On so-called 'quantum entanglement'
Kenneth 'pawl' Collins
k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Sat Dec 7 05:42:38 EST 2002
'Normally'. I'd post this in the "In the News with Discussion" thread, but it's relevant to this thread, so I'm posting it in this thread.
"Researchers Make the Best Argument Yet That Neutrinos Are Capable of Changing Form", By GEORGE JOHNSON
What've been referred to as "neutrinos" are 'just' wave dynamics. That is, they're 'hust' little 'ripples' in the UES, which travel as spherical wave shells, having their own compression-expansion harmonics, along radii of the 'spherical' [warped by other energyflow within the UES] in which they travel in the UES.
An arc of sush an SWS appears like this:
radius of SWS ---------->|<->|---------->
All wave dynamics interact with the matter of this or that 'detector' [incluting the microscopic stuff in the retina of our eyes] in a way that's Deterministically dependent upon the SSW<->UES compression-expansion harmonics which comprise the matter of the 'detectors'.
It's not only the neutrinos that're "changing form". It's the 'neutrino' SWS<->UES harmonics and the SSW<->UES harmonics comprising the matter of the detectors that're both 'changing form".
In their individual compression phases, if a 'neutrino' SSW<->UES harmonic phase is sufficiently compressed and if it, then, intersects an SSW<->UES harmonic in the detector that's also in a sufficiently compressed phase, 'detection' is possible.
During both the SWW<->UES and SSW<->UES harmonics' expansion phases, because the the expansion-phase of the wave dynamics that've been referred to as 'neutrinos' 'just' fly right through the expansion-phase detector SSW<->UES harmonics, 'detection' is not possible.
It's all, in Generalized form, in the little QBasic apps that I've been posting in the "On the so-called [Sorry] 'quantum entanglement'" thread.
Stuff like the so-called [Sorry] "photoelectric work function", which, in the photoelectric effect, is correlated with the so-called [Sorry] "cutoff frequency, is exactly analogous.
And so is everything else within physical reality.
Quoting from the article:
"Now that researchers are reasonably sure that neutrinos have mass, theorists must explain why. The reigning theory of matter, called the standard model, cannot explain why any particles have the masses they have. Theorists hope the new information will help refine the model."
[© 2002, by The New York Times.]
re. the wellspring of "mass": Anything within physical reality has 'mass' be-cause the energydynamics inherent in it's stuff are in Deterministic interaction with the energy-surround [the universal energy supply; UES]
This's why, for instance, one can hit a board, dropped, by an associate, at shoulder height, at the 'instant' it's dropped, and break it, why, if one jams down the accelerator pedal of one's car, and drops the clutch [if one has a better car than I do :-], the car's wheels spin rather than the vehicle going forward, etc., with respect to all phenomena in which so-called "mass" has been invoked.
In other words, at the 'instant' at which the board is dropped, the board just 'hangs'-there due to it's stuff's ongoing interaction with the UES. At this 'point', the entirety of the board's 'mass' is as 'inertia', and all that such 'inertia' is is the energydynamics inherent in the board's stuff in Deterministic interaction with the energy-surround . The car - same-old, same-old. Anything within physical reality, same-old, same-old.
What's been referred to as "mass" is not a property of "matter", but a property of the one universal energydynamic, 'parcelled' with Deterministic respect to the energy that's 'trapped' in compression-expansion harmonic interaction with the UES.
"How to Slice the Pi Very, Very Thin", By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
"`It's amazing and astonishing,' said David Bailey, the chief technologist at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. `It's an enormous feat of computing, not only for the sheer volume, but it's an advance in the technique he's using. All known techniques would exceed the capacity of the computer he's using.'"
[© 2002, by The Associated Press and The New York Times.]
"Sans-'q', very much." :-]
K. P. Collins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Neur-sci
Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net