Untitled Document

There is something wrong with this statement:~ it leaves the human soul out of the equation ~

~ " there are at least half a dozen mechanisms that could be responsible: thermal Bremstrahlung or optical excitation, electrostatic phenomena, etc. It most likely is due to thermal excitation of one or more specific emission mechanisms. Furthermore, Sonoluminescence is pretty much spherically symmetric. The bubble collapses to diameters comparable to the wavelength of light, and this has been recognized when people have tried to understand the emission mechanism."

I wrote:

"On the hypothetical subject of synchronous sonoluminescence: Whilst I understand that it is generally bad practice to make assumptions in scientific practice (and I am not in any way a qualified scientist), it has occurred to me that a specific point in the hypothetical study of sonoluminescennce may have been missed - at least, I have not seen it discussed anywhere in the many relevant web pages on the internet. I would be grateful for your analysis of the following logic:

Any single bubble collapse, since it involves the generation of light, must involve an electromagnetic pulse (through a jump of state?). Therefore if two events occur at precisely the same time, then in the direction described by the two position / events, a wavelength is illustrated.

Same as any EM radiation, that would infer a frequency by simple light-speed equation. If we consider the case for just two such events (assuming that it were possible to generate them), then the propagation of that frequency / wavelength would also be extremely (if not perfectly) directional.

The resultant (directional) E.M. pulsing could thus be represented:

<<<<<< <<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>

<<<<<< in this vector:>>>>>>>

Now you tell me; am I losing my...

"The Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us that no two events ever happen at precisely the same time?"