Delbert

My history is somewhat lacking, but wasn't it James VI of Scotland that came down to ascend the English throne and became James I? In other words, it's Scotland that took over England, and not the other way around. Anyway, I'm looking forward to a 'yes' vote with all the consequences. The consequences like Scotland would thus become a foreign country. And not only then not being part of the EU, there would presumably be the need for border controls and passport requirements to cross into England. And also, presumably we could refuse entry. Then there's the currency, the consequences of which sound very interesting - consequences of using the Pound. And as for a new currency, that, I think, would be even more interesting.

It was either a coalition with another party or a minority government. And as for an alternative voting system, AV (think that's what it was called) was offered and rejected by the people. Don't tell me, it should've been something else. Again that's democracy. Doubtless there'll always be a large section of people that take the view that they have the wrong government. I voted conservative and had to tolerate two lunatics in power for 13 years; but I accepted it without complaint (accept for these remarks) as being what happens in a democracy. So, being underdeveloped with a foreign currency is viewed as working just fine? As for Scotland, and contrary to what I said previously, I may have changed my mind by hoping for a 'yes' vote. Because the ramifications of using a foreign currency will be mildly interesting. Might be worth a joke or two in the pub.

Well, as far as I recollect or tell, the proponents of separation only seem to refer to being controlled by, and want separation from, Westminster. I don't recall them mentioning anything about being controlled by a group of 4. In case you've missed it, we live in a democracy and we get stuck with whatever we vote for. That's one of the consequences of a democracy. You say stuck with a Tory government. I say we were stuck with a disastrous Labour government for 13 years. But as like you said: back to the subject. In contrast to the media consequences I mentioned above, I think a 'yes' vote will be fantastic. Taking one aspect of defence, I believe the main proponent has said when questioned about defence: what enemy? Well, what's the betting odds of a reality test if the Russians send a few more Bear bombers over to test things out? I should think that the possibility of an incursion might be in their thoughts should things develop, as it would be an ideal pincer movement on Europe. Shouts of Impossible do I hear? Don't you believe it. And then there's the currency. They say the Pound. So their plan is to use someone else's currency of which they'll have no control! How can that be separation?

This is semantics and getting silly. I used the word England to cover everything within these islands except Scotland should they say yes.

I was waiting for that. Not forgetting Northern Ireland. Then I understand there's the Cornish... I'm sure you know I used England as a default because the UK might be referred to something different following a yes vote - not forgetting the Union Jack. Frankly, I'm hoping for a 'no' vote because it may then disappear from the media headlines - it bores the life out of me. Since with a 'yes' vote we'll doubtless be hearing all about progress and consequences in the media for time immemorial - and that will really give me the yawns.

Or perhaps Uruguay? Who I understand has oil etc. Yes that's right. They'll be just one of 28, I believe. No that's wrong, upon joining they'll be one of 29. Whereas with England, they were (assuming a 'yes') one of two.

I don't understand this independence business. I can understand if Scotland wants independence, but then to say it wants to join a larger organisation with ever more rules that'll eventually control their every move, I can't understand.

Of course I only know what I know!! Sounds like something from a certain American politician. Can't say I recall what particular division, other than to say what I would call one of the English varieties. Upon visiting the area by chance the other day, I noticed the church had been knocked down. Had them knock on my door recently. They started by mentioning the spirit world. Apparently not receiving a sympathetic response from me, they turned to a recent TV program - that being Stargazing Live (which suggests the date of their call). They started on about how wonderful it all is, and appeared to be about to enter a discourse of God's work. I interrupted them and said that their kind had even denied the Earth went round the Sun for 2000 years. And what's more, anyone who suggested it did would likely be tied to a post and set alight. They then said when turning to depart that they were looking for people who could think. I wished them every success in their quest. I've even had them call and suggest that the egg contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. I think they've got me marked down for taking on a certain approach.

I attended a religious school; even then when I was in my formative years - and to be non-scientific about it - I thought it was a load of rubbish. Presumably they thought that was all one needed to get through life. And as I've said previously on this forum, when I left school I could just about write my own name. I'm sorry, but religion gives me the creeps.

I suppose my analogy is a bit skewed, but I was trying to relate something like the existence of vast amounts of liquid water being dependent on a consequence that at least one individual of my acquaintance thinks isn't there. Likewise this business about photons, electrons etc being a particle or a wave or even both depending which way we observe. Trying to describe it as such is just semantics and playing with words, I suggest. It seems to me there is no such thing that can be described as a thing with such properties. And my analogy was just something I thought whereby it could be related to the existence of liquid water, like liquid water can only exist with the constant action of countless other things (atoms) reacting and forcing into a liquid state. As I said, perhaps my analogy is a bit skewed, but I was trying to relate these particles to something we understand. Doubtless, I failed.

That's a interesting analogy. Although I don't think it quite fits. As we used to say: you big heap capacitor. The same way a neon screwdriver works. But as for an analogy of the two slit experiment between looking and not looking at a slit, I think it needs a bit of imagination. I certainly agree about the 'aware' business. The universe is certainly a difficult place for us to quantify, specify or imagine. Someone asked me how do fish in the depths of the ocean withstand the water pressure? I said: how do you withstand 15lbs per square inch air pressure? She said: there's nothing pressing on me because I can't feel anything. Indeed, and as I think we know, the ocean wouldn't exist if it wasn't for air pressure (water would boil off in a vacuum). In other words liquid water is a consequence of something, as my friend stated, that's not there because it can't be felt. Perhaps similarly, it seems to me that what we call these particles (photons, electrons etc) are just events as a consequence of something else. Because the plain fact from experiments like the two slit, is that they do not act as an object we can identify. It is clear to me they are nothing more than events. And their apparent movement from place to place is the transfer of energy in the form of a multitude of actions and exchanges. Something which I think is supported by Feynman's Sum Over Histories.

In defining a barrier one has to say how wide it is. And unless it is of infinite width, there is a remote possibility that a photon or electron will be found the other side. For example: you shine a torch at a target and see a roughly circular illumination that is brightest at the centre, with the illumination dimming the farther away from said centre. The question is: is there a definable point from the centre where there is no light? If not, then it's perfectly conceivable for some light to end far enough away from the centre to end up behind the torch! It may be only one photon over a suitable time period, but unless there is a definable point from the centre whereby there'll be no light, light there'll be at the back of the torch. Because if there isn't there has to be a definable point with no light which one can identify. For the same reason that unless your barrier is infinitely wide, there will be photon or photons the other side.

What else? Perhaps if the number were the same or not in proportion the reduced slit area then that could be highlighted as bizarre. In the light of the result of the two slit experiment, what would you think would be an acceptable reduction (assuming you accept it would be a reduction and not an increase)? Your argument seems to be stuck on this business of a photon or electron being a definable object. If so, you've got to describe it as such and offer an explanation, not only of its construction (for example, a tiny billiard ball with all the properties of a billiard ball), but also how a tiny billiard ball can form a diffraction pattern. I suggest you can't, for the simple reason it isn't a little billiard ball, or indeed, any object we can describe as an object. It clearly isn't an object. It's probably nothing more than an event at the source followed by another event at the destination, with its apparent movement from one place to another being the transfer of energy that represents it via a maelstrom of actions and exchanges (for the want of a better explanation). I suppose one could argue as to what the maelstrom of actions and exchanges are and between. Probably something to do with momentary virtual particles, whose presence, I understand, has been indicated by experiments.

That's reassuring for not only for me, but doubtless the whole world. I pride myself in being a fully paid up member of the totally ignorant. I keep well clear of the Peter Perfect and Nellie Know All society.

Well, you haven't convinced my of anything. Firstly an asteroid impact is a chance event and not a problem of celestial mechanics. And then a guessing job about what number you might write down. Or even calculating 4 divided by 4. Tossing a coin. So there you have it, complex celestial mechanics (three body problem and all that) to tossing a coin, think that covers just about everything. Clearly, every event is a chance event.

Since assigning the description of 'chance' to a consequence of celestial mechanics, I clearly don't understand the concept of chance. Moreover, from such it seems to me that chance would presumably account for just about anything. I wasn't expecting the close approach of the Moon the other day, so presumably that was a chance event. The asteroid (or whatever) impact was a predictable event had the dinosaurs and a computer. It wasn't a chance event. I would even go farther and suggest there is no such thing as a chance event. All events are a consequence of a process. There may be events whereby we may not understand the process (quantum mechanics might be one), but that doesn't make them a chance event.

I think you will find it is probability. Whereas I understand chance is the occurrence of something for no identifiable reason, with probability being something happening with an identifiable reason.

Chance is presumably identified in physics as a classified and measurable quantity.

Of course. And no mutation would simply mean we wouldn't be here. For the blindingly obvious reason we, along with all other live forms, would be unable to deal with a changing environment. P.S. Been watching a nest of Coots on my local river. They hatched nine young. After about a couple of weeks they were all dead. They promptly started again, which resulted in six young. There are now two left. Now that's what I call the brutal tooth and claw of selection of the fittest.

Except for fibre optic.

Then obviously it is not reflected as we understand reflected. It seems to me our minds are stuck on this business of particles trying to be waves or vice versa. It seems to me the plain fact is, from various experiments, that these things (if one can call them a thing) aren't like anything we might even possibly visualise as an object - or even a wave. What's more, if they we're a 'thing' or sort of actual object, it also seems to me we'd have an even greater problem explaining them! For the simple reason whereby a thing or object, as we understand as an object, would have all sorts of other properties that objects have. It certainly wouldn't be anything like elementary - indeed, simply a small version of an everyday object. For me an analogy might be the positive holes in a semiconductor. I understand they behave like a positively charged object, and thus behave and move about as a positively charged electron. But perhaps as we all know, they are nothing more than a hole in a cloud of actual electrons. Doubtless some would say the positive charge comes from the associated proton of the atomic structure, but the protons of a semiconductor don't move about. The hole behaves like an actual particle (positively charged electron). But there's nothing there! It's apparent presence is a consequence of a gap in the maelstrom of electrons moving about.

The maths is somewhat above me, but I understand the other paths are significant. Whereby Feynman's diagrams provided a solution to errors in calculations when taking it as a single object moving from A to B.

And I understand the thickness of the glass is a factor as well. Which posses the question that does the photon know about the other surface? Well clearly it doesn't. Please! After all it's called an elementary particle. It seems to me that Richard Feynman's Sum Over Histories is saying that there's an event at the source followed by an event at the destination. What happens in between is a maelstrom of interactions and exchanges of who knows what. In other words it isn't a particle travelling from A to B, which is why we get stuck on the particle/wave business. It isn't a particle and the wave is a probability pattern of where an interaction might occur.

And probably in the mind of others before the above, like farmers and anyone involved growing and reproduction. But of course, and apparently not unlike Darwin who delayed publication, too afraid to voice their views for fear of the response. Indeed, go back far enough and one would doubtless be tied to a post and set alight. And what's more, I have the doubters knocking on my door quite regular (perhaps they've got me identified as a target!), touting the idea nature is fixed (no evolution). Perhaps I encourage them by countering their argument. On a slightly different tack, a radio program today mentioned how the bacteria that causes stomach ulcers was discovered. It made no mention of the individual that discovered it, who I understand was ostracised because he was going against well established procedure.

We didn't evolve from Chimpanzees. We evolved from species type not now in existence. There may have been a common ancestor somewhere down the line, but not from today's apes. And as for intermediate steps, the fossil record is full of them. And even in animals walking in today's world. Like the Coots swimming in my local river, they are more or less one stop from being flightless. All they appear to be able to do it scoot along the water by flapping their wings, but never take off. Being members of the Crane family they're clearly on the cusp of having lost the power of flight.