Edtharan

It was an analogy, not a model. Your argument is actually a Strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). Yes, the analogy is not perfect (if it was it would be a model). Yes, in the real world there would not have been another "surname" so to speak, but if you look at what I said as an analogy, then the other "Surname" is just the group of individuals that are starting to separate from the individual with "your surname". In that respect, my analogy holds. As my answer was framed for someone who was looking for understanding of how it could occur, rather than trying to push "Evolution can not occur and I will twist any analogy to prove the model can't work", then I obviously completely misunderstood your motives for positing. This was why my answer was not a refutation of a position. I was not arguing a point, I was explaining. So as a counter argument to your point (evolution means that one species can't separate into two or more species): 1) Groups of animals of a species do not have an identical genetic code. There exist differences even within a population of animals. 2) If this population is spread out over a large area, then the environment will be different across the range of this species. 3) Because there exist differences within the environments that this species ranges, it means that there will be different evolutionary pressures on the different parts of this species. 4) Because of this, the population of animals will start to become more and more differentiated in their genetic code. 5) Eventually, because each group within the species is becoming more specialised, then cross breeding between the groups will produce less specialised individuals and these will not be as successful as the specialised ones. 6) This then creates another evolutionary pressure, one that prevents interbreeding between these two groups. This, by the way is called speciation. 7) As these two groups (species) can no longer interbreed, and they live in different environments, there is now nothing that requires them to follow the same evolutionary path. Essentially they are free to adapt to their new environment better and even expand into new territories that the other species could not easily adapt to. So, as you can see form this, a spread out population can, because of the differences in the environment across their range cause the species to split into two distinct groups, with one follow one evolutionary history and the other following a different one. In the case of Humans and Apes, some time in the past, the population of the common ancestor was spread out over a large enough range that different groups encountered different environmental and evolutionary pressures. This resulted in specialisation adaptation in the groups and interbreeding between groups would result in a less specialised offspring that could not compete as well as the more specialised individuals. These less competitive offspring became extinct, and there was evolutionary pressure (producing offspring is a costly endeavour, especially in primates as the offspring tends to ahve a longer time of reliance on the parents than most other animals) to avoid interbreeding between the groups. One group became the apes we see today and because the evolutionary pressures we experienced was different from those groups, we developed in a different way (became Humans). In my analogy, the "Surname" was the environmental pressures that caused the other group to experience different evolutionary pressures. In that respect, there are millions of "Surnames" (environments) and new ones are being created all the time.

You need to take into account modern, medical research on Pain. It is pointlessness to base these discussions on world views and beliefs. We should, instead be basing them on evidence and logic. Plants have the ability to detect a stimulus in one location and then respond at another location. This requires some form of signalling network. Plants also have the ability to differentiate their responses based on the stimulus presented (location, and type of stimulus), and respond in different ways to those different stimulus. Plant signalling networks are not of the same cellular type as animals, but some of the mechanisms are similar (chemical signalling between cells). To allow this plant cells involved in these networks need only 4 properties: 1) The ability to differentiate between different signalling chemicals. Plants have to have this as part of the cells basic abilities as this kind of signalling is involved in cellular differentiation and maintaining the operation of the organism as a whole 2) The ability to respond to chemical signals. Plants also need to have this as part of their basic operational toolbox or they could not manage their "body" (as opposed to cellular) chemistry. 3) The ability to emit chemical signals. All cells, even single cellular organisms have this ability as it is part of the normal processes that occur in cells. 4) Connectivity between cells. A given Cell in a plant does not contact every other cell in the plant, but they do contact nearby cells. Plants, therefore, clearly have the requirement to form signalling and even processing networks within them. These structures would not likely represent animal ones, but these structures can and do exist as evidenced by the ability of plants to respond to different signals in different ways at a point that is not where the stimulus occurred. Pain, Fear and Suffering are all states of the processing network and are not the stimulus that occurs. These state changes are usually, but not necessarily, caused by the stimulus. The important thing is that these are States, not Stimuli. I don't know if there is a state in the plant's signalling networks that equates to pain, or fear or even suffering, but I have to acknowledge that it could be possible. However, I do accept that plants respond to noxious stimuli as it can be directly observed that they do. When you get down to it, pain, fear, suffering or any other state is really down to the pattern of signalling that occurs in a brain. And a brain is just a network of cells that can signal each other and connected in certain ways to process those signals for a give task. All these things are just illusions, the result of the particular pattern of signalling that is going on. But we ascribe it a meaning (another illusion of our particular signalling network). It comes down to Empathy. That particular "illusion" of our signalling network that is important for us to operate as a species. And this is why it is just as important for us to have empathy for plants as it is for animals. We can't be sure that plants don't "feel" pain and suffering, just as we can't even be really sure that other humans fell pain and suffering. But it is the emotion of empathy that binds us as a species and allows us to treat other entities as important. In reality, a plant is no more important than another human, it is only important within a given set of "illusions". The base set of illusions that humans have contains empathy. This empathy prevents us from just harming others at will. Psychopaths actually lack this "illusion" of empathy and that is what allows them to harm others without remorse. In certain circumstances this is actually a beneficial thing, but in general it is not good if there are too many people like that. However, empathy is not an On/Off emotion. There are shade of it and we can apply different levels to different objects. It even has nothing to do with whether or not the object is living or not. What we do know about empathy is it can change. If we deliberately act without empathy to certain objects then we can reduce the amount of empathy we will feel for it. One feature we know of human brains (and most like any other brain, or even for signalling/processing networks in general) is that they classify objects into groups. Think about vehicles. There are thousands of variants of vehicles we encounter every day, but we recognise them as vehicles because our brains classify them as such. With empathy, if we have trained our brains to de-empathise with a certain object, then it is possible to de-empathise with other objects that share a certain grouping with it. Racism is one example of this. Now, because there are shades of empathy we can feel, and we bleed over empathy for one object to another if the objects share certain classifications with each other, then any lack of empathy must be carefully controlled or we can end up de-empathising with objects that should be important. When you ahve said that we are allowed to empathise (not kill) certain animals because they ahve a complex enough brain, you have to be specific about what level of complexity and why that level of complexity is the distinguishing feature that determines the value of the organism.

GogoJF, there is lots of experimental evidence that Light takes a finite amount of time to travel from place to place. A specific example is that when they shine a laser beam (which is made from light) at retro reflectors on the moon, it takes a little over 2 seconds for the light to be received back here on Earth (the moon is about 400,000km away and light is currently accepted to be around 300,000km/second). If light was instantaneous, then we would receive the signal back from the Moon at the same time as we sent it. As we don't receive it at the same time we send it, then this evidence indicates that Light is non instantaneous. If you have an alternate explanation for the delay between sending and receiving that allows light to be instantaneous, then this is what we need. Once we have this, we can then start to examine it and discuss the implications and validity of it. Until you do this, we can not know enough about your hypothesis to begin to discuss it.

The kinetic energy has to be dissipated somehow, and the usual way is to to be converted into heat energy. Maybe it isn't a direct conversion to heat that you get in dynamic friction, but it will cause vibration of molecules (of the floor under your feet) and this can be considered as heat. No matter how big your mass, you will still move. It is only because of friction that you don't move. In space (because there is no friction there), even if I push on a million ton mass, it will still move (not at a great speed, but it will still move).

It is only in our technological global civilisation that Vegetarianism is actually viable. It is only through our ability to source plants from all over the world that we can gather the right types of plants to be able to give us all the nutrients we need to survive. No native population has ever led a complete vegetarian existence. They have had to rely on animals or animal products (there have been some sub groups within a culture but not complete cultures). We have evolved to be omnivores (eating both plan and animals) and this shows in the dietary needs of cultures. The other thing about your arguments is that it is wrong to eat animals because they show signs of distress. But this is "Stimulus/response" reasoning and if we just use this kind of reasoning, then we have to conclude that plants too feel pain. So if plants fell pain, then how is that any better than causing animals pain? The immediate reaction to this is that plants are somehow "inferior" to animals where pain is concerned. But this is against the argument that we should avoid causing any pain to anything that can feel it. Neurons are nothing special when it comes to cell structures or behaviours. Many of the properties that allow neurons to function like they do also occurs in ,any other animal cell types, and also many plant cell types (even in single celled organisms). What the important properties are is that they can signal each other (all cells in multicellular organisms have this ability to some degree), that they can change their behaviours to these signals and that these changes also include being able to send signals. Even if we don't know the methods by which cells do this, we can infer the existence of these abilities if we can get non local responses to a localised stimulus. In animals you clearly see this all the time, but many people don't realise that plants have this too, and if you look it is just as prevalent. This means that plants must have the ability to respond to stimulus, form networks of these signalling pathways and process these stimuli. These structures might not be "brains" as they appear in animals, but they essentially do the same function (collect stimuli, process the stimuli and respond to that stimuli). As plants don't move around and the reactions they take are not as complex and they ahve no need of complex co-ordination, there has been no real evolutionary pressures to make these plant "brains" as fast acting or as complex as our (or as centralised). But they do have the abilities we associate with a network of connected signalling and processing cells (nerves). We have specialised cells, but plants tend to have this as part of normal cellular operations (much less specialised cells). So if the criteria for pain is that an organism can detect, process and respond to noxious stimuli, then plants have to be determined to feel pain (as they show all of those requirements). This also makes the argument "We shouldn't eat animals because they feel pain" an invalid argument as plants, by the stimulus/response measure, also feel pain. If you take the current medical view, that Pain and Nociception are different things (although usually closely associated), then it will allow you to exclude things, than even though they show stimulus/response behaviours. In this framework, nociception is just another input into the organism, one that might illicit a response that we might interpret as a reaction to a "painful" stimulus. However, this is not considered evidence of pain as such. Pain is now a state of the network structure and can even exist without external noxious stimuli (nociception). It is certainly evident in humans that such type of Pain exist (without external causes), and even emotional distress can be seen as "painful" (and many medications that are used to treat painful stimuli can also be used to reduce the perceived pain of such painful emotions, like say a broken heart). There are even time were nociception does not result in pain, and Pain can be controlled despite there being noxious stimulus. So pain is not tied to noxious stimuli and nociception. Pain is an internal mental state. And this is important, as not all animals have enough awareness of their own internal mental states. They can't experience Pain. A certain level of self awareness is definitely involved (although what this level is and what aspects of self awareness is involved is still not yet determined). I am not saying these organisms can't detect and respond to nociception or noxious stimuli in a way that an organism that does experience pain does. Just that this response to the stimuli is no gauge of the organisms being able to experience pain. However, I do agree that the farming practices that we employ, whether or not the organisms involved experience pain or not (and here I am not separating plants and animals as I also include plants in this too), is detrimental to not only these organisms, but to ourselves as well (psychologically as a species). Empathy is one of the defining characteristic of humanity, and is essential to peaceful co-existence as a species. Teaching ourselves to ignore this empathy is not a good thing. However, going vegetarian is also not a viable option as the problems that would occur with disposing of the current domesticated animal population, and even then we have to consider that the plants are also capable of the stimulus/response behaviour and so we have to ignore our empathy there too.

Also, because IR has a lower frequency than visible light, it has less energy per photon. This means that if you could use them to generate electricity, photon for photon you will get less energy. And, as insane_alien said, most of the sun's light (photons) is emitted in the visible wavelengths.

When you push on the door, the door pushes on you. If you were in space, this would cause the door to move away form you (as you pushed on the door) and as the door pushed back on you, you would move away form the door. If you take the average positions, (and accounting for F=MA) then you will find that the centre of mass has not changed. So in effect, the You/Door system has not actually moved its centre of mass. When you are on Earth, you have friction between your shoes/feet and the floor. When you push on a door, it does push back on you, but that is transferred down your legs to your feet/shoes and the friction between your shoes and the floor convert this force into heat energy. This action/reaction is the basis of rockets and jet engines. They heat up a material into a gas and cause it to expand very quickly. They then funnel this expanding gas into moving in one direction. By forcing it to move in one direction you have to push on it (well it pushes on the engine and that causes the engine to push back on it). The force that the gas exerts on the engine causes the engine to move forwards. The force the engine exerts on the gas causes it to move backwards.

Well here in Australia, we have an animal called the Eastern Grey Kangaroo. Around where I live these are getting to such large numbers that they are eating most of the grasses. This is leaving them short on grass to eat due to their large population and many are getting to the point where starvation is setting in. Now, is it more or less humane to slaughter some of these animals to keep the population under control or leave them to starve? Animals bread for food (cows and such) are quite docile and can't usually defend themselves from predators (we are predators and we bread out their ability to defend against us). As such, these animals would quickly become prey for another species if we didn't farm them. In other words, they would be slaughter "naturally". But, if you have ever seen a "natural" kill by a predator in the wild, especially against a large animal (like a cow), it can take several minutes to bring that cow down. If these animals are,going to be killed anyway, is it more or less damaging to do it quickly. Also, many of the animals that have been domesticated have been transported to environments that can not properly support them . they can usually , in the short term, do very well, but when large populations go unchecked (no predators and we are not slaughtering them) then they can severely damage their environment and degrade it. So is it harmful to let a population of animals grow unchecked untill they destroy their environment and their food supply is destroyed and then they starve, or is it better to control their population some how. See, most people who suggest that we stop killing animals forget that these animals breed. Without predators (and thus killings) they will not have any limit on their populations other than food supply. This population will grow until the food supply is exhausted and then it will crash as they starve. So, is being slowly killed over several minutes, or a cycle of population booms and starvation more or less humane than a quick death (even a relativity quick death) and carefully controlled populations to avoid starvation. Feral animals, even though a lot of effort is taken to control their population is the wild, have massive impacts on the environment, and although that species might thrive, they impact a lot more native species, even making those native species become extinct. Not killing these domesticated animals will cause their populations to expand unchecked. This will cause knock on effects that will not only cause harm to them (starvation as the environment collapses) but also effect numerous other species in a harmful way. So yes. Not killing these animals will cause them harm and the harm of countless other animals. In an overly simplified world, you can propose not killing farmed animals as less harmful, but in the real world it would be an absolute disaster on a global scale if we just all stopped using them as food. Even then, this whole "lest stop killing them" is based on the Naturalistic Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy) because people think that animal killed by other animals is some how "better" than the way we do it because they see the natural way as better. Wolves can take ours to chase down their prey (harassing it all the time with bites and such) causing it to have to run until it is almost dead from exhaustion. Then they bite its neck and cause it to drown in its own blood. That is the natural way. A shot to the head with the gun they use is quick by comparison. Even if it took a couple of shots, the cow would be in far less distress than they would be in the wolf hunt and it would take far less time too.

Evolution can be understood in terms of an algorithm (or a "set of instructions" if you don't know what an algorithm is). Evolution of life is just life following these instructions. The instructions are: 1) Reproduce with variation 2) Select those that can reproduce best 3) Repeat from step 1 Very simple. You will note that the "Selection" that occurs is not random, also, although variation can be random, it does not necesarily have to be. Much of asexual reproduction is not entirely random, the organism reproduces its genetic code as accurately as it can. Too much random variation is selected against (but a small amount can be good). So despite what many creationists claim, evolution is not exactly random. There is a small amount, but it is not very much and there are processes (that have been evolved) to prevent it occuring. It is actually possible to have evolution without any randomness at all. Try this experiment: Get a lot of plastic straws, some scissors and a ruler. 1) Cut around 10 to 20 straws into random lengths. 2) Take the shortest 3 to 5 straws and remove them from the ones you have. 3) Take the longest 3 to 5 straws and make 5 to 15 more straws (enough to return the amount of straws you have back to its starting number) based on small variations from these straws (1cm to 2cm, 1/2 inch or so, longer or shorter) 4) Repeat until you have run out of straws. What will occur is that over time you will get longer and longer straws in your collection. What this means is that the straws have "evolved" into a longer form. Now, although the variation was random, the selection was not. You can eliminate all randomness by making each "Selected: straw have 2 variants, one longer and one short by a pre-set amount, and you still get evolution. So although randomness does not disrupt evolution, it is also not necessary for it (but too much randomness will tend to disrupt it).

I can program an AI computer program to respond in these ways. Can you therefore conclude, based only on observation of behaviours, that these AI programs feel pain and terror? No. You have to understand what those emotions mean in the context of those animals. We can even simulate the chemical interaction of the neurohormones involved so that we are simulating the entire process. Do they now "Feel" pain, fear or terror? Fight or flight is not only because of neurons. Single celled organisms also show this behaviour. When a predatory single celled organism attacks a prey single celled organisms, there are many of these prey cells that will try to escape. They can detect the chemical traces of the predator and seek to avoid them. Is this evidence that single celled organisms "feel" terror? In my last post, I tried to explain that just because an organism (or even, for example, a computer program) displays behaviours that one can anthropomorphicly read as "Fear" or "Pain" does not necessarily mean that the organism feels those emotions. It, of course, does not mean that they don't feel them either. What I am saying is that according to modern research, Pain and Suffering, and Fear and other emotions are not as simple as stimulus/response and any attempt to analyse them using such criteria will not give us a true understanding of what is going on. And without that understanding, making moralistic rulings based on such invalid results is damaging to both the organisms involved and us as well.

Think about this question: Why does your Aunty not have the same surname as you? The reason is that she married someone with a different surname. Your Aunty and your Mother both share common ancestors (your grandmother and grandfather), but because they do not have the same genetic history as you, they have a different surname. The genetic history of Humans (and the forces on them to evolve) are different than the genetic history (and the forces on them to evolve) of other apes. So while one person might be a "Smith", their cousins, although they share the same common ancestors, might be a "Jones".

Pain, and the beating of your heart are not controlled by the same systems in your body, so I don't see why one would cause the other to be disrupted. The disease Leprosy, contrary to popular view, does not cause part of the body to drop off. What occurs is that the bacteria that cause the disease attacks the nerves in the limbs and prevents the body from detecting any sensations from them. These injuries, because they are not being reported, go untreated and other diseases can take hold, like gangrene. It is these secondary diseases that cause the limbs to "fall off". Bit it is due to lack of pain (and other sensations) that ultimately case these problems. So pain is an important sense in our survival, without it we would not know how much punishment the body can take before becoming injured, or if an injury does take place, pain allows us to protect the injured site until it can recover. But, things can go wrong, and this is when chronic pain sets in, or the opposite like in leprosy where sensation is blocked.

Plants, although they can't Moo or run away, can show a definite (and repeatable) reaction to noxious stimuli (ripping leaves off for instance). There are several species of plants that when given such treatment cause their leaves to close up (it makes it harder for insects to walk on them) and then have their stems droop (to drop insects off them). Other plants have more subtle, and sometimes very sophisticated, reaction to such noxious stimuli. Knowing this, it is very difficult to just accept that a reaction to noxious stimuli is evidence of pain, unless you also accept that plants can also feel pain.

It is not just phantom limbs. Even people with fully intact limbs, with no damage (or even history of damage - although much more rarely) can still get this effect from the brain not properly correcting its Map of the body.

I think you misunderstood what I said. There is no "group" communication. It is all local information received by an individual from its immediate surroundings. They are not intentionally sending information to the other members of the flock. Each creature is acting "selfishly" and is only interested in what the environment is like. Many animals react to the actions of other species (like if a predator comes close). One would not say that the predator is "communicating" with its prey. What would be the point? Why would a predator alert its prey to an imminent attack? These flocking animals are reacting in a similar way as they would to a predator (just different rules). They are reacting to the environment of the other creatures in the flock in a way that improves their own chances of survival (safety in numbers). In fact it is not in their own best interest to let other members of the flock know that there are predators around, as the creatures in the flock compete most strongly, for food and mates, with members of its own species (it is just that the benefit of being in a group is greater than the competition of food and mates). If you have a look again at those rules, you will notice that none of them sends any information to the nearby creatures in then flock. There is nothing in flocking behaviour that requires the group to co-operate by letting them know of their own behaviours. They see the others react, and then react in a way that benefits them the most. They don't communicate this at all.

Pain an Injury are not the same thing. I suffer from a permanent chronic pain condition (about the level of a sprained join 24/7) caused by an injury (I dislocated my shoulder and it has caused more damage than typical). As part of my rehabilitation process I have had to learn how to manage my pain and how it is different to injury. Basically, Pain is the perception of an injury but not directly caused by the injury. But, as with any perception, it can be "tricked". There is (as iNow said) a place in your spinal chord (can't remember the name of it though) where the nerves that carry the "injury" signal are mediated. With training it is possible to reduce the strength of injury signals coming in (but over use can also cause strengthening of the injury signal - so this "training" needs to be managed by a trained specialist). This is not the only place where pain can be managed. Just knowing that pain is not the same as an injury can help. Next time you are in pain, remind yourself that the pain you feel is only your awareness of that injury. Pain, is a bit like an annoying child that wants your attention. When you ahve an injury, it alerts you by nagging at you for attention. However, if you can distract your attention from it, you won't feel the pain as much. Experiments where they placed people's feet in buckets of cold water (which can be painful) and timed their limit for the pain found that people could stand to be immersed in the buckets for longer if they had something to distract them (playing computer games). Part of pain management is to acknowledge the "pain" signal but then to put it to one side and not pay attention to it. We do this sort of thing all the time (even with injuries and pain). When you are in a noisy room, it is still possible to talk to other people despite the noise in the room. We can selectively pay attention to one set of stimulus and ignore others. Learning to do this with pain (and specific pain as well) is part of pain management. Lastly you can also get pain caused not from injury, but from how your body perceives itself in the mind. Our brains have a map of the body's sensory systems in it and the expected sensations from that part of the body. Even if there is no input from those parts of the body (say they have been amputated) this "map" can still cause pain in the body. There is a new way of treating this kind of pain, called the "Mirror box" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_box ). This works because your body adjusts this map all the time. When a limb is removed (or even if the nerves are damaged) there is no signal to the brain for it to update the map with. Many people who have had an amputated limb have had to live with the limb that has been badly damaged and this has sent constant injury signals to the brain. When the limb is removed, the Map remembers that these signals were coming in, and in the absence of any information counter to this, it keeps replaying these signals. The mirror box allow the patient to "see" their missing limb, and this can be enough for the brain to readjust its map so that the missing limb is not sending those injury signals. There is a good video on TED by the Doctor that discovered the Mirror Box treatment ( http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html )

Yes. There are drugs that exist today that can sort of do this. Mood stabilisers (like prozac and Lithium) can interact with the reactions that cause emotion, either by directly effecting the chemical or by interacting with the release or absorption of them, or by effecting the neurological reaction to these chemicals. It would also be possible to induce emotions in people by injecting the right chemicals into the right places in the brain 9or even by taking a pill in some circumstances). However, the ethical issues would be enormous to do a controlled trial of such actions.

I came to this thread late and was just skimming it. But this caught my eye. As I am a computer programmer and have an interest in AI, I know that this has been solved (I have even written a program that does this). The program I based mine on is called "Boids" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boids ). The idea is really simple. You only need 3 rules to make an entity flock. 1) Face the same direction as my nearest neighbours. 2) Move towards my nearest neighbours. 3) Don't get too close to anything. These 3 rules are all that is needed. Notice also, that it only needs to know about the nearest objects. Thus, when one moves, the other moves to match. Any signals that are needed can be easily transmitted over that short distance without the need for a "Group Mind" (telepathy). As each individual is on constant alert for any change in its neighbours, its response to that change is very fast. And if you have watched flocks of animals, they don't all instantly move together (although for fast moving animals like small fish) you might need a high speed camera to slow it down. You can also see interesting patterns form in the flocks, like waves/ripples that move through the flock (this is caused by the non-instantaneous reaction).

No. I am definitly not saying that at all. What I am saying is that Quantum Mechanics can not be understood by using Classical Mechanics. QM can be understood in an of itself, but not though Classical Mechanics. Classical Mechanics is a consequence of Quantum Mechanics, not the result. Just like your word processor is the consequence of how the electronics operate in your computer. You can't determine how the electronics work in your computer by just studying the operation of your word processor. You need to open up your computer and study its operation with knowledge of electronics. As I said: Classical Mechanics is the same as the Word Processor. The "operation" of QM create the result of Classical Mechanics. Think of Classical Mechanics as the output of a computer program and you are closer to understanding that Classical Mechanics is not how the universe operates. You are trying to understand how the universe operates by only looking at how your "Word Processor" works. When you abandon that futile task and learn QM, then you will begin to understand how QM operate and how CM is created from them. I don't know how many times this has to be said to you: You are thinking about this incorrectly. If you understand QM using QM then you actually can understand how it operates. If you try to (futilely) understand QM from a CM position, then you will never understand QM.

It doesn't matter if you (or even if I can) explain everything that occurs in the double slit experiment. Actually, lets look at an other example: Can you explain what occurs when a See Saw (teetertotter) works? You might try with basic Newtonian Mechanics. But do you understand why they work? No, then See Saws are indistinguishable form magic. But, if someone asks you how one works, you don't just say "Magic". That is because you know it isn't magic. That there is an explanation of it (even if you don't know it yourself or can articulate it). So is it important that you know the precise explanation of how a See Saw works for it not to be magic? No. What is important is that there is one and that you can understand the results of that theory. No, the phenomena of interference is understood and has to do with the properties of waves (not just photons as the same theory explains interference in water and other cases as well). You were asking for an explanation of the Double slit experiment. Is it surprising then that the explanation you got referred to the double slit experiment? Yes. QM is not weird, it is classical mechanics that is weird. The universe operates at its fundamental level in a QM way. What is weird is that we get Classical Mechanics out of that. If you try to use Classical Mechanics to understand QM, then you find it hard to understand. But if you use QM in an attempt to understand CM, then you find it much easier (but still weird). Look at in this way. In the snow you wear large and bulky gloves. But if you were to try and sew gloves together while wearing those gloves, then you would find it very difficult to do and you would struggle to understand how someone could sew in an intricate way with such large gloves on. However, if you take those gloves off, it becomes easier to sew and you now can understand how someone could sew fine thread. Classical mechanics are like the gloves, if you just wear those gloves, the fine thread is not all that "understandable". But if you take the gloves off (and look at it from the fundamental level) then it is much easier to understand. What you are (repeatedly) doing is trying to understand QM from the CM level. It just can't be done. The "gloves" are just too think and don't allow us to grasp the "thread" properly. The universe does not operate from the classical level, so there is no reason (except egotism of our scale) to assume that CM would allow you to understand QM. The explanation is that the location of a photon (electron or other particle too) is not a point (that classical and wrong mechanics would lead us to) but is spread out. Only when it interacts with another particle doe that location become fixed (as compared to the photon/particle system). It comes down to a very simple thing: If you interact with something, then you change what you interact with. As you can't interact with yourself, you can never know the precise outcomes of your interaction. As Uncertainty has a real physical effect (and why not, why should energy, or charge, or spin have a real physical effect?), this uncertainty causes the location of a particle to spread out. Uncertainty is actually a wave, so it is no surprise then that the uncertainty in location of a particle can interfere with itself or other waves. As I said. We only assume that Macroscopic objects are the norm because we ourselves are macroscopic. The fundamental objects in the universe are not macroscopic, so why should they be expected to operate in terms of macroscopic objects. It is macroscopic egotism to think so. If you know about complex systems, then you would know that in complex systems, the behaviour of the system as a whole is not necessarily the same as the smallest parts of the system. Think about this: Is there anything in the operation of a resistor that explainas your word processor? Is there anything in the operation of your word processor that explains how a resistor works? You computer uses resistors in its operation, and your word processor uses your computer. It is possible, with a full explanation of how electronics works, and a full description of the electrical state of a computer, to explain how your word processor works. But if you just try to use the operation of your word processor to explain how a resistor works, then you will never do it. It is the same with Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics. Why should the operation of Classical Mechanics (the word processor) be able to explain how Quantum Mechanics (the resistor) works? Armed with a full description of Quantum Mechanics, and a full description of the Quantum state of the system, then QM can explain the operation of Classical Mechanics. Just as with the resistor and the word processor.

The science you get taught in schools (bellow university level) is not exact. The amount of maths and theory needed to understand current results and theory means that if one were to give the "unabridged" version to high school students then they would have no real chance of grasping it. Science is complex. Very complex. So what they ahve to so is give it to them in understandable chunks. In high school you are taught Newtonian gravity. But Newtonian gravity is not exact. It works good for anything that a high school student would encounter, but it is not the complete theory. When you get to collage you are taught basic Einstein gravity, but then this is not the complete theory either. When you get to university, you learn Relativity. But then this is not the complete theory either. If you then specialise in Relativity or Cosmology, you are then taught to the knowledge of your lecturers. Then if you go and do your thesis in relativity, you might learn the latest and most complete version of the theory. So if you are going of a high school textbook, then it is that you have been using an incomplete and over simplified version of the theory. This doesn't only apply to relativity, but also mechanics, quantum theory (you don't even start to learn the basics of that until late high school or collage), mathematics, chemistry, English (yes even this), and so forth. It applied to every subject covered by school's curriculum. Most people don't need to know quantum mechanics, language theory, n dimensional topology and so forth. School is designed to equip people to operate in society. If you need a particular field of knowledge (to say get a job in that field), then you learn more about it in the more specialised educational institutions (collage, Uni and such).

But as I said, people feel the need to create stories. You even used a story to show that it doesn't need a story. I really don't think you got what I was saying in my last post. people are story tellers. They feel the need to make a story out of something so they feel that they understand it. Real life is not a story. And this means that things that occur in reality don't conform to the concepts of a story. "Why" is all about creating a story for it. It requires a "motivation. There is not such motivations in reality. There is causality, but that is not a "why" as there is no motivations. How something works is what science is about because "why" requires a motivation (a human construct) and as science want to remove any subjective influence so as to avoid subjective interference of the description of reality. Why does a rock roll down a hill? Because I pushed it. I had the desire (motivation) to push it. Science would ask: How does it roll down the hill (gravity, friction, kinetic and potential energy, etc). None of those have a motivation.

This is the Logical Fallacy: Thought Terminating Cliché (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9). This kind of thinking gets us nowhere. It is valid that you could say that about science, but doing so is tantamount to saying: Lets not think about it. If it is just magic, then there can be no rational explaining of it, because that is what magic is (irrational). As the whole purpose of science is to reach a rational explanation, then the "we could call it magic" is entirely the wrong way to think about it. To give a direct example: Aspirin. Have you ever taken aspirin for any condition (like a headache)? For a long time "Magicians" would treat people who had headaches, toothaches and such by giving them the bark of a certain type of willow tree to chew on (or made it into a "magic potion"). This was "just magic". For thousands of years people dismissed it as magic, and so no one though to think about it. That was until scientists (one of them Johann Buchner) started thinking about it in scientific terms. Once they did this they discovered that the effect was real (although many of these believed "magic" cures are shown to be false or even harmful) and that there was a particular chemical called "salicin". Since then, and because scientists don't think of salicin as magic, they have investigated how it works and have developed a whole range of medicines based on it, and even found new uses for it (in heart disease patients or patients who need their blood thinned). This only came about because it was not thought of a Magic.

So because of the density of the Aether, light slows down. The density of the Aether is what we call gravity. But there have been experiments where they shone lasers up and down tall buildings and directly measured the frequency of the light. What they found was directly opposite to the conclusions you say will occur if your theory of the Aether is correct. Light shone from the top of a high tower has in increased frequency as it approaches a higher gravitational field. Your claim therefore, that light would slow down in a higher density Aether is demonstrated to be wrong (it is also shown that light shone upwards will decrease in frequency - which is opposite to your conclusions based on Aether). This means there is direct experimental proof that the the Aether as you describe it does not exist.

"Not in the slightest"? At best, that is an exaggeration. They do understand it, it is only when you try to understand it in terms of macroscopic behaviours that it doesn't make sense. If you don't try to visualise it as macroscopic behaviours, or try to use a macroscopic analogy, and instead try to understand it in its own terms, then you will be able to understand it. In QM "Things" (note" "things" is a macroscopic term) don't have a defined place like we think they should. Such"objects" like photons, or even electrons and protons, don't have a defined place until something interacts with (observes) it. It is only when something interacts with something else that they both get a defined location (and other parameters) within their system. If you don't try to interact with a particular aspect of an object, then that aspects becomes more uncertain. It is also a bit like a See-saw (another macroscopic analogy so it is not a true description of what happens but will help you to understand it to a point without the need for complex mathematics). There are linked properties of objects that if you detect one of these linked properties, you make the other uncertain. So if you detect the Position of a QM object, then its energy becomes uncertain. But then, if you detect the energy, the position becomes uncertain. Using an other macroscopic analogy (which again is not how it happens, but will help you understand it without the mathematics): This is a bit like a camera and a pool table. IF you roll pool balls around on the pool table, you can use a camer a to take a photo of it. If the photo has a fast shutter speed, then you get a nice clear image of the pool ball. the problem is that the pool ball does not seem to be moving around. You can know the position of the ball very accurately, but you don't know how it is moving (the energy). But if you then give the camera a slow shutter speed, the camera is shutter is open for a while and the pool ball leaves a track as it moves. But because the ball existed at all points on that track, you can't actually say that it is at any particular point on that track (it exists at all points on the track). You can know the energy of the pool ball, but the position of the ball is uncertain. Now, this differs from actual QM objects because when you make a measurement of a QM object (say an electron), you change the properties of the object you are examining. To see an object, you have to interact with it (shine light on to it, but because you don't know the properties of the objects you are using to detect the object (photons) when the objects itneract the properties are exchanged, and so you no longer know the new properties of the object. In QM, unlike macroscopic objects, this uncertainty has real physical existence. This actual existence of uncertainty as a real physical property means that an uncertainty in the position of an object really means that its position is "smeared out". This smearing can mean that the macroscopic notion of a particle only being able to pass through one slit or the other does not actually apply to the QM world. It is therefore perfectly possible for a photon, electron (or even an entire atom) to pass through both slits. The result of this is that the particle (or even atom) interferes with itself. This interference is with the uncertainty of the object. Certain zones become less likely and other become more likely. The level of uncertainty is still the same, it is just that if it can possibly be in one place, then it can not be in another. At the far end of the 2 slit experiment is a device that directly interacts with the particle to detect its position. When this occurs, the size uncertainty is reduced to a small point (where it is detected), but because of the uncertainty as it passed through the slits, there are some places it can't possibly be detected and others that have an increased chance of detecting it there. The 2 slit experiment is not magic at all, it is well understood (even to a non-scientist like me), but you just have to abandon your macroscopic preconceptions about how it works.