Quantum Correlation & System 3
Robert Campbell 2007

Outline of the Paradox:

The debate between Einstein and Bohr over the direction that quantum mechanics took is legendary. It is
summed up in Einstein’s assertion that he refused to believe God plays dice with the universe. He devised
various arguments against the Copenhagen Interpretation, the best known being the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky,
Rosen) paradox.

The EPR paradox draws on a phenomenon predicted by quantum mechanics, known as quantum
entanglement, to show that measurements performed on spatially separated parts of a quantum system can
apparently have an instantaneous influence on one another. This non-local effect is also known as quantum
correlation. In some sense it appears to contradict the evidence of special relativity that information can not
be transmitted faster than the speed of light.

The EPR experiment was intended to show that either instantaneous messages exceeding the speed of light
occur or else the theory is incomplete. Either:

1.        The result of a measurement performed on one part A of a quantum system has an instantaneous non-
local effect on the physical reality of another distant part B, or:
2.        Quantum mechanics is incomplete in the sense that some element of physical reality is not accounted
for by quantum mechanics. Hidden variables remain unexplained.

Since the paradox was presented in 1935 it has been tested by theory and experiment and it remains a
contentious issue. Evidence of quantum entanglement or correlation between distant particles has indeed
been found with various interpretations, two of which are the Many Worlds Interpretation and the Bohm

As one research physicist put it in private correspondence (his emphasis):

"It has never struck me before that people do not realise that there is MASSIVE observational evidence that the Many Worlds
really do exist.

In fact ALL the data associated with correlation indicates that the Many Worlds DO exist.
It is only really that there is an alternative explanation (Bohm's Quantum Potential) that such belief is not stronger.
We can SEE single particles in a Mach Zender interferometer or a Elitzur Vaidman Bomb Tester go BOTH WAYS around the
apparatus. We can SEE the Many Worlds in this way (and Many others).”

The System 3 & the Many Worlds Interpretation:

System 3 specifies that the physical universe is synchronously projected as independent atoms in a
succession of space frames that alternate with timeless quantum frames, such that space frames close ranks
to present the appearance of spatial and temporal continuity. Atomic matter that makes up the physical
universe is discontinuous. The synchronous projection is comparable to a synchronous standing wave
regulated by a Universal Set associated with each Particular Set as independent atoms.

Each atomic space frame has a specific duration defined by the primary interval of time associated with the
speed of light. Light emitted from atoms defines external space with respect to the internal space of an atom.
Since the emission of light is the only activity within each integrated space frame it comes to us as a
succession of discontinuous pulses related to Planck’s universal quantum of action h.
Where there is relative motion a moving particle also behaves as a wave with respect to a stationary test

In System 3 the wave-particle motion introduces non-synchronous oscillations with respect to the experimental
test apparatus, between the Void and successive Space Frames. The relative motion of the particle is distinct
from the stationary apparatus since each moving particle has an independent relationship to the Universal
Set, just as each particle in the stationary apparatus does. All sub atomic particles and atoms also remain
linked as one by the Universal Set in the timeless Void.  

One can think of the independent relationship of each atom to the Universal Set as Many Worlds if they like,
but they are assimilated as One in the Void. In other words the Many Worlds interpretation is confined to each
atom on the space frame side only of System 3. Each atom is a different world in this sense and the test
particles are subatomic particles. The interpretation does not take cognizance of the Universal Set or Void.

The coherent Idea of Many Worlds implies a unitary timeless context in which they are Many. You can’t have
one without the other. One and Many is the fundamental dilemma associated with the Rift in Wholeness. The
System acknowledges that there can be parallel realms of experience beyond this physical universe but not
parallel physical universes.

System 3 & the Bohm Interpretation:

The particle in the experiment is generally not a neutral atom, but an electron or photon separated beyond
the ionization limit from its two intimate partners in an atom so that the Universal Set has to span the
separation between them over a succession of space frames.

The Universal Set that regulates the synchronous oscillations generally corresponds to de Broglie’s pilot wave
or Bohm’s quantum potential. The moving particle is making quantum jumps in position space frame by space
frame with respect to the apparatus so that space frames in the apparatus are being intermittently skipped
with respect to the moving particle. The quantum jumps in position space frame by space frame correspond to
the de Broglie wavelength. The moving particle on the space frame side nevertheless remains associated with
the universal component of the wave that regulates the oscillations between space and quantum frames. This
is the ontological basis for de Broglie and Bohm’s thesis.

The System 3 Interpretation:

The System 3 interpretation is consistent with Bohm’s Quantum Potential.

The universal component of the wave is open in the additional sense that it is not totally confined inside the
triad of particles that make up a neutral atom within a single space frame. This is due to the separation of the
intimately bound particle from its partners beyond the ionization limit of an atom in a single space frame. This
requires the intimate binding of the Universal Set to span space frames with respect to the timeless Void.
Since the intimate binding occurs through the agency of the non-local universal component of the wave, this
component can go both ways, just as it can go through two slits in the two slit experiment. It carries with it a
quantum potential with respect to the apparatus. This is consistent with the interpretation of de Broglie and
Bohm but with further implications described elsewhere.

The evidence for quantum entanglement thus relates to the intimate binding of the three Particular Centers of
System 3 by the self-similar Universal Set that tunnels through them linking them up in pairs. This is illustrated
on the space-frame side of the
System 3 diagram. There is also a timeless (& orthogonal) quantum frame in
each primary interval of time in which the three Particular Centers are intimately bound as quantized energy
on the quantum frame side of the System 3 diagram. Sub atomic particles in motion are thus both wave and
particle at the same time.  

In summary, the sub atomic particle is moving with respect to the apparatus and this tunneling by the
Universal Set must span discrete increments of space and time. It is the Universal Set that is non-local with
respect to the test apparatus, not the Particular particle. The open Universal Set must reach across
successive increments of space-time to bind the particle to its partners, consistent with their mutually bound
state in the Void.  
System 3