About waves and resonances:

Leafing through a copy of "Enzyme Physics", Vol'Kenshtein, 1967,
translated from the Russian, Plenum Press, there's a mention of
Schnol in the chaper "Macromolecular Properties of Enzymes"
and this:

'[Schnol] suggested that the protein conformation varies, a process
accompanied by a change in the hydrophilic-hydrophobic properties
of the globule surface, which causes rearrangement of the water
structure. The ''hydrophilic-hydrophobic waves'' propagating in
the water cause coupling of the molecular vibrations and result
in their becoming synchronized throughout the entire solution
volume. The vibrations must have acoustic frequencies. These
results, although still partial, may be correlated with the drop
module of the globule. Another conceivable mechanism of
vibration - energy accumulation in the enzyme-substrate complex
is based on consideration of optical vibrations with frequencies
in the infrared region rather than acoustic vibrations. We will
proceed from the theory of thermal unimolecular decomposition.
Let us imagine a chemical bond incorporated into a complex system
of other bonds. The system as a whole undergoes thermal fluctuations.
There is a finite probability that energy sufficient for rupture will
accumulate at a given bond. This process is obviously impossible
for an isolated bond. It would appear that complexing of the
substrate and the enzyme can make it possible for energy to
accumulate at the substrate bonds."

Vol'Kenshtein notes "This notion is very attractive, but, unfortunately,
erroneous. [...]. The average vibration frequency in the enzyme-
substrate complex cannot differ materially from the vibration frequency
of the bonds in the substrate molecule."

Later, though, "According to Schnol, it is possible to detect
synchronous acoustic oscillations of protein molecules in
aqueous solution. "

"The oscillation interaction produces resonance and frequency
splitting. Attachment of a substrate to one globule throws it
out of resonance. Attachment of this same substrate to an
adjacent globule restores the resonance, but at different frequencies.
Let us evaluate the corresponding changes in free energy. [....]"

Here the point is about resonances and the macromolecular,
here in relation to the wave and wavefront of wave transport.

"Let us clarify the conditions under which this relationship
is satisfied."

For some people, it's important to have uncertainty and
multiple-worlds so that they aren't convinced they have
no free will, or that their future is decided by "fate".
For others free will is essentially an admission of
limits of knowledge and that free will effectively exists.
(I.e. free will can't be disproven.)

I.e., vis-a-vis Einstein's "G-d does not play dice",
which is his usual reference to the rejection of
non-causality,
besides whether a
non-continuous and not
at least quasi-Euclidean space-time
is only hypothetical,
"G-d rolled one die, once, and it's still rolling".

There are many restitutive besides entropic
organizations in systems as effectively establish "fate".

Eg, Newton's objects stay in motion (or, rest),
besides that according to particle-wave duality
they also resonate.

Who censors the cosmic censors?

Isn't it simpler that there's deterministic mechanism?

Radioactive isotopes eventually decay,
to, stabler isotopes,
in deep space in a vacuum.

(There's an ongoing consideration that
terrene iron Fe sits in the middle of
radioactive stability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_iron )

That is, radioactive isotopes in neutron bombardment
often transmute to elements with higher atomic weight,
but, such high energy neutron bombardment is not
a usual condition in deep space in a vacuum, where there
are effectively no contributions to the field effects from
any other system.

Here unstable or transient particles besides, a.k.a.
"exotic" "particles", are part of the states of systems
that have these intermediate particles as what are
the decay products of high-energy reactions, as
they are, for their natural tendency to equilibriate
(to lower energy states as what energetic states
have a tendency to change, then for naturally the
symmetric and restitutive reaction for stability).

In particle theory everything's a particle.
Transition states over time have them be
one particle or another.

When talking about single-valued results
(eg at the detector)
in multi-valued systems
(eg, over and past the particle's sum-of-histories in its transport as a wave),
the methods to arrive at single-valued results
are usually very effective and sound in the
resulting match of measurement to expectation.

Decay of un-stable particles is be-cause they're un-stable.

(This is a usual principle of least action,
that stable particles are stable.)

In no way ever does any real thing ever "violate causality".

I.e., if it really seems to: there theory would be
one of the varieties of "wrong" (of "the" laws of physics,
constant, consistent, complete, and concrete).

Causality is built into the scientific method,
with falsifiability as about theory's cause.

Of course, any theory has that, of hypothetical
theories, there are other theories where what it
has so: are not so. The suitability of "a theory" for
science with reproducibility has that
breaking the theory is breaking the theory (or model).

I'll certainly agree that "hidden variables" are implicit
in probabilistic theories with random variables and
unknown distributions.

(I.e., that's rather the point.)

The central limit theorem is a usual result about that
the sums of random variables with unknown distributions
works up to kind-a look like a Bell curve.

Functions of random variables are random variables,
and, random variables are functions of random variables.

"Hidden variables" are _explicit_ in probabilistic theories.

Here "fair" means conscientious, i.e.,
if a theory is internally consistent, but,
always has a deficiency given mostly all
the other consistent theories,
in the space of all the theories,
then it's deficient.

I.e., fair is fair both ways, and a scientific Golden Rule.

Bombast and demand don't work on scientists.