I don't think concept of entanglement is required. Here is what I mean by "complete". An entity is complete when its presence *can* be detected (not that it must detected).
Unlike other particles Neutrinos do not scatter, as far I know. A particle which can be scattered can be detected without destruction, so it is complete without destruction. If Neutrinos are more than just mathematical fictions, but cannot be scattered, then they remain incomplete until they are detroyed during an interaction. Harry On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > That is an interesting comment Harry. Are you suggesting that the neutrino > is entangled with an electron other than the one released at the time of the > decay? >The oscillation between flavors of neutrinos makes that seem strange > as it would require the end receptor to change with distance and thus time. > Is the release of a neutrino significantly different than the release of a > gamma ray regarding energy escape from a nucleus? > > Please explain what you mean by the statement that they remain incomplete > until they interact. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 12:48 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... > > With respect to neutrinos and beta decay, CoE may be a possibility > rather than a necessity. > Neutrinos would be regarded as incomplete entities at the moment of > their creation. They remain incomplete until they are destroyed during > a subsequent interaction. As long as they never interact, they remain > incomplete and CoE remains only a possibility rather than a necessity. > > Harry > > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is >>> impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my >>> mind. >> >> >> I don't know about the "not a scientist" part, but I personally have no >> profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: >> >> Eout - Ein = 0 >> >> What if, instead, it were really: >> >> Eout - Ein = k >> >> for very small k, or, more interestingly, >> >> Eout - Ein = f(t) >> >> for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. >> >> Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, >> so >> I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. >> Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic >> radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the >> books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. >> >> My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR >> reaction >> involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that >> difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics >> was getting in the way. >> >> Eric >> >
