In the meantime, Don Hotson has written part III of the article, and like the previous ones, it was published in Infinite Energy magazine.

Introduction

The preceding two-part article published in Infinite Energy 44 and 45 (see web links to both documents in Bill Zebuhr's Introduction) was entirely predicated on the proposition that a true physics must be based on simplicity and causality. If Dirac's equation means what it says--that it describes everything that waves or every possible particle--it arguably provides the first basis, simplicity: the universe must be built of the four kinds of electron which are the roots of the equation.

We have shown at least plausible ways this might happen, ways that solve the glaring problems with conventional physics. Moreover, we have shown direct contact, causal solutions to the problems of the "electromagnetic field" and gravitation, in which we have shown that both represent physical, non-local structures, responses the Big BEC (Bose-Einstein condensate) must make to balance imbalances and maintain its own integrity.

There are a number of developments, unmentioned in Parts 1 and 2, which greatly strengthen the case presented there. First, the Nobelist Dr. Norman Ramsey convinced his colleagues that negative absolute temperatures made thermodynamic sense.1 Since it is the quantity of positive energy in a substance that gives it its positive energy temperature scale, it should be a perfectly obvious corollary that negative energy must be a prerequisite for negative absolute temperatures.

This complements our symmetry arguments, and the fact that both the energy equation and Dirac's equation have negative as well as positive roots.

Dr. Benni Reznik of Tel Aviv University has demonstrated that the "vacuum" as a whole violates Bell's inequalities, and so acts like a BEC. (Bell's inequalities, and the now voluminous proofs thereof, show that two particles or photons, created in the same event, remain "entangled" with each other, sharing the same wave function, no matter how far apart they may move. Thus an action on one instantaneously causes a complimentary change in the other.)

Dr. Reznik demonstrates that two unentangled probes, inserted into the "vacuum" at random distances, rapidly become phase-entangled. This is behavior one would expect from a BEC, not a "vacuum," and can hardly be understood except in terms of a universal BEC. Since the Dirac papers insist that the "vacuum" is a universal BEC, this represents an immense verification of its thesis.

This is only one of a number of demonstrations, recent and ancient, that entanglement and superluminal effects are real and fundamental factors. For instance, it has been known since Laplace that gravitation must act much faster than light, or the earth/sun system would form a "couple" and the earth would spiral off into space. That gravitation acts almost instantaneously has been shown by studies of contact binary stars, which show that it must act many orders of magnitude faster than light. Astronomer Dr. Tom Van Flandern has shown that General Relativity, though it gives lip service to the "light speed limit," simply goes on to assume instantaneous "changes in the curvature of space" in its equations, and so is non-local.

Further, it has been known for decades that electromagnetism acts faster than light, according to a whole series of experimental results starting with the Sherwin-Rawcliffe experiment and continuing with those of the Graneaus and Pappas. These experiments all show that changes in the electromagnetic field must propagate much faster than light, apparently instantaneously, so that a moving charge has no "left-behind potential hill." Thus changes in electromagnetic potential must propagate apparently instantaneously over any distance.

A BEC has been shown by laboratory experiments to be all one thing, so that an action on one end of a BEC causes an instantaneous reaction at the other end. Therefore a universal BEC is the only plausible explanation for these burgeoning superluminal effects.

But we require a further, in-depth look at causality... (continue reading here)

.....................

Source: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2010/05/diracs_equation_and_the_sea_of.html