Delbert

Aren't plants essentially immortal? It seems one can take cuttings as many times as one likes, which are clearly all the same plant. For example a particular apple variety, whereby all the trees are cuttings from one original plant how ever many years ago - and doubtless cuttings from cuttings. In other words, the cells of plants can apparently repeatedly divide without end without suffering deterioration in the process - unlike our cells apparently do.

I don't normally comment on the R subject, but I had them knock on my door again the other day. They started off about the spirit world before moving on to what I understand them to say as God. They even mentioned the Stargazing Live prog on TV the other day (UK) and how wonderful it all is. And continued to infer the wonderfulness must have a creator. I asked what evidence they have for such a conclusion. I didn't detect anything other than them going over again the idea that because it's so wonderful there is a divine being. I replied that I was interested to realise they found Stargazing Live interesting, but also interesting that they of their kind had fought tooth and nail for about 2000 years against such findings of investigation and reason. Indeed, any others of a contrary view to theirs would likely be strapped to a pole and set alight. I recall their parting comment to be: goodbye, we're looking for people who can think.

Thanks to everyone for all the replies. But if my experience is anything to go by, then I remain with the view that a dose of whatever I had (if it wasn't the flu then it must have been a very severe cold) is a fantastic pick-me-up. As I've said, my asthma seems to have completely disappeared. An asthma which was quite debilitating at times. In fact there have been a few occasions where I was thinking I was on my last breath! But now nothing - it almost seems impossible. If the two are connected, all I can say is if you're in the relative group, then stay away from the annual flu jab.

Presumably as long as the immune system doesn't say: why am I bothering to attack dead invaders! And then a real one comes along. i.e. the cry wolf too many times consequence. The catch 22 syndrome? Surround yourself in a clean environment and don't expose yourself to nasty germs and you're likely end up weakening your immune system. Or, expose yourself and don't live in an overly clean environment. But mind you, not too unclean as it might kill you! Seems to me the trick is getting the balance right. Seem to recall catching part of a TV prog a while back where a group of obsessive individuals (something to do with obsessive disorder) would measure the dirt or bacterial level wherever they went (they had some sort of instrument). In one scene they appeared to enter a café and started screaming at the level indicated by their instrument. Their immune system probably doesn't know the difference between one of their own body cells and flu virus. And if their instrument ever stops working it seems to me they'd be going into fits.

Again as before, I think that's my understanding. As my understanding is asthma is a consequence of an over or misguided reaction of the immune system, whereby as you say a lower immune reaction would lower asthma symptoms. With the reverse with increased immune activity. But perhaps asthma is a misguided reaction rather that just overreaction. And as you say flu is doubtless dangerous for asthma sufferers, to which I confess I found breathing quite strained during my confinement. But now the asthma has gone! My conclusion is that maybe somehow the immune system has sorted itself out such that it's not firing off unnecessarily. I couldn't say, so maybe it was as you say. But as I can't ever recall being confined for 1-2 weeks with severe symptoms, or indeed simply confined for 1-2 weeks, maybe I've never ever had flu ever. Perhaps I'm not saying wilful infection, but perhaps not wilfully trying to avoid it. In particular, I understand our immune system needs to experience the environment so it can learn.

That was my assumption. Wasn't it the case that someone discovered dairymaids being immune as a consequence of being exposed to something (can't recall what it was)? Anyway, my asthma seems to have disappeared. So perhaps my infection has given it a good kicking. I was effectively bedbound for about two days. Mind you, even whilst bedbound I still had the odd poke on the computer, just to break the monotony!! But for about two days both before and afterwards (six days in total) just about struggling around. And no medication of any kind taken.

Well, the symptoms were: headache, muscle ache, shivers, lousy feeling mentally, apparent high temperature (although I never measured it), visual images of shapes and strange faces when eyes closed and food tasted like cardboard.

Having recovered from a dose of flu some two weeks ago, I can only say I feel refreshed. Refreshed and full of beans in a way as I've ever felt for some time. Indeed, for many years prior to this to this infection, I suffered quite badly from Asthma - sometimes almost unable to move and feeling like I was on my last breath! But now since having been laid up with flu the Asthma seems to have gone completely. If this is the result of a dose of flu then I can highly recommend it. From my experience all this vaccination business offered to certain groups is not only a waste of money, but detrimental to health. I'd say get yourself a dose of flu - perhaps I should find some way to bottle the stuff and offer it for sale!

Well, without the actual quote in the context of which it is mentioned, I'd suggest they're not necessarily saying it actually has both. But rather, it depending on the experiment. And I don't think that therefore means it has both. Indeed, if it has both as you suggest, are there any equations showing how the energy is shared out between the wave function and particle momentum? Although my mathematics is pretty useless, but nonetheless I would be extremely surprised if there were. I'm going to have to find time to improve my mathematics! But nonetheless, it is clear to me that a photon isn't a little ball (billiard or otherwise), which means it doesn't go about acting like a billiard ball moving and bouncing off cushions. And any attempt to analyse it as such will fail. In fact I'd suggest if it were a tiny billiard ball then we'd really have a difficult time trying to explain it! The ball or particle model is just that, simply a model to help us to understand it. But not actually being a little billiard ball, our analysis of it being so beaks down at the fundamental level. As I've said, for me it's noting more than an event. An event at the source (like my 'hit' analogy above), the energy of that event or hit is transferred through umpteen other events and reactions which eventually manifests at the source as another event. And we get this crazy idea that these two events are evidence of a thing (photon in this case) having moved from one place to another.

Sorry, it can't be both. It can't be a distributed field of whatever name and a definable object at the same time. We might say it appears to have both, but it doesn't. We doubtless say that because of history, whereby there's been scientific argument about what it is. But I don't think at any time the scientific community has said is actually both. I understand the billiard ball model of subatomic particles was a Rutherford conclusion following his experiments. Previous to that I further understand it was the plum pudding model. Little billiard balls are just a model, a convenience for our understanding. But in reality they can't be little ball bearings - little ball bearings (no matter how small) have all sorts of properties like volume, surface area, a nice spherical shape, even surface imperfections, not to mention made of something. And then there's the fact they don't exist until an electron moves from one orbit to another (again, that's how we explain or visualise its appearance). There's an event at the source, followed by an event at the destination. What happens in between is not a photon (as what we would call an identifiable object) moving from source to destination. These events are what call a photon, what happens in between is something different. And the first event followed by the second (landing) event we conclude as a photon moving from one place to another. But if we try to catch it (because we think it's a little billiard ball in flight), or detect it by whatever means during transit we create or cause an event which we construed at a photon hitting, landing or whatever. I previously offered an analogy of hitting a steel rod in reply #29 (perhaps not a very good analogy, but all I could thing of at the time). The hit was a photon and the force of the hit at the other end of the rod was a analogy of a photon at the destination. Perhaps the rod should be a large block to be more realistic. Anyway, back to the two slit job. Detection (as we would describe it) at any point in between creates two sets of events joined together. Consequently the original field is apprehended just before the two slits rendering the result of the experiment being completely different - no interference pattern. Which is what'll happen in your timing diagram - no interference pattern. Rendering your diagram irrelevant to monitoring what happens whilst forming such a pattern. But I outlined all this previously.

Sorry, if there's an interference pattern it won't be a classical particle. As I think sb635 explained, and as I tried clumsily so to a while back, any detection or reaction will collapse the distributed probability field or gauge field (or whatever one like to call it), totally changing the outcome (no interference pattern) thus rendering the situation a classical construct. And your example has at least one interaction mid journey resulting in some sort of a change of direction. The bizarre fact is if you consider that your example reveals that a photon can and does travel through a particular slit, and then, upon being followed by umpteen others one at a time, produces an interference pattern, then the only conclusion is said photon upon arriving at a slit somehow knows there's another slit close by, works out what sort of pattern might be produced should other photons follow in its footsteps and so land at an appropriate place to be part of a forthcoming formation of an interference pattern. Now I think it's safe to say that Quantum Mechanics and the behaviour of subatomic particles can behave in ways that are contrary to millions of years of human experience, but for a individual photon to be able to act in such a way seems to me to elevate credulity to the stratosphere. I'm sorry, but I think you're missing the point in your example. As said, it involves a least one interaction mid journey, and as I understand it that'll be with an atom of the slit material - you know, effectively the reverse of it's creation when being emitted from an atom in the first place. Presumably the atom then re-emits this energy in the form of another (what we call) photon which we view as continuing toward the final target. Similar if not identical to peeking and destruction of the interference pattern in the two slit experiment. There's also the question of measurement. As I think sb635 also mentioned, the possibility of being able to measure a single photon in such a way may not be within the bounds of the physics of QM and Uncertainty. In other words, it can't be done because it can't happen.

What part of your example is a kind of double slit? The only place or places to insert a double slit in your example is between the source and the mirror, or between mirror and detector.. Your example is a concatenation of pairs of events. The first being from the source to the mirror... and so on. Just like what happens when we peek at the two slit job, it destroys the result. And the situation appears to collapse into a classical path. No interference pattern for the simple reason we've concatenated two pairs of events - one from the source to were we are peeking, and the other from peeking point to detector rendering one of the two slits superfluous. Your example is similar to peeking in the two slit job, and therefore is irrelevant as an example for trying to identify what we call a photon in flight. I think what's called a photon in flight in your example is in between the source and mirror and the various other 'gaps'. Your example makes no statement or whatever about a photon in flight. As said, it is just a collection of pairs of events joined together masquerading as a single photon going from source, through or off a mirror, to one of two detectors. The two slit experiment shows us that what we call a photon isn't a little billiard ball we can plot a path for. If it were then the two slit job would be an unsolvable magic trick. A particle (as in identifiable object) cannot go through two slits at once, or for that matter go through one of two slits and yet form an interference pattern after many firings. The two slit shows as what we call a photon in flight is in fact some sort of distributed field.

Laziness.

Following an automatic update to IE 11 I found the Quote and MultiQuote functions didn't work. Upon reverting back to IE 10 they now work okay. Searching the internet it seems a not uncommon consequence of IE 11.

Sorry, still haven't investigated the 'unable to quote' problem - might be something to do with a MS browser update I receive the other day! Anyway, returning to DParlevliet's query. It seems you are doing nothing more than the equivalent to monitoring a photon at the slit of the two slit experiment. In other words your example is a sequence of events or journeys comprising whatever one likes to call how the energy travels: a gauge field, wave function or sum over histories. When the photon (calling it such for convenience), leaves the source it travels exactly like the two slit experiment without the two slits. An event then occurs at the mirror and the energy field collapses - just like a it does at the destination of the two slit job, or when we try to catch it out by observing at one slit. From there the energy is either re-radiated as what we call a photon either to another atom in the mirror (and probably umpteen atoms until we say the energy passes through), or back outside and deemed to have been reflected. It is nothing more than a sequence of events and certainly not a photon either bouncing of a mirror or passing through it. What really goes on 'in flight' is not being monitored in any way in your example. Out of the two, it's the two slit experiment that's revealing or hinting to us what really goes on 'in flight' with what we call a photon. And clearly what really goes on is not a little billiard ball bouncing around in a classical way - the interference pattern is manifest poof of that. And as said, whatever we do to try and detect, monitor peek or cause it to interact (like with a mirror) destroys the journey which collapses, completely changes the experiment, and gives us the illusion of a classical process. And as said, your example is not one transit of what we might call a photon either going one way or another as you appear to make out, but a whole sequence of events - which means it ain't even the same photon at either destination as the one that left (again calling the sequence of events a photon for the sake of convenience).

Sorry for not quoting you DParlevliet, but for some reason the quote option isn't working for me (and I haven't got time to investigate as I'm about to depart for the pub!). Anyway, as the two slit experiment clearly and absolutely reveals, when we attempt to monitor, intercept or merely peek to locate these things we call photons, it changes the result of the experiment completely. For example and quoting the two slit experiment yet again, if we observe a photon at a slit before appears to land at the detector a while later, we could say we've monitored its progress. But we clearly know that's not what happens when we don't monitor, intercept or merely peek - as manifestly evident by the resultant interference pattern. As far as I can see that clearly demonstrates your example is not how it happens. That may sound counter intuitive, but yet again, the two slit experiment shows that is the case. The two slit experiment undoubtedly shows that a photon doesn't and isn't a little ball bouncing about not unlike a billiard ball. The photon (call it such an object for convenience only) doesn't go from place to place as in your diagram. That is a human interpretation after we've changed the experiment by observing - as in the two slit experiment. The mirror is effectively a detector and re-radiator. The photon reacts with the atom or atoms of the mirror just as in a reaction when we monitor, intercept or merely peek during our attempts to discover what's going on in the two slit experiment.

I was just trying to contribute to the subject matter about particle location. And suggesting, or offering an opinion, that not only location, as we humans understand an identifiable location, is probably doubtful and certainly up for discussion, but also the possibility that what we call a photon as an identifiable object may also be doubtful and up for discussion. Because quite frankly, and certainly because of the two slit experiment if not anything else, clearly demonstrates it's not a little ball of whatever moving from place to place - and possibly not even an object at all. And if the same applies to all subatomic particles... Perhaps I'm going too far!

It seems you're stuck on this particle or wave or both business. The plain fact is it can't be both, and since it can 'appear' as either depending on what method we use to detect it, it can't be neither either. As I tried to suggest previously, what we call a photon is possibly nothing more than an event. An event at the source followed by an event at the destination. What happens in between is open to discussion, but probably some form of energy or wave distribution - gauge field is suggested. Now some might say, I can detect it at one slit (in the case of the two slit experiment), but as we know that changes the result of the experiment completely. The conclusion being that no matter how subtly we peek, watch or detect the photon, the field distribution will collapse as an event that we call detecting a photon. The field or whatever presumably then spreads back out again until another event at the detector. And because the field or whatever didn't go though both slits as a consequence of our detection, no interference pattern. Prof R. Feynman I believe described it as 'sum over histories'. Whereby the transit following the source event consists of a myriad of interactions. The thing we call a photon immediately reacts and changes into and with all sorts of other things. Presumably the conclusion is that the energy of the photon is thus spread out. I suppose one could argue that the photon, apparently being nothing more than an event at the source and destination, doesn't actually exist! Perhaps I'm choosing a not too good example or analogy, but maybe it could be viewed as hitting a steel rod with a hammer. The moment the hammer hits one end of the rod we call a photon. The energy of the hit is then spread out into the atoms of the rod and transferred to the other end, which then feels the force of the hit. The force of the hit is what we call a photon at the destination. In other words, the photon never existed as anything that could be described as an object, it was just the moment of the hits. I'm standing by to be shot down!!

Yes, and apparently when they try to detect which slit it passed with a detector immediately adjacent to a slit, the interference pattern breaks down - that is, it disappears. Presumably because it then becomes two sets of events (as I tried to outline previously). The first pair of events being from the source to the detector immediately adjacent to a slit, followed by the second pair of events with emission from the point of detection to the destination. Now you might suggest that the slit detector is not a photon emitter, and you'd be quite right. Presumably detection disturbs or collapses the process or wave distribution (gauge field or whatever) in some way, such that this event appears as a detected photon to us mortals. The process restarts effectively rendering it as a emitter to the final destination. The situation is thus completely different resulting in no interference pattern. Anyway, that's how I would express the phenomenon. Indeed, I seem to understand there is at least one video on You Tube illustrating this very paradox. It being a cartoon presentation, which is not only amusing, but presents the paradox quite well, I think ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc ). Although the 'knows it's being watched' suggestion is clearly delving into a non scientific area. But of course, it's only a paradox for us humans when we try to visualise photons as little billiard balls.

So, according to your hypothesis one knows from what atom and when a photon is emitted, and time it. Because if you don't your idea is a simply a nonstarter rendering your timing method totally impossible. I'm sorry, but I'd place my salary on you not only having no idea whatsoever about when a particular photon sets off, but more importantly not ever being able to know because when an electron moves from one energy level to another (lower) one to emit a photon, it is down to QM uncertainty rather than classical mechanics. Exactly, so where is the mechanism for producing the interference pattern in your diagram? Those particles you say we've been taking about here (I'm not) build up and produce an interference pattern. You haven't described or included any mechanism in you diagram to account for such a pattern. Again, I repeat the question in my reply #22. Describe to me how your billiard ball idea and diagram describes an interference pattern after umpteen photons have been fired. And furthermore, how the dark areas of said pattern where photons haven't hit, are then hit when one slit is covered up.

I don't agree with that hypothesis for the reasons I've already outlined. But just for arguments sake we'll assume your proposed measurements would indicate a preference or actually identify which slit. So, number one: how does lots of those (photons we'll call them) eventually produce an interference pattern? And number two: upon closing one slit we then get detection in areas that didn't detect photons when both slits were open (the dark areas of the interference pattern)? I'm sorry, but you seem to be applying classical mechanics to something that doesn't obey classical mechanics. Thanks for the info. Although my knowledge of gauge field is somewhat vacant.

"it is not know[n] how they are exactly related" and then "described as they are measured". I'm sorry, but that sounds like a glaring contradiction. Two possible tracks! So how does one reconcile: "After detection you can calculate how the photon travelled". With the 'the' presumably being the definite article. I'm sorry, but it seems to me you're trying to square the circle. I'm sorry, but you can't claim to know the dynamics of this photon as you've previously outlined if you don't even know what path it has taken. I rest my case. The plain fact of this wave/particle duality that we humans wrestle with is that it's neither nor both. It seems all we can say is that an event occurred at the source followed by an event at the destination a moment later. What happened in between cannot be assumed to be a little billiard ball called can photon travelling from the source to the destination. From what I understand, if we do try to observe the path of this billiard ball (say in the two slit experiment) during transit, it gives us a two fingers salute! Apparently its path or journey become two paths or journeys - or more if more slits! Or as I put it in sentence two of this paragraph, two events now become four events. What happens between either one of these two sets of events is not a particle in transit. And I further understand, no experiment has managed to identify a photon actually in motion. If we try so to do, we simply destroy the situation - i.e. the two slit experiment. I further understand that some say we'll always slightly upset things by taking measurements and that may account for resultant different situations. But unfortunately, that does not account for the two slit experiment, whereby firing photons one at a time resulting in an interference pattern, concluding that it goes through two slits at the same time. And not forgetting that by closing one slit you get photons landing where there were no photons with two slits! Trying to measure photon paths is pointless in such a bizarre scenario - claiming measurement disturbance is irrelevant. Indeed, what conclusion would we come to if we could measure such without causing disturbance, and identify a particular slit? We'd doubtless have an even more difficult job explaining the experiment and the diffraction pattern.

I think you will find that that is called classical mechanics. " you can calculate how the photon travelled" and "also intermediate positions", how does one calculate how it travelled and identify intermediate positions in the case of the two slit experiment? It seems to me you're getting confused between what happens in the case of individual photons compared to a beam of photons. A beam is the collective probability of umpteen photons (something like that), whereas firing a single photon is completely different - you can't predict. Perhaps a comparison might be tossing a coin. Toss a coin several thousand times and one can say with a betting certainty that half will be heads and the other half will be tails. Whereas toss a coin just once and you can't predict.

No, I think you're missing the point. The why: you don't or won't know why it's released from any particular atom, as distinct from any other atom. The where: as above, you won't know from where. The when: again as above, you won't know what time. And to say: there it has landed at a particular point on a sensor plate (or whatever), is irrelevant. For the simple reason you had no idea where it was going to land. The probability was it could've landed anywhere, and that is no knowledge at all of the where. Indeed, I believe there is a very tiny remote probability that it could even land behind the source! And then there's the two slit experiment, which I think can apply to electrons as well as photons - or possibly any subatomic particle. And what's more, I understand one could even have far more slits, and the particle would appear to travel through all of them! The simple fact is we've no idea where the damn thing is. And as for this other business about something on one side of the universe resulting in a spontaneous event the other side... I understand there's a name for it, but I can't recall.

The why where and when, I understand, is not something that can be observed or even ascribed as a property of subatomic particles.