[Lloyd Gillespie]

HBD, please check out this link: http://www.ltn.lv/~elefzaze/ by Alexander Zarzerskiy, a mathematical physicist from Latvia. He has completed a kinematic model of the electron. And also check out Tony Stanton's new post, which inter-relates: http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-toe-theory/2320-
theory-three-dimensional-spacetime.html#post25768 Please let me know what you think, especially of Alexander's mathematics of the electron...

Regards,
Lloyd

Originally Posted by humanbydefault The discovery of the existence of a quantum has revolutionized the way physics had been "operating" for centuries. Still today we find ourselves trying to put all those pieces together in one COMPLETE picture. That is the case with the concept of ENTANGLEMENT. When are we in the presence of such physical STATE (as I call it) and how many "faces" does it have? To answer that question we have to "jump back" in time and remember what Plank saw in his experiment. A quatum is more than just a "chunk of energy" moving on the vacuum. It is also a LEGITIMATE magnitude of energy ALLOWED to be "considered itself" STABLE. It is its inherent stability and its internal rejection to be taken apart in random pieces that make it LEGITIMATE in a literal sense. Some recent discoverings in the field of neutrinos have given us a clue about how a quantum (one that we have considered to be a mass-less one in the past) was actually "oscillating" into different existences as it propagates in space. Some smart physicists are not willing to back up the Standard Model anymore as the "final truth" (the way Bohr used to call it) closing the chapter of matter. Some members of this forum (including myself) have been proposing interesting ideas to allow us to piece those new observations together into both a LOGICAL and COHERENT picture of our physical REALITY. One of those ideas I have propossed has to do with entanglement too. Imagine that a legitimate quantum could (as in fact has) be made to SPLIT in ITS COMPONENTS>>> Assuming that the same phenomenon observed with neutrinos might be repeating its pattern in other more complex "particles." The EPR experiment was unable to solve the puzzle of why if one "particle" was having an "up spin" when it was scatterred the other simply wasn't willing to keep the opposite spin "down" at the moment of collapse and everybody happy...! I invite you to use the analogy presented in my previous post (look on top of this one for details). Two COILS made to disentangled themselves from a common path and forced to move at 180 degrees angle from each other. Since Plank demonstrated that a quantum is a quantum because it can't be divided into other pieces at our convenience what would be the logical solution to a collpased entanglement? The interesting POINT I want to call for your attention is the SPIN factor. We have proposed that a quantum could be the result of two waves in a mutual interference (constructive and destructive) right? The PROBLEM that arises from that hypothesis is that both waves may not be equal in its energy content>> One of the coil may SPIN faster than the other as the result of its higher energy... as the case with the case of the "green photon and the blue one" back in the past in the earlier experiment using a mercury lamp... remeber that? The point is that since the SPIN VELOCITY (of each waves) bears a NON-LINEAR relationship with respect to each other there is no way to predict with entire certainty what will be the state of the SPIN and the angle of its path at the moment of collapse (!) I believe that it will take a full knowledge of the relationship between those two waves before we would be able to answer why the EPR experiment concluded with a disaster for Einstein and his team of scientists. It is imperative to understand the implications derived from the actual DISTANCE taken by the wave that "got away" in the analysis of its final angle observed during the collapse. If I was right in assuming that with the net difference of frequency (energy) (even both waves moving at the speed of light from each other) THEN the final POSITION [the one we are allowed to observe it] will be set by a non-linear analysis. HUMANBYDEFAULT