I was at the ICNFP 2015 Conference, spending two nights to prepare updated versions of two posters following an idea that I had on August 22 just before taking the plane for Crete (the possible space-time contradiction between the preonic vacuum and the macroscopic world, leading to Quantum Mechanics for standard matter), when an important result was posted to *arXiv.org* .

In an article entitled *Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km*, http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949 , a Delft + Barcelona + Oxford collaboration announced on August 24 the confirmation of quantum entanglement in an experiment involving a spatial separation of 1.3 Km.

Without knowing this result, I was considering (as already in the Proceedings of ICNFP 2014) the possible role of superluminal preons (superbradyons) in the set up of Quantum Mechanics by the dynamics of a preonic vacuum. Precisely, a superbradyonic vacuum would provide a natural basic structure to generate quantum entanglement.

In my previous blog note *The Dynamical Origin Of Quantum Mechanics (I)*, I wrote http://www.science20.com/relativity_and_beyond_it/the_dynamical_origin_of_quantum_mechanics_i-157064 :

What can be really said about the physical origin and the ultimate nature of the properties of matter described by Quantum Mechanics? Is Quantum Mechanics really an ultimate fundamental property of matter and a law of Nature, or is it actually a consequence of a deeper (preonic) dynamics that generates its content and formalism?To complete these two papers and the material presented at ICNFP 2015 on the subject, I have just writtenIn two recent papers,

andQuantum Mechanics and the Spinorial Space-Time, that are part of the material presented at the ICNFP 2015 Conference, I have tried to develop a precise answer to this questionQuantum Mechanics, preonic vacuum and space-time contradiction

*that I have posted to :*

**Quantum Mechanics, space-time, preons and entanglement***https://www.ma.utexas.edu/mp_arc-bin/mpa?yn=15-92*

https://archive.org/details/QMSTPE

https://indico.cern.ch/event/344173/session/4/contribution/277

In

*, I confirm the obvious naturalness of the observed entanglement if the critical speed of superbradyons inside vacuum is around 10*

**Quantum Mechanics, space-time, preons and entanglement**^{6}times the speed of light, just as the speed of light is a million times larger than the speed of sound. Then, the relevant time scale associated to 1.3 Km for the transmission of a signal inside vacuum would be of the order of 4.10

^{-12}seconds.

It must be emphasized that the kind of preonic pattern considered here is radically different from that initially suggested by Abdus Salam an other authors. Preons were then "quark-like", and just expected to simplify the origin of the quantum numbers of standard particles. These particles were assumed to be made of preons, just as hadrons are made of quarks. But the preonic pattern considered in my papers since 1995 does not follow such a scheme.

In http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9505117 and http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9601090 , I suggested that the vacuum be made of superluminal preons and particles be "condensed matter" excitations of vacuum. This is the pattern that justifies a preon critical speed *c _{s}* much larger than the speed of light

*c*. My subsequent work has developed and used such a scenario.

My paper * Quantum Mechanics, space-time, preons and entanglement* concludes:

The recently reported evidence for quantum entanglement car also be an evidence for a fundamental superbradyonic vacuum structure of which the standard "elementary" particles would be "condensed matter" excitations.Further theoretical, experimental and observational work is obviously required, including the direct search for free superbradyons.

10^6 lightspeed relative to what frame of reference?