I think this is a relativity/frame of reference discussion and not QM but if I've got it wrong perhaps a mod can home it where it belongs, thanks. I've got an electrical engineer's background in physics from 30+ years ago and am totally rusted out on the math. My quest is driven by never being satisfied with the Copenhagen perspective on "spooky action" and other topics, so I've continued to read and think on this topic. I recently re-read the Carver Mead "Spectator" interview, which led me to John Gribbin's "Schrodinger's Kittens", and now my mind is totally blown! The following concept, quoted from Gribbin, has been staring me in the face and I never "got it" before, regarding Einstein's quest to understand how the Universe "looks" to a photon, and how does time flow for a photon?: "To answer the second question first - it doesn't. The Lorentz transformations tell us that time stands still for an object moving at the speed of light. ... And under such extreme conditions, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction reduces the distance between all objects to zero. You can either say that time does not exist for an electromagnetic wave, so that it is everywhere along its path (everywhere in the Universe) at once; or you can say that distance does not exist for an electromagnetic wave; so that it touches everything in the Universe at once." BOOOSH! <--- sound of my head exploding So here's my thoughts/observations/conclusions on the above, and I'm hoping to find someone(s) with greater physics insights to talk through this with me: 1. From a photon's perspective/frame of reference (FOR) a photon doesn't spend any travel time between emitting electron (emitter) and absorbing electron (absorber) - it's instantaneous. It also doesn't travel any distance. 2. From #1 it must also be true that an emitted photon "knows" where it's going to be absorbed. It's not shot out of a cannon and waiting to see what it hits - the absorber is identified during the same instant the photon is emitted. 3. In any two-slit etc. experiment likewise, from the photon's FOR, it "knows" which electron is going to absorb it the moment it is emitted, and the path isn't "through" any slit or anything else, since it "touches everything in the Universe at once" including the absorbing electron. 4. All the spooky action / how can information travel superluminally etc paradoxes etc are FOR observation issues. Why it appears, in our FOR, that a photon takes 150 million years to travel to us from a distant star is interesting, but from the photon's FOR the journey was instantaneous. If two electromagnetic particles are able to be entangled and appear to communicate faster than C, it's because they touch everything in the Universe at once. 5. In our FOR if I suddenly hold up a mirror to reflect a photon that travelled 150 million years to get to earth, it's still the case that from the photon's FOR that the journey was instantaneous, even though the mirror did not physically exist when (from our FOR) the photon appears to have been emitted. So the absorbing electron in the mirror might have been inside some ice in a comet 150 million years ago, found it's way to earth, found it's way into a mirror-making factory and into my hand. Did the photon maintain a "relationship" with the absorbing electron for 150 million years, knowing where it would be by the time it reached earth? (I'm mixing FORs here, not being as precise as I'd like) 6. There are many possible explanations of Gribbin's "time does not exist for an electromagnetic wave." Here are some - for a photon: -time does not exist -it's every time all the time -it's any time all the time -time is stopped 7. Maybe an easier physical way to think about entangled particles is that entanglement creates a spacetime warp between them - such that the particles are touching one another and in the same FOR. 8. Since from a photon's FOR we are the ones moving at the speed of light, how would all these experiments look to an experimental physicist riding on a photon? Help me put my head back together again, please.