Lets first start with three quotations from Bohm. From there on, I will guide you through the imagination required to forget about the secondary parameters that make us believe in illusion for centuries. Not only is Bohm very right about the current goals for the QEM but also the very same results could be derived from the fact that
– Bohm: “In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the “explicate” or “unfolded” order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders ”
– Bohm: “I propose that each moment of time is a projection from the total implicate order. The term projection is a particularly happy choice here, not only because its common meaning is suitable for what is needed, but also because its mathematical meaning as a projection operation, P, is just what is required for working out these notions in terms of the quantum theory.”
– Bohm: “My attitude is that the mathematics of the quantum theory deals primarily with the structure of the implicate pre-space and with how an explicate order of space and time emerges from it, rather than with movements of physical entities, such as particles and fields.”
The notions used for quantum physics also involve weak and strong forces, with difference radius they influence with their forces, but I agree that it would be beautiful to forget about those ideas and focus on the QEM from the perspective when we do not have a notion of time nor space, but something that allows deriving those two notions as a perceived feeling about what is happening to us. Entanglement could be a signal to us to reconsider what we consider for axioms.
Lets now assume that the perceived time and space are just illusions. Due to our limitations we treat many ilussions as true actions (objects). The same thing could be with notions of time and space. Lets now go back to my old statement that we could present time and space as just a “space” vector, and this “space” vector would then be our adjustment to the data structure that we perceive about the world. Still, given the fact that our perception is very limited, we shall think of places where our senses could be misguiding. We could also think about different generalizations of the foundations of time and space. Space is currently built on infinitesimals and dimensions. These very small elements allow us to talk about length, dimensions allow us to move “right” or “left”. Time is built on the fact that we observe movement. We say that this movement happens in iterations but do not consider the reasons for interaction but just refer to this iteration, without even caring what it could be. Without any movement (described in the context of space and this iteration), i.e. without seasons of the year, day and night, objects moving etc. we we not feel “time”. As soon as we start to change our place, we can do it “faster” or “smaller”, and this is where we use the iteration. Space measured with “infinitesimals”, i.e. small building blocks and movement measured with space and iterations (time), again build with “infinitesimals”, the very same building blocks. Now, did we ask what the these blocks? Does there exist the minimal block? The maximal block? Do these blocks change? What is the structure of these blocks?
The last question is more the generic question – its asks about the data structure beneath blocks. It is a wider question than the previous ones. I forgot to mention one other thing. The structure of these infinitesimals is that we just put these close to each other, as if they were bigger “points”, i.e. “squares”, each touching four adjacent ones. Or how many?
So what do we have? A notion of the small building blocks. This notion is used to define the distances that we observe and the movement that we perceive. Exactly, out of building blocks of no structure we embark on the journey that made Tesla (correctly) furious about purple colours of our dresses! Gentlemen, we should first think of the data structure behind these elements and then about movement and distance, and try to generalize these notions.
Today I started to follow this path and forget about time and space, and consider those values, as such (purely perceived ones), as likely non-existent. I will refer to the structure of the building blocks as the O-order. As far as distance or movement are concerned, I think it is first more important to have any notion of building blocks before trying to generalize what’s based on it.
Btw. the latest task that I published (Prime supertransformation) is my first step regarding the O-order.