electrons and positrons of positive energy, and electrons and positrons of negative energy. Such supposedly "fundamental" entities as quarks and gluons have no comparable wave equations; yet they wave. Therefore they cannot be truly fundamental. Since in principle the Dirac field comprises "everything that waves," the equation therefore predicts that the entire physical universe can be made from these four kinds of electron. This study validates this prediction: all matter and all forces are shown to be necessary combinations and applications of just these four kinds of electron, fulfilling Dirac's unitary expectation.

In addition, direct applications of Dirac's equation provide simple, logical, and natural models of the electromagnetic field, the "photon," the "strong nuclear" force, the Ψ wave, inertia, and gravitation. It provides direct-contact physical models that agree with experiment, as opposed to the purely mathematical (and unworkable) models so much in vogue. The phase-entanglement feature of quantum mechanics, demonstrated by Bell's Inequality and the proofs thereof, requires that our reality be non-local. This seems to banish causality. However, Dirac's equation provides causal, direct contact models which are nonetheless non-local.

" Hotson, Infinite energy, 2002.

Imaginary number are used in electrical engineering all the time in relation to AC current. The imaginary bit is the square root of -1, that when first theorized caused the other mathematicians on the boat to throw the originator of the idea overboard. He drowned. You might not like an idea, but that does not stop it being useful.

Cheers,