Scientists say the Uncertainty Principle is simply a case of not being able to take two measurements at the same time. Brian Cox called anyone who thought differently a "purveyor of tripe" and many other orthodox positivists would say the same.

If you really think the fact that we are all unique, every grain of sand and snowflake is unique but it can't have anything to do with Uncertainty, I'd venture to say you were wrong, and Heisenberg might even agree. 

Image credit: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-multiverses-measure-problem-20141103/

​Electrons are fuzzy things, not pinpointable because they don't really live like that - they zing their way round and through several dimensions at once and somehow land up here long enough to fend off the pesky Positrons. So not being able to pin down an electron, which is where this whole uncertainty-principle thing first started, is one thing. Not being able to pin down anything at all is more like it.
​

Time - there's another thing on our side, with the Past and Future waves of Advance and Retard crashing into the Present at the same time and hey, suddenly it makes sense that we're crazy and stupid and clever and thoughtful all at the same time, because we are waking up to the Now and what we can do with it, which is somewhere our species hasn't really been before. At least not in our living memory. Behind this beautiful bubble formation you'll find Quanta Magazine saying much the same thing as I am here, so nothing new under the sun, but at least we're talking, and walking at the same time sometimes too....

What if we, like the electron, are buzzing in and out of Multiversal states all the time, without realising it? How can every thing be unique if there are not infinite proportions to choose from? And that, extrapolated into our neural framework, means that we are freer to choose or not to choose than we were before, because knowing that both are necessary for our movement through Time allows us the pleasure of appreciation, the feeling of what it is to be happy with yourself, instead of beating ourselves up and crashing back into the pan of Past/Future Anxiety where everything loses its own plot. ​

There's talk about ever-decreasing circles when things get worse on repetition; they made a TV show about it in the Eighties. Does that mean our discourse follows ever-increasing circles when things get better? I've had a few scenarios shadow me through life that I'm clearly supposed to learn from, and right now I'm studying geometry in the context of application to such things as sunflowers.
The Fibonacci sequence, being what you'd call 'irrational', is there in nature at every turn, from shells to pine cones, with the ratio between the numbers of the sequence being known as the Golden Ratio, being represented by the Greek letter Phi, and being everywhere we look. 

On the trail of evidence for natural geometry, it came to my attention on looking for examples of irrational numbers that (coincidentally or otherwise) Schroedinger's Wave Equation is also represented by the Greek letter Phi; in Comments to the link attached, you'll find Jonathan noting that It is commonly believed that waves make up the sub-atomic particles which may be the reason why Schroedinger (or someone) chose it to apply to quantum field theory. However, as evidenced by the Wiki entry here on what's called the 'Schroedinger functional', anything that doesn't readily lend itself to renormalisation is still finding it hard to be fashionable.

Schroedinger devoted himself largely to causality and chance (or lack of it) in natural law, and a comprehensive precis of his thought process can be read here. His dwelling on such matters led him to create a wave equation which smoothly evolves through time, just as the Fibonacci sequence smoothly evolves the growth and development of natural things like thistles, roses, and spiral galaxies. The unpopularity of Schroedinger's wave equation in preference to something that can be algebraically calculated in avoidance of those pesky infinities (noting that in Wiki's Fock space definition the author doesn't even mention Schroedinger) says a lot about the mind set still prevalent in quantum mechanical fields, and not a lot about the logic of applying schemes universally adopted by Nature to the quantum paradoxes pondered upon by Man. Men, then. Usually, anyway.

What does this mean for us? That depends on your intuitive relationship with coincidence, or any leaning you have towards synchronicity being circumstantial evidence for powers greater than our own. Fibonacci, Schroedinger and other minds of historical note have been pondering and surmising on the underlying laws of nature for a long time now, and with quantum mechanics at the front of our potentials for New Physics, there's no time like the present for linking the facts as they stand with the fortunes inherent in our own world-line. Time is in reality a far cry from the lineage of onward-marching arrows we mistook for something other than entropy - the wave form we ride may well perpetuate in resonance to the Fibonacci sequence and be dancing merrily to Schroedinger's tune. Would this make sense of life's events coming back to haunt us from time to time? Could it be that what we are given (to experience) and what we learn as a result are in keeping with a pattern at the baseline of creation? For it seems to me that every time we dovetail a piece of life's puzzle with a quantum mechanical principle, we come up with freedoms of infinite probability and an allowance in the small print to accept things as they are, no need to struggle against What Is. Life is hard enough without taking the full weight of its variables on our own shoulders. Some things, they say, are meant to be. Why stop at Some, when the irrationality of All is so evidently preferred by Nature?

Bias being a tendency to shift current in a certain direction electronically, or for fabric to lie in a certain way haberdasherally, in terms of human relations it's described by the online dictionary as, "inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair." An overview of bias and how it becomes embedded lies behind the picture looking suspiciously like a Fibonnaci spiral.
When it comes to science, and quantum physics in particular, we have a situation wherein one group of people (those who write and understand equations, let's call them the EQ) are biased against another group of people (those who neither write nor understand equations, the Non-EQ) resulting in a seemingly unfair tendency for the EQ to dismiss the thought processes and ideas of the Non-EQ based on inability to do maths. As someone who only knows their native language might find themselves dismissed by someone who doesn't speak it. Bias can produce dark dangers of its own.

The EQ argument goes that an argument must be logical, empirical, and mathematically sound before it can even be a point worth making. Logic is mathematical, logic circuitry methodical, as in semiconductors. Now that quantum computers have flown into orbit, classical logic gates now have quantum counterparts, only a quantum logic gate is not restricted to 1 or 0, but has free rein in superposition, and a quantum computer can even produce entangled states. Reading a popular entry on their measurement, the author says that, "This type of value-assignment in theory occurs instantaneously over any distance and this has as of 2018 been experimentally verified for distances of up to 1200 kilometers.[8][9] That the phenomena appears to violate the speed of light is called the EPR paradox and it is an open question in physics how to resolve this. Originally it was solved by giving up the assumption of local realism, but other interpretations have also emerged." 

Other interpretations? Follow the link and you will find it most elucidating, citing as it does seven challenges to scientific interpretation of quantum mechanics, boiling down to the fact that you can't really measure the immeasurable. Oxford Physics lab is making a fair feast of efforts in researching new technologies, though, as linked behind their picture. But we still find that, fundamentally, mathematics doesn't cut it when it comes to quanta, for the world as seen from a quantum perspective doesn't conform to classical physics, and never has, which is why it's always been a problem that can never go away.

Seasons don't go away either. As we get older, we see more patterns in the changing year, we know when a season comes early or late, we sense the shift from summer to autumn, winter to spring. We observe environmental alterations, such as loss of wildlife and climactic warming. We don't need to apply these things to mathematical formulas to know and accept that they are there. So why is the bedrock of our existence so apparently dependent on calculus for its definition?

"There's nothing logical about magic," someone recently said to me. Yet the odds against our lives existing at all are somewhat other-worldly, and not just in the probability of being resident in a Goldilocks Zone. The chance of a universe setting up its construct to support life as we know it in the first place is apparently unfathomably unlikely. Logically we could argue that it's illogical that we are here. But the earthbound mind that cannot bring down an ethereal argument into an empirical formula collapses its packet into What Is, to question it not, or at least no further than necessary in order to make the maths work. Infinity will always be a problem underpinning quantum processes, which is why an EQ has to resort to renormalisation as frowned at by Feynman, who called it "dippy", even though his diagrams are all over it, and if you want to know about renormalisation this insight from Physics Forums as probably as good as it gets.

With issues like infinity, non-local entanglement (which laughs at the 'constant' of light speed), uncertainty (preventing true measurements of anything on the move), and superposition (the two [or more, depending on how finite things are] states that anything is in at any given time) struggling with duality (you're made of particles right now, but aren't you a wave form when you're not looking?)... well, the constraints on which maths so fervently relies don't look very solid from where I'm standing. I don't have the answers, I just think about this stuff, a lot... as you can tell, it's been a few years now and the bias against free thought is still rigorously maintained, its only defence seemingly being as someone commented at me, "there's no language other than math," not that such an argument sounds very logical, but then, am I missing something?

Entanglement is no new kid on the block but it hasn't said much yet, other than through Einstein. LiveScience gives the run-down behind the spooky image here.
The trouble with this phenomenon is that it doesn't have a relationship with time. Entanglement is an instantaneous, simultaneous response to stimuli shared between two particles (or two bodies of material, for it's being shown to occur in larger things than first thought) irrespective of distance. And that causes a few headaches with the equations.

Last month the first-ever photograph of an entangled photon pair was promoted as a herald to new types of technology. You can read the review from Science Alert behind the picture of said pair.
​The big question is, how does anything get entangled in the first place? Is there a definitive point at which things are entangled, or is it a case, being devoid of any conditional time measurement, that entanglement occurs in advance of its physical evidence? Are these photons (and all other entangled things) destined to be cleaved together and subsequently find each other so paired? Could entanglement, per se, be a real-life physics love story? This is not such a stupid question. For people get entangled just as particles do. Love can lead us a merry dance for a lifetime, and when it does, there's nothing you can do about it.

When you've experienced entanglement.... you know when you've been Tangled. A study on the effects of consciousness applied to entanglement is previewed behind this beautiful image of tangled balance. On the understanding that the phenomenon is not confined to subatomics, but applies on the grander scale of Everything, the job at hand would seem to be to get the symmetry of our entanglements right, which is a bit of a tough call when you consider the flotsam our minds have to deal with in everyday living. Photons might not have much to think about in the course of their lives, but they live beyond time, without considering matters of constraint, and they continually give themselves up and pull themselves back to freedom in their eternal dance with electrons. Is that so very different from the relationships we have with those people to whom we would consider ourselves most entangled? Probably not. The matter of life after matter is another topic for hot debate, but  photons can speak for themselves. 

Personally I don't see the Entanglement conundrum going underground any time soon. In fact we could be right on the cusp of New Physics, a revolutionary era mooted by the latest generation of scientific thinkers who are quietly considering the implications of oscillation as we speak. While academics seek holy grails among darknesses in the universal soup, entanglement could come to mean more than the sum of spacetime. It could mean the beginning of the end for the Standard Model. About time too.

Much is being made of Time at the moment, as the idea of retrocausality takes hold and quantum computers take steps closer to reality. Those now-familiar Advanced and Retarded waves are crashing together in a sea of Presents while we bob along our personal time tunnel blind to the future, tied to the past, doing our best to make life work. Meanwhile, science hears calls to relax its grip on the oars of positivism, the swell of social tide lending weight to the metaphysical in time for religion and politics to reveal certain unpalatable truths.

This era, the likes of which have not been seen in our lifetime, stands to carve the last of our testaments on the planet, for Fermi's Paradox has caught us up. Money has us cornered and there is nowhere to run, save into its clutches or away from civilization, as a hunted animal must face its fate or disappear from its tormentors.  

Personally I've just had a run-in with Time - read about it here. This experience adds to the stack of events on my world line demonstrating metaphysics first-hand, and I'll not be alone among the myriad of people caught by similar happenstance, some of whom report their encounters on social media while most in probability keep it to themselves. Clarion or sentinel, the feeling grows that we're on the edge, something has to break and we are part of that something, waiting, watching, longing to dance, fearing the fall but knowing we're going anyway, maybe to be the last of our kind.

"Now a new revolution is on the verge of answering that question, based on insights from the other great physics surprise of the last century: quantum mechanics. Today’s revolution offers the potential for yet another rewrite of space-time’s résumé, with the bonus of perhaps explaining why quantum mechanics seems so weird." quantum mechanics seems so Read the full story where the world falls into a black hole.

When you thought Time couldn't get any weirder beyond the idea of past and future co-existing and imparting equal influence on the present, you now have to consider entangled time, where the presents of aeons long past are meeting those existing now, time after time, if you like, a swathe of light cones promising that, just as suspected, everything under the sun has been done; we relive a turmoil of past and futures no market could ever hope to harvest. 

Behind the man walking the invisible bridge you'll find more elucudation on entangled time. Fair enough, methinks, that spooky actions at a distance should prove as omnipotent as the Uncertainty Principle, waving from the rafters where none have gone before save those who've already crossed the great divide - colonists not remotely concerned with the Kardashev scale who've already made the jump to zero-point would know better than to interfere with the likes of us. We're still busy crossing the sea of Time as we know it, from life as we know it to something else, something more or something less, a classic case of relativity in juxtaposition.

Independence in the Universe is eloquently captured by this Royal Society article whose author has entangled the nature of non-locality with our relative position in spacetime. We're alone in our motion through systems of life, even if the fusion of quantum-mechanical states ensures we're all in this together. We have to work hard to get our own handle on our version of What Is with the tools at our disposal, reliant on science to hand us the subtle knives sharp and ready for use, as essential staff would serve the surgeon while he works, oblivious of the moral implications, on a detail salvaging more than the sum of the parts on which he operates. The collective seeks a positive outcome, as the surgeon seeks to save life, and there is no going back to the innocent oblivion from whence we came, there is only the certainty of entropy to insist we stay true to the forward track. I'll join you there - love you being here, for we are legion if there is only one of us.

​Fermi's Paradox suggests the death of civilizations is a commonplace event. There are no civilizations left alive in the Local Fluff close enough for us to find or communicate with, but there are probably billions gone before in their Goldilocks Zones, and billions to come ad infinitum. We're still wondering about the infinity of the Universe and we might well wonder forever more. 

Fermi's contribution to the world of quantum mechanics is vast, but his input to the paradox bearing his name is slight. It's said that he engaged in a conversation in the summer of 1950. Michael Hart put the idea to paper in 1975 that civilizations reach a point of singularity wherein they self-destruct, so the chances of two civilizations of similar technological advancement existing in the same galactic neighbourhood are too slim to be potentially possible.

We can clearly see we're careering towards such a singularity, ourselves, on this planet - the unstoppable race towards Doomsday not slowing up any time soon, about to cross the inescapable line with you and me as bystanders, watching it happen in slow motion, like the spagettification of a lifetime into the last dense drop of quark-gluon plasma a Singularity has to become before... before the laws of physics break down and we don't know what happens next.

Yet he has no advantage in pulling the stops on the system of self-destruct, because we are effectively in our own black hole in spacetime, from a ‘consciousness' point of view - there will be little left of what we know when that point is reached. Meantime, we've got to go through spaghettification which could mean anything to us in relative terms, since inside the event horizon time passes just the same as it always has, relatively speaking. Only the observer sees you locked in a warp of infinity. The same infinity that scientists try all the time to get rid of. Anyone noticed time speeding up?

Here we are then, merry observant spaghettifees watching renormalised disaster strike from all sides and helpless to do anything about it. Except think. We can think all we want, intelligent beings that can comprehend a Universe. Think ourselves into being a bit more double-slit, where choices are made in advance of probability and wave forms can take you for a different kind of ride. ​​

A physi-activist declared I didn't understand quantum physics but was prepared to twist it toward what he called my 'confirmation bias'. I quoted Feynman's "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't" line, and gave a link to LiveScience where scientists disagree over what quantum mechanics even means! The activist then pronounced himself thus (without bleeps):
"as a physicist, I f*king know what quantum theory is, it is you that don't. When we joke about not knowing,, it is our joke. Our joke is not your proof."    
Behind the picture, a link describes how a plasma ball works

I'm shamelessly using this incident as an introduction to a post on Parity Violation, and will seamlessly weave in references to intolerance as they arise in application of key-to-screen.

Linked to the indeterminable equation here, you'll find explained that certain types of interaction seem to be common and others forbidden. Laying down the law is fine when you're conserving numbers in leptons and baryons, but actual life and death (decay) of a particle with mass leaves it subject to options, thus uncertainties (not mentioned). The 'totalitarian principle' blanket-assumes that every process that is not forbidden must occur, while processes that are forbidden also occur - a lot of those due to interface with the weak force involving the W particle. Strange things can happen with strange quarks in weak interaction.

Now I've been making noises for a long time about quarks and neutrinos interacting. At SQM2019 (the write-up is in the main menu), two variant hypotheses were put to me, one being that the quark sector does not engage with the weak force, and the other being that quarks are subject to weak-force interference. One is right, the other is wrong. As regards parity violation, quarks are all over it, but specific references as to which quarks do what are notable by absence, because it's not the kind of thing you can see happening for real, it's something you have to assume, and assumption, especially in physics, is dangerous...

...the kind of anomaly that happens when physicists dismiss (with bared teeth) observations and indications from people with no formal training in equations. Understanding the math or not understanding the math doesn't negate our being atomic, composed of quarks. Scientists insist we only contain Up and Down quarks, yet that violates a flow of quark oscillation, and such a limit discounts any interface a body of matter could have with the weak force. In the equation 'dimensionless' appears - that absence of dimension relates directly to energy (e).
​

Linked behind this picture of a colliding gold atom is a story from the RHIC.... the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven. In 2005, a team seeking to recreate early-universe versions of quark-gluon plasma found that the state of matter they produced was more like a liquid, in which quarks and gluons move together exhibiting a fluid motion that is "nearly perfect - meaning its viscosity is close to zero, or friction-free." This 'highly coordinated manner' of movement harks to the system in our brains, where coherent water moves in a similar way through microtubules. Scientists (in other fields) have found quantum processes at work in there, but of course, one could always say that was a different science. Anyone can cite differences to excuse lack of tolerance to another way of thinking. 
​

Renormalisation is one of my pet hates. Mathematicians need it to get rid of infinities. My view is that if infinities arise in the equation, there's something to be said for them, and they should be respected rather than refused a place in the schematics of scientific enquiry. Parity violation is simply the refusal of particles to behave as mathematicians think they should, and the more evidence coming to light for violation, the happier I am, for eventually it's going to come down to nature versus nodal systems, the points of intersecting interest science-to-science, and those findings that break the Standard Model are not going to come easily against a tide of intolerant activists fiercely protecting their Principles like tormented dragons over mountains of treasure stolen and claimed, but never theirs to own. Dogspangling, as it were.

We are very small entities on a little planet you couldn't see very easily from outside the solar system, but you'd see our Sun as a star from light years away. You and I, we can't be seen from just a few hundred feet into the sky. With this in mind, we can relate to those sub-microscopic entities much smaller than us as we are relatively much smaller than the Sun.

The quantum world behaves in alarming ways, sometimes defying the laws of Physics to produce weird effects like non-locality (connected events that happen simultaneously regardless of distance) and wave-particle duality (everything at the quantum level being simultaneously a wave and a particle). Uncertainty is a factor we have to handle all the time. We live with these effects. Whether or not the scientists want to admit as much, we subscribe to quantum laws because we are made of the stuff that works with them. The more we know, the better equipped we are to make the most of our experiences.

Since Quantumology was published in 2014, other applications of the word have materialised - there's even a Church (nothing to do with me!). There's a band, and a company of undefined purpose. And here is a scientist's definition of Quantumology, describing (in science-speak) the laws above in his own post (published two years after this website came into being). Scientists aren't going to mention me in dispatches if they can possibly help it. But yup, on the trail of Quantumology you've arrived at the point of origin.

Should you feel like crying Woo I'll remind the dogspanglers that nobody knows what goes on inside a black hole, because the known laws of physics break down beyond the event horizon and we've no idea what happens at the singularity. By the same token, we could all be said to be our own Singularity. You don't have to understand the mathematical equations to know that we are alive, conscious, and made of quarks.

Physics and metaphysics...? The science is already here. Quantumology is the bridge over the bits you might want to know about, even if you're not into physics.  You can buy the book direct from me (£9.99 plus P&P via PayPal). Send an email to quantumologist@gmail.com. Or click on the picture and follow the link to Amazon.

Roger Penrose is very much alive, and his name in scientific circles is well known. Gregory Matloff may not be so famous, but his collaboration with Bernard Haisch produced a paper of some interest to Penrose. A paper that questions the reason why cooler stars like our Sun move through the galaxy faster than hotter ones, a strange velocity differential known as Parenago's Discontinuity. The rate at which these stars travel round their galaxies is so constant that their speed cannot be attributed to gaseous accretion, or any interaction with cosmic materials, because as Matloff puts it;

"If it were a matter of interacting with gas clouds, as is the current theory, each cloud should have a different chemical makeup, and so cause the star to operate differently. So why do all of them act in exactly the same way?"  

Penrose has long been an advocate of quantum consciousness and proposed in the 1990s that processes in the synapses of the brain suggest consciousness exists at the quantum level. And this is enough of a green light to other physicists who feel that the exploration of quantum consciousness could pave the way for dramatic developments in mental health and personal management systems, things of great value to scientists and non-scientists alike, if only they'd step over the paradigms enforced by physicists who guard the gates of science forums and attack anything they could personally constitute as Woo.

Photons, electrons, atoms and molecules fired at a double slit all perform in the same way - as a wave. The interference pattern on the back plate is the same no matter which version of material you use. Behind the link on this subject you'll find the question mooted, are these particles making a conscious decision? And thus the eyebrow rises -  could this phenomenon correlate, in its strange uniformity, with the findings behind Parenago's Discontinuity? Our minds are fragile, subject to forces of which we know nothing at all. Many are driven to despair and even suicide by seemingly irrational views of their world, filled with hopelessness and loneliness, torment and distress. Could this not, given the syntax of language adopted for all English purposes, lend itself to contention for Dark Matter (closely aligned to, if not in superposition with, Dark Energy)?

Universal consciousness is no new kid on the block. The pioneers of quantum mechanics have been quoted profusely in  begging questions of conscious processes at work.
"The reality we can put into words is never reality itself."  Werner Heisenberg
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”   Erwin Schroedinger
"Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it."  Max Planck
"The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far."  Neils Bohr
"I am convinced that theoretical physics is actual philosophy. It has revolutionized fundamental concepts, e.g., about space and time (relativity), about causality (quantum theory), and about substance and matter (atomistics), and it has taught us new methods of thinking (complementarity) which are applicable far beyond physics."  Max Born
"Concern for man and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations."   Albert Einstein

Einstein and the other famous names of the 1930s 'ground-break' era had a lot more to say on matters esoteric than there is room for quoting here. They harboured a healthy respect for depths of reason beyond the known, the states and spaces where science has no answers, the fields of existence hinted at and partially unveiled by quantum mechanics. Do you imagine I came to write these blogs through a life-long fascination for physics? Couldn't be further from the truth. Were I to tell the story, you would not believe me, and were I to hint at it, you could discard all or any tenuous threads of reason to consider that the concepts within them matter at all. But they do - as the consensus above would have it. For these matters are deep, and their colour is dark, unless there are photons or positrons and annihilation, in which case the destructive creational process may be related to our states of mind, and if so, we can barter with the Universe for our energetic rations, and create environments for ourselves in which those elements we need for mental welfare may exist.

Sometimes, you know, I come to write these posts wondering if it's worth it, whether my thoughts have any value in the great scheme of things, and how much might or might not come of my efforts to contribute to the way things are. Do you feel like that too, about the things you do in life? Do you wonder if it's worth it in the end?

Last time, it was about Syntropy (please check out the DotOrg version as it earned itself way more likes!), having got rather excited about a principle that vied with Entropy as an absolute. You know me, ever looking for a boot to put into a Constraint.

Syntropy covered all bases (not letting those clocks get the better of us), and struck a few blinders at the same time, like allowing us a future we can value in safety. If we can't extrapolate the principles of physics to the human condition, what's the point of understanding them? The thing about physics, its devotees and its woo, is that once you've got a physical system bending to the will of quantum laws, you've got a system poking through the brane of metaphysics, and that's something even Einstein had to swallow in the end.

When, exactly, do we run out of time? If there should be a deadline, there'll be other things to do if it's not met. Unless of course we actually die, in which case it's a bit final (at least from the physical point of view). Meanwhile, on the subject of value, how's that balance coming along?
"What balance?"
The one you're striving for, the work-life balance, the balance of power, equality in the relationship?
"What's physics got to do with relationships?"
Oh boy. Had I the time.....

Well, right now it's coming up to five in the morning and I got out of bed specially to do this, with the first line in my head and an insistence pressing in from somewhere else that the rest will take care of itself. All I have to do is show up.
​
There's no getting away from it, balance holds sway over pretty much everything, even Nature. Take 'spin' - you don't have a particle spinning one way without another spinning in the opposite direction, probably its anti-particle, which would put them in the same place at the same time. What about CP violation? Depends how you look at it. QCD doesn't suffer from any violation problems but that could be due to the chromodynamic part, surely, just as looking at chromosomes led to the belief that 95% of our DNA was 'junk'. The lovely thing about this particular problem is the absence of regard to the oscillation factor. "The reason why such a complex phase causes CP violation is not immediately obvious," but hey, you've got sets of three to deal with here. Three generations of quarks, three flavours of neutrino. And there's your relationship - the sedentary quark and the flying neutrino, oscillating together, and don't even get me started on leptons.

The yin-yang of physics, epitomised by SUSY, anticipating the next generation of thought-waves to come along and break it, leaves a lot to the imagination. Which is where it all came from in the first place - no Nobel without an idea. The wonderful thing about Time is that it travels in both directions at once, so it shouldn't be hard to let go of What Was in catching the What's To Be which becomes What Was faster than you can swing a bat......

There's value in thinking, isn't there, when the thoughts are positively contributing to something positive. Not that I'm ever going to appeal to the Positivist, at all, in the slightest, nor would want to. Loving the tricks of the light does demand some appreciation of the dark, and I know that plenty of people out there with technical, scientific minds are stretching the boundary constraints because let's face it, we can't help what's happening to the world out there unless we do something drastic from within ourselves. Violation is out there. What better place to start?