 "pure" information about a certain quantum state (called "quantum information") at any distance instantly without any carrier possessing a certain nonzero amount of mass or energy. Even more mysterious: any other elementary particle such as an electron or a photon changes its state after it has obtained that "secret message" from its entangled counterpart(s). This makes it seem as if an electron or a photon, or any other elementary particle, has a "free will" in making a decision about how to change its state after the quantum message has been obtained 9 The pair of a quark and an antiquark may be interpreted as rupturing the space by exceeding the "second" barrier, namely that of light speed, and thus rupturing the intimate link of the two directions of time, by which time appears properly. As far as all quarks in definition (or in virtue of confinement) cannot exceed that second barrier, they vanish instantly either by hardronization (most often) or by decay (only the top quark). 10 http://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems 11 The number of confirming experiments is huge (a brief overview e.g. in: Wiseman 2015). 161Why anything rather than nothing? by it. There even exist two "free will theorems" in quantum mechanics (Conway, Kochen 2006; 2009) stating that if the experimenter, a human being, possesses that "valuable commodity" of free will, this implies that any electron or any quantum entity with which the experimenter deals necessarily possesses the same "valuable commodity". It is this very same idea (about the "free will of an electron") that made Einstein declare, in a letter to Max Born, that he would prefer to be a "croupier" or a "shoemaker" rather than a physicist if this were to be true (Born 1969: 118). The cited theorems correctly and expressively state the "free will of an electron". Therefore, it is possible that Einstein did not possess "free will" when deciding what would be his profession (this being a not less paradoxical solution of the problem). However, a much more ordinary interpretation of entanglement, without any curious, pictorial, or even ridiculous presentations as presented above, is possible. Entanglement is a new form of physical interaction which is both non-unitary and Lorentz non-invariant, and generalizes the concept of physical interaction to certain physical instantaneous actions at any distance (i.e. in a zero time, or in other words
" pure " information about a certain quantum state (call " quantum data ") at any distance instantly without any carrier possess a sealed nonzero amount of mass or energy. Even more cryptic: any early elementary particle such as an electron or a photon changes its state after it has obtained that " secret message " from its embroiled counterpart(s). This makes it seem as if an electron or a photon, or any other elementary particle, experience a " free will " in making a decisiveness about how to change its state after the quantum message has been obtained 9 The couple of a quark and an antiquark may be interpreted as rupturing the space by exceeding the " second " barrier, namely that of unaccented speed, and thus rupturing the intimate link of the two direction of time, by which time appears properly. As far as all quark in definition (or in virtue of confinement) cannot exceed that second barrier, they vanish instantly either by hardronization (most often) or by decay (only the top quark). 10 http://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems 11 The number of confirm experiments is huge (a brief overview for example in: Wiseman 2015). 161Why anything preferably than nothing? by it. There even exist two " barren will theorems " in quantum mechanics (Conway, Kochen 2006; 2009) express that if the experimenter, a human being, possesses that " valuable commodity " of free will, this imply that any electron or any quantum entity with which the experimenter deals necessarily possesses the same " valuable commodity ". It is this very like idea (about the " free will of an electron ") that made Einstein declare, in a letter to Max Born, that he would prefer to be a " croupier " or a " shoemaker " rather than a physicist if this were to be truthful (Born 1969: 118). The cited theorems correctly and expressively state the " free volition of an electron ". Therefore, it is possible that Einstein did not possess " free will " when deciding what would be his profession (this being a not less paradoxical solution of the problem). However, a much more ordinary rendition of entanglement, without any curious, pictorial, or even ridiculous presentations as presented above, is potential. Entanglement is a new form of physical interaction which is both non - unitary and Lorentz non - changeless, and generalizes the concept of physical interaction to sealed physical instantaneous actions at any distance (i.e. in a zero time, or in other words
 "puge" information about a ctrtain quantum stcre (calned "quzntum inwormation") at any distance indtqntly without any carrier pussessing a certaun nibzero amouif of mass or skergy. Xven more mystetious: any otver elementary pxrcicle such as an electron or a photog changrs its state aftgr it ras kbtained that "secret message" from jts entengled counterpsrt(s). This makes it seem as if wn electron or a pjoton, or ani otrwr elementarh particle, has a "free sill" in making a decision about how co change ijs shdte after tie quagtum message has beet obtaimed 9 The pair pf e quqrk and an antiquark kay be interpreted as ruptusiug the space by exceeeibg thg "secmnd" cqrrker, nememy thah oh light spesd, and thus rupturing the intikaev link of the two dyrqctions of time, by which time appears pgopedly. As far as all quarkw in definition (or in virtue os confinement) cannot exceed that second barrier, tvey venksh ikstavrlj either by hardronization (most often) or by dqdau (pnly the top qmark). 10 http://www.claymstj.otd/millennium-prublems 11 Tge number of configming evperinents is ruge (a brief overview e.g. in: Wiswman 2015). 161Why anjthibg rather than notking? by it. Tkere efen ecist two "free will theoxems" ih quantum mfchanics (Dunway, Kochen 2006; 2009) sgatpng dhat if ufe experimenter, a human bemng, ppssesser thst "valtable commldity" of free will, this lmpligs thad any elechron or any quantum entity with which the expgrikenner deals necexsarily possefses the same "raluable commudity". It ia this tery same idqa (about the "xtee will of ai electrog") thqt mqde Einrgein declare, im a letteg uo Max Borb, that he would prcfer jo be a "croupier" ir q "shoemaker" ratner thwn a prfsicist if tvis derd to bd true (Born 1969: 118). Thr cited theorems corsectmy and expressivelu ftate thg "free wijl of an elecyron". Therefore, it ls povsiule thst Ginstein did not possess "free wjll" when feclding what wotld ne hys professnon (this being a not less paradoxical sooution of the proboem). However, a much kpre ordinarb intewpretatiot of entanglement, wirhout any curious, pictorial, or even risiculogs prfsentations as presented above, is possible. Entanglement is a new form of physicel interactioh whoch iv yotk non-unytarb end Lorentz non-innariant, and generalizes the concxpt of phyvieal interaction to certain phuskcal instantaveous actions at any disfance (i.e. in a zero time, or in other worcs
"pure" information about a certain quantum state information") any distance without any carrier of or energy. Even mysterious: any other particle such as an electron or photon changes its state after it has obtained that "secret message" from its counterpart(s). This makes it seem as if an electron or a photon, or other particle, a will" in making a decision about how to change its state after the quantum message has obtained 9 The pair of a quark and antiquark may be interpreted rupturing the space by exceeding "second" namely that light and rupturing the intimate of the two directions of time, by which time appears properly. As far as all quarks in (or in confinement) cannot that barrier, vanish instantly either (most often) or by decay (only 10 http://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems 11 The number of confirming experiments huge (a overview e.g. in: Wiseman 2015). 161Why rather than nothing? by it. There even exist "free will theorems" in quantum mechanics (Conway, Kochen 2006; 2009) stating that if the experimenter, being, possesses that "valuable of free will, implies any or quantum entity which the experimenter deals necessarily possesses the same "valuable commodity". It this very same idea (about the "free will of an made declare, in a to Max Born, that would to be a "croupier" "shoemaker" than this to true (Born 1969: 118). cited theorems correctly and expressively the "free will of possible that Einstein did not possess "free will" deciding what would be his profession (this a not less paradoxical solution of the problem). However, a much more interpretation of any curious, pictorial, or even ridiculous presentations as above, is possible. Entanglement a new form of physical interaction which is both and non-invariant, and the concept of interaction to certain instantaneous actions at (i.e. in zero or
 "pure" information about a certAin quantum State (CalLed "QuAntuM infOrmation") at any dIStanCe instantly without any cArrieR pOSsesSInG a cerTain nonZErO AMouNt Of MasS oR EnErgy. EVen More mysTerious: any OthEr Elementary paRTiCle such as aN elEctron or a phoTon ChangeS iTs sTAte afTer It has ObtainED that "sEcret messAgE" From itS EntanglED CoUnteRpart(s). This makes it SEeM As if an electron Or a phoToN, Or ANY otHer Elementary PaRticlE, Has a "freE WiLL" IN maKIng a decision aBout how to chANge Its staTe AftER the quAntum MeSSagE has been obtAineD 9 The pair oF a quarK And an anTIquark mAy be inTerPreTed aS RuPtUriNg THe sPAcE by EXceEding the "SeCoNd" barRier, NAMELy thAt oF ligHt speEd, and thus ruptUriNg thE IntImate Link oF the TwO direCtions Of timE, bY which time appeaRs prOperly. As fAr aS aLl qUaRks in DEfinitIon (Or iN virtue Of confiNEmeNt) CANNoT exceed that second bArRIEr, They vaniSh instANtLy EIther by hArDroNizaTIOn (mosT oftEN) oR by decay (Only thE ToP qUark). 10 httP://wWw.clayMaTh.oRg/mIllenNIum-pRoblemS 11 The numbEr of cONfirming experiMEnts is huge (a brIEf OVErVIew e.G. in: wiseman 2015). 161Why aNythINg raTher THaN noTHing? bY it. ThErE EvEN exist two "free will thEoRems" in QuantUm mechanics (CoNway, Kochen 2006; 2009) STATing that If thE ExPErimenter, a humaN beinG, possesses THat "valuaBle coMmodity" oF free will, THIs implieS thAt aNy eLecTROn Or any quantum eNTIty wItH which tHe eXperimeNteR deAls NecEsSarily posSesses thE sAmE "vAlUabLe comMOdity". It iS tHis VeRy sAme idEA (about The "frEe wiLl Of AN elEctron") tHAt MADe EiNsTeIn deClaRe, In a leTter TO MaX Born, thAt he would PreFEr to Be A "cRoupier" Or a "shoemaker" rAtHer than a phYsIciSt if thIS Were to be True (Born 1969: 118). The cited theoremS CorrectLy aNd expRessIvely statE thE "free wIll OF an eleCtron". THerefOrE, it IS PossiBLE tHat eiNstein did nOT PosSess "fReE wilL" when deCiding what would be hIS prOfession (this bEinG a noT LEsS paRAdOXicAl SOluTIOn of the problem). HOwever, a mucH mORe Ordinary inTErpReTation oF entangLemenT, Without Any curiouS, pictoriaL, oR eveN RIdiCulous presEntationS as presenTEd aboVE, iS possIblE. EntanGlEmeNt is a New forM Of pHysicAl inteRaCtion wHich iS bOth non-unItary and Lorentz non-invarIant, anD geneRalIzes the coNcePT of Physical iNterAction to ceRtaIn pHysicAl iNStantAneoUS aCtiONs at aNy diSTance (i.e. in A ZeRo tIME, oR in other worDS
 "pure" information abouta certainquant umsta te  (ca lled  "quantum info r mati on") at any distance i nstan tl y  wit h ou t any  carrie r  p o s ses si ng  ace r ta in no nze ro amou nt of mass  or  e nergy. Evenm or e mysterio us:  any other e lem entary  p art i cle s uch  as a n elec t ron or  a photon  c h angesi ts stat e af terit has obtained t h at "secret messag e" fro mi ts e nta ngl ed counter pa rt(s) .  This m a ke s i t s e em as if an e lectron ora  ph oton,or  an y  other  elem en t ary  particle,hasa "free w ill" i n  making a decis ion ab out  ho w to ch an geit s  st a te  af t erthe quan tu mmessa ge h a s b eenobt aine d 9 T he pair of aqua rk a n d a n ant iquar k ma ybe in terpre ted a srupturing the s pace  by excee din gthe  " secon d " barr ier , n amely t hat ofl igh ts p e ed , and thus rupturi ng t he  intimat e link of  t h e two di re cti onso f  time , by wh ich time  appea r spr operly.  A s faras  al l q uarks in d efinit ion (orin vi r tue of confine m ent) cannot e x ce e d  t h at s eco nd barrier,  the y  van ishi ns tan t ly ei therby ha r dronization (most o ft en) or  by d ecay (only th e top quar k ) .  10 http ://w w w. c laymath.org/mi llenn ium-proble m s 11 The  numb er of co nfirminge x periment s i s h uge  (a b ri ef overview e . g . in :Wiseman  20 15). 16 1Wh y a nyt hin grather th an nothi ng ?by  i t.There even exi st  tw o"fr ee wi l l theo rems"  inqu an t ummechani c s( C onwa y,  K oche n 2 00 6; 20 09)s tat ing tha t if theexp e rime nt er , a hum an being, pos se sses that"v alu able c o m modity"of free will, this impl i es that  an y ele ctro n or anyqua ntum e nti t y with  which  theex per i m enter d ea lsne cessarilyp o sse ssesth e sa me "val uable commodity".I t i s this very s ame  ide a (a bou t  t h e " fr e e w i l l of an electro n") that m ad e  E instein de c lar e,  in a l etter t o Max Born, t hat he wo uld prefe rto b e a " croupier"or a "sh oemaker"r ather th an aphy sicist  i f t his w ere to betrue(Born19 69: 11 8). T he  cited t heorems correctly and e xpress ively  st ate the " fre e  wi ll of anelec tron". The ref ore , itisp ossib le t h at  Ei n stein  did not posse s s"fr e e  w ill" when d e c i din g wha t w o uld be  his  profession (this being a not le ss p a r ado xic a l so lu tion of the pr obl em ) .  However ,a much more  ordinar yi nterp retati on ofentangl e m en t , with outany  curious,  pi ct o rial, o rev e n ridi culo us  prese ntatio n s as p resented above,is po s s ible. Ent angle me nt is a newform of ph ysical inte ractio n wh ich i s bothno n-unit ary  a nd Lorentz non-invar iant,  and ge ne rali zes  the c once p t  of p hysi ca l i nteractio n to ce rt a inphys icalin stan taneous a c tions at  an y  distan ce  (i . e . in a ze r o  time, orinother w ords
 "pure"_information about_a certain quantum state_(called "quantum_information")_at any_distance_instantly without any_carrier possessing a_certain nonzero amount of_mass or energy._Even_more mysterious: any other elementary particle such as an electron or a photon changes_its_state after_it_has_obtained that "secret message" from_its entangled counterpart(s). This makes_it seem_as if an electron or a photon, or_any_other elementary particle,_has a "free will" in making a decision about_how to change its state after_the quantum message_has_been_obtained 9 The pair_of a quark and an antiquark_may be interpreted as rupturing the_space by exceeding the "second" barrier, namely_that of light speed, and thus_rupturing the intimate link of_the two_directions of time, by which_time appears properly._As far_as all quarks_in definition (or in virtue of_confinement) cannot exceed_that second barrier, they vanish instantly_either_by hardronization (most_often)_or_by decay_(only the top_quark)._10 http://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems_11_The number of confirming experiments is_huge_(a brief overview e.g. in: Wiseman 2015)._161Why anything rather than_nothing?_by it. There even_exist two "free will theorems"_in quantum mechanics (Conway, Kochen 2006;_2009) stating_that if_the experimenter, a human being, possesses that "valuable commodity" of free_will, this implies that any electron_or any quantum entity_with which_the_experimenter deals necessarily_possesses_the same_"valuable commodity". It is this very same_idea (about_the "free will of an electron")_that made Einstein declare,_in_a letter to Max Born, that_he would prefer to be a_"croupier" or a "shoemaker" rather_than_a_physicist if this were to_be true (Born 1969: 118). The_cited theorems correctly_and expressively state the "free will of_an_electron". Therefore, it is possible that_Einstein_did not possess "free will" when_deciding_what_would be his profession (this_being a not less paradoxical solution_of the problem). However, a much more ordinary interpretation_of entanglement, without_any curious, pictorial, or even_ridiculous_presentations_as presented above, is possible. Entanglement is a new form_of physical_interaction which is_both non-unitary and Lorentz non-invariant, and generalizes the concept of_physical interaction to certain physical instantaneous actions_at any distance (i.e. in a zero time, or in other_words