Significance of new experiment showing entanglement ACROSS TIME

This morning, I received a message describing a new experimental result. My analysis: ================================================ Jumping ahead, you describe the issue as entanglement across time, with new empirical results However the experiment that I consider crucial and which sems to have been pretty much ignored was that carried out by of Eli Megedish and his team at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Phys Rev Letters 110 May 2013) 'Entanglement swapping between photons that have never co-existed)'. He is now apparently at Berkeley, and I really do not know why so little attention has been paid to this result? But there are so many experiments being carried out now on entangled photons and even larger particles it seems, by the cream of bright young physicists, that perhaps it is hard to keep up. I am also reminded of a paper just a few years ago by Wilczek et al https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.02480.pdf which addresses similar issues. I actually thought I posted a photo of the experiment on Facebook after I visited it, but got tino deep trouble when it turned out to be something else. Ouch.We all make mistakes, but even so, the experiment was also important. I am not really able to grasp the full significance of this result and how it was arranged but the general implication that struck me is that entanglement is not only possible across space but also across time. This is the essence of my explanation of how memory results via a resonance of similar events/structures over time. I have wondered the same about my own paper in IJTP. In your example, even more than the others, the problem is with people's ability to UNDERSTAND and ASSIMILATE results so far from the assumptions they have been making. The old Copenhagen theory of measurement upset Einstein for more reasons than the ones we usually hear about (reality versus unreality, Cartresian dualism, metaphysical magic observers,Einstein's own words about EPR). But there were other problems. Above all, the usual Copenhagen model assumes an instantaneous action at time t, the time of measurement, changing the wave function of the cosmos (including all entanglements). It assumes an absolute division between before and after, with entanglement a property of the wave function ps(X), where X is a point in the THREE DIMENSIONAL Fock space across time. The use of 3D type Fockspace in defining wave functions does not even allow representation of the ideal of entanglement across time. It sounds like a reasonable idea, and empirical evidence should make it more so, but what happens when they can't translate it into math they can understand? Actually, however, a lot of these odd crosstime empirical effects CAN be allowed for (and tested for in OTHER experiments) if one gives up Copenhagen and uses a different measurement formalism, as outlined in my IJTP paper and elaborated on with examples in many sequels. It CAN be reconciled with the old type of wave function, if one simply adopts a new view of measurement. Unfortunately, most of the readers of that paper on the experiment in Israel would not be aware of that, including Aharonov whose efforts to get past his old Copenhagen views went only part of the way to catching up with what was known before those efforts. But...yes, I think that would be enough to assimilate and respect the experiment you mention, which may indeed be important. (Not having read the paper yet, I must be careful what I say about that aspect.) However, it ALSO suggests a further question: should we be trying to think beyond psi-dot = iH psi, for a psi over 3D Fockspace, or should we be looking for a reformulation in 4D Fock space or elsewhere, truer to Einstein's vision in special relativity? For example, by cleaning up the kind of approach proposed in the famous mainstream work of Streater and Wightman? In principle, yes. In past years, that is where I started. Much of my career, from "deep learning and AI" to this stuff, has been an exercise in moving backwards from where I was to what can fit into this very rigid set of cultures we live in. As of now, physics has a long way to go to appreciate the power of the simple vision of Hugh Everett (disseminated especially by John Wheeler and david Deutsch of Oxford), the idea that psi dot= i H psi for psi over 3D Fock space is THE law of everything (prior to gravity) has MUCH MORE to tell us, and deserves much more understanding and respect from the community. Everett was emphatic that there are no metaphysical observers,that "observers" themselves are just patterns in the multiverse; unfortunately, his PhD thesis (reprinted in https://cqi.inf.usi.ch/qic/everett_phd.pdf) made the error of trying to deduce the COPENHAGEN version of measurement from that viewpoint, as my IJTP paper explains. but leaving out that error, Everett's vision is what lies AHEAD of us, not behind. But: if only physics could be as rational as the NEC business plan I once read, showing a roadmap made of waves of technology, the next generation and the ones beyond, which should be allowed IN PARALLEL. I suspect that the guy who did the experiment you cite would agree with me (and with David Deutsch) "I don't believe it will turn out to be true in the end, if we survive to that point." Sabine says physicists pay too much attention to beauty, but in my view they do not pay ENOUGH attention; 3D Fock space is NOT beautiful. I have thought about types of experiments in quantum optics which would take us beyond that level of model (if more plausible models are true, in which entanglement of light across-spece time is an EXPLICIT natural possibility), but for now we seem to be stuck in preschool and need to learn the prerequisites. (Or, in a different reality altogether, as per Deepak Chopra and the Matrix.) As a practical matter, do I now go back to psi dot = i H psi? Unfortunately, this is one of the days when the news and the incoming zingers feel more like the Matrix, bleak as it is, and as great as the hope SHOULD BE that we can see through those kinds of illusions. For psi.. the difference between 3D Fock space and 4D is like the difference between coping with a firehose of information (squeezed along one t hose) or coping with an ocean. Many of us feel it is more like an ocean, but life is not quite so simple even if it is not so narrow in time flow.