A.R. Estakhr says that in the real world nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Well, he is not alone in this regard, and Einstein had similar views.

But he goes on to say, "If something in the world moves faster than the speed of light, it's about the imaginary part of our world not the real part."

He believes that a part of our world is governed by the laws governing imaginary numbers. To prove his claim, He has pointed to three weaknesses of theoretical and experimental physics:

  1. Tachyon (Aka Neutrino)
  2. Quantum entanglement And
  3. Gravitational singularity

In theoretical physics, quantum nonlocality most commonly refers to the phenomenon by which measurements made at a microscopic level contradict a collection of notions known as local realism that are regarded as intuitively true in classical mechanics. Nonlocality describes the apparent ability of objects to instantaneously know about each other’s state, even when separated by large distances (potentially even billions of light years), almost as if the universe at large instantaneously arranges its particles in anticipation of future events. Thus, in the quantum world, despite what Einstein had established about the speed of light being the maximum speed for anything in the universe , instantaneous action or transfer of information does appear to be possible.

Despite Einstein's misgivings about entanglement and nonlocality and the practical difficulties of obtaining proof one way or the other, Irish physicist John Bell attempted to force the issue by making it experimental rather than just theoretical. Bell’s Theorem, published in 1964, and referred to by some as one of the most profound discoveries in all of physics, effectively showed that the results predicted by quantum mechanics (for example, in an experiment like that described by Einstein , Podolsky and Rosen) could not be explained by any theory which preserved locality.

The subsequent practical experiments by John Clauser and Stuart Freedman in 1972 seem (despite Clauser's initial espousal of Einstein's position) to definitively show that the effects of nonlocality are real, and that "spooky actions at a distance" are indeed possible, And again, This begs the question, how is it possible!? Estakhr answers, in the imaginary part of the universe. Estakhr's hypothesis of complex universe says: "quantum entanglement occurs in the imaginary part of the world and not in its real part, And that is how quantum information can be transmitted faster than light speed" And in the imaginary part of the universe (Which is not visible) "everything " moves faster than the speed of light.

Well, to put it in a nutshell , we're living in a Complex universe.

The act of measurement forces the particle to make a choice. Neils Bohr accepted that the nature of reality was inherently fuzzy. Two particles can become entangle if they are closed together then their properties becomes linked. In fact, only logical theory is to say that they are entangled in another dimension of the world (aka Imaginary part of the world)

Does our world follow the rules of Complex numbers?

Is the Universe real or complex

closed as off-topic by Not_Here, Mauro ALLEGRANZA, Geremia, WillO, Conifold Mar 17 '18 at 4:04

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "While this question may be related to philosophy or occur in a philosophical context, the question itself doesn't seem to be about philosophy, and is therefore not a good fit for our site." – Not_Here, Mauro ALLEGRANZA, Geremia
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 4
    Neutrinos are not tachyons. I have never heard of Estakhr but after Googling around for about 10 minutes almost every one of my crank radar responses started to go off (mentioning Einstein every other sentence, appealing to a conflation between two different uses of a word, specifically 'imaginary objects' and 'imaginary numbers', no listing of academic credentials anywhere, and pushing something that is generally considered to be verifiably false). All of that being said, I don't think this is a question about philosophy, at face value it's only tangentially related to anything philosophical. – Not_Here Mar 13 '18 at 12:02
  • 3
    Yes: the world is full of complex numbers. See Applications of Imaginary Numbers. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Mar 13 '18 at 12:18
  • 2
    @Not_Here " did you read his article where he loses the plot on the Higgs?" No, But I've looked at this book before The Higgs Fake: How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee Book by Alexander Unzicker – The Last Jedi Mar 13 '18 at 13:05
  • 3
    +1 I also voted to keep the question open. Although I don't completely agree with the claims in the question, especially the part about tachyons, I think philosophers need to answer questions with the intent to clarify them. A question that one disagrees with needs the clearest answer. – Frank Hubeny Mar 13 '18 at 13:43
  • 3
    @Not_Here Here's an opportunity to clarify and answer a question that apparently some people have if one has time to do so. Calling it "crankery" is an ad hominem argument. The goal is to come up with a very good argument using references so it is beyond mere opinion. – Frank Hubeny Mar 13 '18 at 14:37

Physics is an imperfect model of reality. Numbers are used to help model physics. The internal consistency of a logical or mathematical system does not mean it has anything to do with reality. With this in mind, as complex numbers have certain properties which are helpful in modelling the world, it makes sense to use them. Remember that originally humans only had the positive integers - someone then may have asked, 'does our universe have negative numbers?'. Negative numbers were taken on because they too happened to be helpful models of the world. Other forms of numbers, such as the infintessimals in smooth infintessimal analysis have not widely been taken on, because although they have logical consistency, they are found to be 'less useful'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_infinitesimal_analysis https://nrich.maths.org/5961 (this is a short history of negative numbers)

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.