In reply to MarkI-ZeroPoint's message of Wed, 14 May 2014 21:06:43 -0700: Hi Mark, [snip] >I beg to differ, Robin... >Nature does have a preference... resonances/harmonics. >A channel's probability is a function of how well the oscillations are >matched.
Actually, you are not disagreeing. ;) You are talking about something else. I was talking about outcomes based on probabilities, while you are talking about what influences the probabilities. The two are not in conflict. In short, I was talking about what comes out, while you are talking about how it goes in. > >-mark > >-----Original Message----- >From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] >Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:55 PM >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer > >In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 14 May 2014 09:04:35 -0700: >Hi, >[snip] >>Since nature prefers the simplest way - which is via radiation, any >>mention of exclusivity presents an almost insurmountable problem, >>especially if there is no model in standard nuclear physics. > >Actually nature has no preference. Each channel occurs with its own >probability. >The channel that will happen most often is the channel with the highest >probability (i.e. the shortest half life). > >Since particle emission has a much higher probability than gamma emission, >it happens far more frequently, when it is possible. > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk > >http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
