By: Robert Crowley

Fri, 02 Sep 2016 16:12:32 +0000

So, each flavor is one in a certain set of possibilities in the wavefunction collapse that dictates how how it’s interaction with matter will be perceived by the observer, correct? But the ratio at which the flavor oscillates cannot be described be any classical function that we know of. Let me know if I’m getting it right.
So therefore, if the flavor cannot be said to be a real state due to this violation, but it demonstrates persistent effects based on the real determination of the particle interaction differences, what, actually is it? Is the flavor oscillation random, or is there an observable statistical value to it? I seem to recall that recent research into neutrino oscillation indicates that, while they weren’t what we predicted, the ratio is identifiable within a certain range of confidence. So, again, iso it just that the mathematics we use to describe deterministic macroreality and object permanence have no correlation here, or does it also violate some deeper fundamental princple of microreality or quantum mechanics?

]]>

By: James Carlson

Tue, 30 Aug 2016 19:40:25 +0000

I read it again, and am still confused. If a neutrino has three detectable flavors then it’s microscopically real. However, the flavors change so they’re not macroscopically real. The LGI violations pertain to the macroscopic reality…I think…confirming that macroscopic reality is unreal. I doubt that I have that right. Explain it again when you have an opportunity.

In any case, 5 groups were on the Sun today with 26 spots for a daily sunspot number of 76 at 1905 UTC.

]]>

Comments on: Why Neutrinos Aren’t “Real”

By: Robert Crowley

By: James Carlson