Yes, it is interesting to think about light creation. We think of it as instantaneous that electron leaving and light being created. But how fast does this happen? If light is a particle, which I disagree with, then it cant just be sitting there and then instantaneously be traveling at speed c or whatever. It should accelerate to that speed.

Anyway to me, light is a wave just like sound is. I have a lot of issues with quantum mechanics and the duality of light to me is just one thing we have made up to represent things. But it can't be, but a wave.

Perhaps one of the problems that led scientists to think of light as a particle is the problem of light traveling in vacuum, in empty space. You see, a wave travels as energy disturbing whatever is already there. A wave in the sea, moves water up and down and travels in a direction. Sound disturbs air molecules in air or water or solids. But if light is a wave, then what does it disturb in a vacuum or empty space, if its actually empty? So lets get around that and call light a particle. No. The answer to me is that light is a wave and empty space, is not really empty, which gets us back to age old theories about the fabric of the universe, ether and all that, which we never got to advance.

Furthermore, although I am not convinced that quantum entanglement is real, the fact that you read the characteristics of a particle and at that moment you know what the other particles characteristics are, does not mean they communicate. [Never mind that to me, the fact that we flip it when we measure it is not some profound physical wonder, rather, it is because of our inefficiency to measure, that small and that accurately, we just haven't bothered to go that small in measurement and we should; like you use a laser gun to measure the speed of a car, does that change the speed of the car? No or yes by a very small negligible amount; when we go down to particles its not unavoidable, we just haven't found a fine enough method of measurement to get information on them without changing them, like using a bulldozer to hammer a small nail on a thin plank of wood, you lose both the nail and the piece of wood ]

If we, anyway suppose that entanglement is true, like say two states a and b, we let two particles, which we consider paired go in opposite direction, we measure particle 1, its a, and we suppose it immediately flips to b, we also suppose that particle 2 was b and flipped to a. Then we let them go for a while and measure particle 2, we find out, know, its a and suppose it flips to b, (which supports some of our first measurement of particle 1) and also suppose that particle 1 was b (as expected) and we suppose it flips to a. Now if we go back to particle 1, after it has traveled some way still and measure it again and we do find, know, that it is a, then sure maybe then they do communicate. So you have to take more than one measurements, not always measuring the same particle, and make sure chance is not a factor.

Now if entanglement does work, it presents a problem. It says to us that there can be instantaneous connections in space regardless of what we understand as distance. So something separated from something else would instantaneously communicate regardless whether their distance is 10 feet or 10 miles. They have even tried to measure speeds that this happens and allegedly its 100,000's of the speed of light. But lets say its instantaneous for a moment we'll worry about speed later. To me, the only way that two points are exactly the same distance apart, regardless of some measure of distance that we have, is if they are on the circumference of a circle. Or the surface of a sphere. If what we understand as space is the surface of a sphere, then all points are equidistant from the center of the sphere. This is one way entanglement can be explained. Any two points on a circle can be some way apart on the circumference, but they will always be 2*r apart where r is the radius of the circle. Now since we understand our space to be 3d (that in itself, the 3 dimensions is something we made up, there is nothing in nature that is 2d or 1d, these are our own constructs, space is one thing we call it 3d, to make it easy to work with, so time is not really the 4th dimension, as much as its the second construct, space being the first one) so one way to visualize entanglement is if our universe is the 3d surface of a 4d sphere, like if it were 2d it would be the 2d surface of a regular (3d) sphere. Now there are two ways we can go about supposing entanglement works. It either alwasy goes through the center, in which case the speed will be constant regardless, or , it could cut in a straight line without going through the center. Like pick any two points in a circle and connect them in a straight line, going through the inside of the circle. The assumption, regardless of whether, entanglment has to go through the center or just connects going through the inside, in a straight line (perhaps it curves who knows), the asuumption, is that whatever is inside the circle, in our case the inside of the 4d sphere, is something even thinner than what we call empty space, in any case, it travels a hell of a lot faster, than on the 3d surface.

Thinking about our own space, what we call 3d space, I came upon an article some 20 years ago that talked about transport logistics, it was actually in The Economist where I picked it up from. The problem they wanted to solve was this. Lets say we want to put stuff in a container, like boxes. We have to stack them neatly inside the container so that we can fit as many as possible. That stacking takes energy and time. Now suppose we wanted to save on this time and energy and just picked some 3d shape for our boxes to go in the container and just threw those boxes randomly inside the container (so that we don't have to stack them, save time). What would that shape be? Not a sphere, coz you would always lose the corners between them. Its not a cube apparently. don't remember if there was some theoretical deduction or they just conducted experiments, anyway experimentaly after many tries they found out that the 3d shape that wastes the least space is the tetrahedron, (which also happens to be the most stable of all 3d shapes, difficult to topple, get it to rest on another of its sides). So it occurred to me, that if the tetrahedron is the shape that least wastes space, then its the shape that best describes space, or maybe even defines space. So maybe this shape has something to do with how or what we understand as empty space.

As for light and its speed the first time I found some clue as to deny the (to me ludicrous) assertion that nothing travels faster, was from the equation. E=mc^2. You can get to this equation with classical mechanics, elementary physics and its nothing special and whats more, it holds for any speed, i.e. E=mv^2 where v can be whatever you want, it doesn't have to stop at c

P=power

E=energy

t=time

F=force

v=velocity

u=momentum

m=mass

(1) P=E/t => E=Pt (2)

(3) P=Fv

(2)->(3) E=Fvt (4)

(5) u=mv

(6) F=u/t

(5)->(6) F=mv/t (7)

(7)->(4) E=(mv/t)vt => E=mv^2

I can go on, on how the fact that einstein had to put a limit on speed, that meant that something else had to change so he said lets change time and that's why we believe that time changes, i.e. because we believe speed has a limit. Yes we have observed differences in how we measure time, but we have to be really careful in our assumption, and there can always be more than one answer. And there is a difference between a clock and a biological clock too, but that's a whole other discussion.

So i believe we can go faster than light, even by conventional means, but perhaps there is a way to travel faster by skipping through, like inside this assumed 4d sphere. Like the principle of the airplane wing is that it creates a gap of air above and a concentration of air below it, hence lift. What if we could make something that created a gap of what we call empty space in front of it, and a concentration of empty space below it, it would just jump through forward, by a little bit, going through what we understand as space, for as long as whatever created the differential was on. What lies in there. Well, we do not know, but whatever it is there is no reason we have to be adamant that we would not survive in it, cause, consider, we can go through all the states of matter that we know. We can travel through empty space, we can travel through air, through water, borrow through solids, why would we not be able to travel through whatever that is? And the laws of physics change but do not change by that much as we change mediums. They are mostly the same. Why would they be different there. And really if we can get to that, then going to Mars is a joke, we'd be there in 15 minutes, all those exoplanets we have detected we could actually go there. We have gone from 2 billion to 7 billion sould on this planet rather fast. People think its the environment but I beg to differ. We need to get out. since about half a milemium ago we now know how big our Earth is. Its finite. we are not. And our world is not the Earth. the minute we went in space, we walked on the Moon, that is our world now. Its a pity we chose to stay here and not explore more and try more out there for the last 50 years.