Quantum Mechanics? Grab Your Wrenches!

Europium, I'm no quantum mechanic, but if you insist on giving a photon size, it cannot be anything else than the Planck length, some 1.6 x 10^-35 m. That's the closest to nothing that has any meaning.

As a relativity/cosmology hobbyist, I'm convinced that we know the speed of light did not change over time. Some one-way speed of light measurements are possible with supernovae which happened long ago. They consistently give c as we know it.

Hey Jolie. Thanks for your reply. May I politely suggest that you examine your reply for signs of circular reasoning? Supernovae observed today certainly happened long ago, but by what scale is this interval measured and the distance determined? By the speed of light, of course! Nothing in these measurements will tell you that light from these events traversed the entire distance at a uniform velocity - today's value of c. That information is simply not available to the observer. So if c changed in transit, how would you actually know that? The change need not be substantial, of course - a minute fraction of a percent, perhaps - but how would you know? There must be another way. -Europium

Quoting: "Supernovae observed today certainly happened long ago, but by what scale is this interval measured and the distance determined? By the speed of light, of course!"

Well, firstly, the distance is not determined by the speed of light! There's a whole array of independent measurements for astronomical distances.

Secondly, I'm not referring to timing light over the distance to the supernova (SN) - we do not know when the light left the event!

There are pretty good examples of SN flashes that got reflected from clouds of gas in the vicinity of the SN. Knowing the distance between the SN and the clouds of gas and measuring how long after the flash the reflections reached us, gives us a pretty good idea of how fast light travelled some millions of years ago.

Granted, we cannot measure minuscule changes, but that seems unimportant to me.

I should constrain myself to asking one question at a time, if for no other reason than that this infernal text-entry box where I post my replies consumes all the whitespace between paragraphs. I'm certain this is not a bug, so it must be a feature. Please bear with me as I use dashed lines to separate my paragraphs: --------------------. Concerning your reply to my question about the size of a photon, I would like to make a few observations. Photons cannot be of Planck-length dimension (or less), for several reasons. The most obvious reason being that one could not speak meaningfully in terms of a photon's wavelength. Green light, for example, has a wavelength on the order of 500nm. This value is around 10e28 times *larger* than the Planck length. Twenty-eight orders of magnitude is nothing to sneeze at, yes? -------------. Photons cannot be of Planck length dimension for another reason: optical interferometers simply would not work! Interferometers (optical and otherwise) fundamentally depend for their operation on the availability of *phase* information. Without it, an interferometer would simply collect random, uncorrelated events. Yet, optical interferometers - some spanning hundreds of meters in extent - are used very effectively to increase the aperture and angular resolution of telescope arrays. The Keck Interferometer, for instance, connects the two big scopes via an evacuated tunnel through which the collected light is allowed to interfere with itself. ----------- In another case, single photons passing through a small, circular aperture produce a diffraction pattern known as an Airy disk, after its discoverer. This diffraction pattern is *not* produced by the interference between two or more photons, but by photons traveling singly. If photons were of Planck length dimension, as you suggest, how then are these photons 'aware' of the aperture as they pass through? Furthermore, the effect becomes even more pronounced as the aperture approaches a size comparable to the photon's wavelength - still 28 orders of magnitude larger than the Planck length. ---------- As a final example, much of optics theory would simply collapse if photons were actually of the dimension which you suggest. Let's say, for example, that your significant other gives you a new pair of binoculars on your birthday; binoculars having a larger objective lens than your old pair. You discover, much to your delight, that not only is the image you see brighter, but you can see more detail at the same distance than with the old pair. How is that possible? What is it, exactly, that makes the larger objective lens increase resolution? Photons entering that objective must somehow be aware of its size, yes? The larger the objective, the better the resolution - no matter what instrument you use. A photon whose extent is limited to the Planck length would behave as a particle and would either pass through the aperture or not, but beyond this the size of the aperture would have absolutely no effect. So, somehow, photons 'know' about apertures. --------------- Returning to the subject of optical interferometers: except in special cases - lasers, for example - where the phase relationships between emitted photons is, by design, highly correlated, most sources emit photons having no phase correlation whatsoever. However, interferometers fundamentally depend for their operation entirely on phase correlation. Without phase information, an interferometer has no advantage over a simple light sensor. As phase information is absent from uncorrelated photons (actually that information is present, but the phased relationships are completely random), can it be, then, that in the case of the Keck Interferometer, a single photon actually enters *both* telescopes simultaneously? What a preposterous idea! Or is it? Think about this. If this is truly the case, photons can actually be quite large - hundreds of meters in extent! That is, before they're actually detected. (I might point out here that a photon's transit through an aperture does not constitute *detection*). It is when the photon is actually detected, that is when its wavefunction collapses and the photon assumes the dimensions of a small point. So, my question stands: Before a photon is observed, just how big is it? -- Europium

Europium, this very long argument about the size of the photon makes no sense to me whatsoever. Just like a photon has no rest mass, it has no size - that's all I tried to convey with my Planck length absurdity. A photon has energy, wavelength, speed and what else? It is utterly useless to speculate about things that can in principle never be measured. So why bother?

Some the most sweeping discoveries in physics can be traced directly to someone's careful observational skills, childlike curiosity, native intelligence and, especially, a determined willingness to question widely accepted beliefs in the face of puzzling information - however minutely it deviates from predicted behavior. These traits are essential in every good scientist. Without them we would not have our current understanding of elementary particles, quantum mechanics, galaxy formation, how stars can produce prodigous amounts of energy for billions of years without exhausting their fuel, tremendous advances in semiconductor physics, and the nature of Relativity. Albert Einstein was such a scientist and, judging from your choice of signatures, you seem to also recognize the value of curiosity. At least, your signature conveys that impression. My questions are motivated by a longstanding curiosity about these things. I've never seen these topics addressed in any physics textbook, and yet they remain legitimate questions. (Nor, by the way, was this dialog ever an argument. At least not from my point of view.) Whatever you intend to convey by quoting Einstein, your replies clearly reveal a completely different attitude. One that demonstrates a willingness to accept, without question, the status quo, together with a profound apathy toward the very thing your choice of signatures pretends to value - curiosity. Einstein's point is well taken: curiosity *does* have its own reason for existence. Sadly, you seem not to have made this discovery yourself. To quote you, "Why bother?" -- Europium

Hi Europium: since the discussion has gone more or less to philosophy instead of science, this advice: if you post questions like the two you did, you must expect some robust debate - that's the purpose of forums. IMO, the 'size of the photon' also tends towards the philosophy bracket.

Einstein, the discoverer of the photon as a quantized entity, never accepted quantum physics as a whole. His debates with Niels Bohr show that. Apparently, he searched fruitlessly for the deeper truth that he believed underlies it till near the end of his life.

Sure, that was curiosity driven, but into it one can also read a bit of : "…demonstrates a willingness to accept, without question, the status quo…" that you sort of framed me with. Einstein defended the deterministic nature of physics - the status quo.

I doubt if there are too many 'quantum mechanics' reading this forum, hence you did not get a wide response (yet?). Engineers tend to take the word of the scientists, provided that it is well tested, and then apply it to practical solutions for real world problems.

You may get a lot more response from the quantum physics section of Physics Forums, but beware - it's a bit of a jungle out there, from high school to PhD students. The key is to state your questions clearly and make it clear as to what you already know, otherwise you get high school answers - ask Roger!

Where one draws the line between science and philosophy is really a matter of individual preference, wouldn't you say? Whereas you might prefer to relegate questions about the size of a photon to the realm of philosophy, I might prefer instead to regard the nature of the photon *itself* as a philosophical issue - or not. Photons are, after all, rather strange objects - when they are, in fact, objects - so I might actually have some justification for taking this position. Their dual particle/wave nature makes them somewhat schizophrenic, like everything else at that (photon in particle form) scale: one moment they behave like waves and in the next, like particles. Personally I don't feel that a question about a photon's size while it is in its wave state must necessarily be considered on the same footing as, say, a question about a person's Existential Reality. In its wave state a photon is an electromagnetic wave, propagating through space. Just like the signal from your local radio station. No philosophy here! Given the photon's energy or wavelength - it doesn't really matter which - one can determine its electric and magnetic field vectors, its Poynting vector, and whole host of other related quantities that characterize this particular photon. So why, then, must a question of about the photon's size be treated separately and be exiled, as if it were some sort of scientific leper, to the realm of philosophy? This hardly makes any sense at all! Does it to you? Why? Because no one has asked the question? (And no, I'm *not* 'arguing' here. We're having a robust debate. Finally.) -- Europium

Quoting Europium: "So why, then, must a question of about the photon's size be treated separately and be exiled...". OK, here's just one thing to chew on:

According to QED, you cannot measure a photon's length. Why? Because, amongst other things, in every inertial frame its length will be Lorentz contracted to zero, err... to the Planck length, err... to something that has no meaning, err...

Agreed. Neglecting the Lorentz contraction for a moment, if the wave packet - a term I prefer over 'photon' in this context - would otherwise tend to be spherical or ellipsoidal (for the sake of discussion only. I'm not claiming a particular geometry.), the Lorentz contraction would flatten it to a disk as seen from our frame of reference. You're absolutely right. But I must point out - and I apologize for being so tenacious, Jorrie - that we're still left with a disk. Or something like it. Something having a spacial extent. (And, by the way, mustn't it? Consider the alternative - no spacial extent - which leaves us with an infinite energy density to deal with. Mathematically speaking, I'd rather have to deal with a *big* photon than an infinite energy density. Then you get into all kinds of nastiness, like transient virtual particles, the foamlike nature of space at Planck-length scales, and worse. Leptons (electrons, et al), at least so far as we've been able to probe, seem to be dimensionless and they all have this problem.) -- Europium

I am fascinated with this post. When doing different interference experiments in college I couldn't help but wonder how the photon "knew" to interact with one another. If the photons do not occupy a volume of space, then how do they interfere? It seems that they would need to be in the same location to interefere with one another. Thus they must have a physical dimension. For instance, you can create a diffraction pattern with two very small very close together slits (young's double slit experiment). But if the slits are far enough apart you will not get interaction between the light that is emitted from each slit. So the photons must have a finite dimension. Could you perhaps calculate theoretically how far the act of measurment would throw off the measurement?

Now for some speculation. If you consider a sound wave, the geometry is generally a spherical compression wave. Yet, we think of a sound wave as a sinusiodal transverse wave. Perhaps we have limited our thinking of light waves to tranverse sinusiodal wave. Maybe an investigation of this subject might yield a physical geometry for a light wave. Then again we may be running right back to the wave-partical duality of light. To measure would verify a partical, but it's a wave. To consider it a wave and not measure it's physical dimension, but instead it's characteristics would verify a wave, but its acts like a particle!.....O cripes, I going stream of consiousness!

Feynman says, "the test of all knowledge is experiment. experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth."

I would recommend experimentation.

Hi DAG. Welcome to the frey. If you really want a good kick in the pants, consider the diffraction pattern produced when *individual* photons pass through a small (wavelength-scale) circular aperture. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, this diffraction pattern is called an Airy disk. What makes it so remarkable (when you stop and really think about it) is that the pattern is *not* produced as the result of multiple photons interfering with each other. Instead the photons are passing through the aperture one-at-a-time. There are no other photons with which to interfere, yet a diffraction pattern is produced! What, exactly, is interfering with what? Author Nick Herbert does a nice job of describing Airy's experiment in his gentle layman's introduction to quantum mechanics, "Quantum Reality." The book is an easy read, yet it discusses some interesting philosophical questions about the deep implications of quantum theory's predictions. (Jolie take note: Now this book *is* largely philosophical, as intro-to-QM books go, but that is my opinion.) Another topic discussed in the book (toward the end, mostly) is "quantum entanglement." Personally I find QE one of the most fascinating topics in all of science. It seems to violate nearly everything we know about how the universe works, and yet it fits perfectly within the framework of quantum mechanics (BTW, QM is the most successful scientific theory in all of history. It is also the most bizarre). Take care. -- Europium

" . . . I couldn't help but wonder how the photon[s] "knew" to interact with one another." Maybe they're like thermos bottles -- how do they know whether to keep things hot or cold? What if you shine a light into a thermos bottle and stopper it quickly to keep the photons bouncing around inside, reflecting off the mirrored surface? Why aren't they there when you open it again? Seems like it would at least serve as a short-lived flashlight.

Jorrie, I'm with you. Who cares? What difference would it make if we knew how big a photon is (if indeed it does have mass and acts like a particle -- I ain't convinced of such anyway)?

Bill writes: "What if you shine a light into a thermos bottle and stopper it quickly to keep the photons bouncing around inside, reflecting off the mirrored surface? Why aren't they there when you open it again?" --------------- The mirrored interior of a thermos bottle, although highly reflective, eventually absorbs the light - and quickly, too! Moreover, in your typical thermos bottle the mirrored surface is on the *other* side of the glass, on the side opposite the interior, so that the glass also absorbs some fraction of the light. To effectively trap all the light, without any losses, requires a *perfectly* reflecting surface. That means it can't have any flaws. Not one. A single, microscopic scratch and you're hosed. Of course, the portion of the stopper which faces the bottle interior would need to have the same finish. Sadly, perfectly reflecting surfaces do not exist. Nobody has figured out a way to make them, so when you do, you can retire. --------------- Bill writes: "Why aren't they there when you open it again? Seems like it would at least serve as a short-lived flashlight." --------------- A very short-lived flashlight indeed! You might want to give your optical bottle rocket a few nanoseconds, more or less, but after that you might consider buying yourself a conventional flashlight. And don't forget the batteries! -- Europium

I should constrain myself to asking one question at a time, if for noother reason than that this infernal text-entry box where I post myreplies consumes all the whitespace between paragraphs.

So spend 5 light seconds learning how to work the editor you are using.

If it is a HTML editor, then the < P > code to mark your paragraphs should do the trick.

Nick, the 'editor' I'm using is the text-entry box on CR4's Reply-to-Thread page. As I'm not an HTML-editing sort of person, my entering HTML codes (or whatever they're properly called) would be, for me, more or less a crap shoot. The editor's problems I can live with, with my HTML skills I can't. But thanks anyway. -- Europium

Hi Europium, your problems with the editor is actually as hard to understand as my problem with the photon's size!

It may be a setting on your computer - I just press Enter and it produces white space in the reply box, which remains there for all eternity, as far as I can tell. It does however ignore the second line break if I press a 2 Enters.

Jorrie

(Jorrie, in my posts I have been calling you "Jolie" for some reason. Please accept my apologies.) I'll try to keep this short because, like most of us here, I have a living to make. On the other hand, I type fast. As is this an engineering forum, my questions may seem somewhat out of place. I will check out the physics forum that you recommended earlier and I may post some of my queries there. I also belong to a number of other forums for which such questions are appropriate and expected. However, I am, in fact, an engineer, but my work brings me in daily contact with problems and issues of a scientific nature that many, if not most, engineers seldom encounter in their daily work. Fully ninety percent of the people with whom I work have PhDs - mostly in mathematics and physics. One of our people (Steven Weinberg) is, in fact, a Nobel laureate. He was one of the principle forces driving the creation of the now-cancelled Superconducting Supercollider (if you haven't done so already, read his now-dated book "Dreams of a Final Theory"). In my particular workplace the distinctions between science and engineering are often blurred. Sometimes they're obliterated entirely. We have non-linear dynamics group one floor below mine, and I've tapped them from time to time to help solve various practical problems. But they're mostly a bunch of theorists who'd rather not be bothered. A number of years ago we had a small-scale Tokomak fusion experiment in the basement. Particle accelerators, such as Weinberg's pet project (another victim, by the way, of our government's persistantly myopic science policies), are a perfect example of the marriage of science and engineering. It is not uncommon at my workplace to find an engineer doing something more properly called 'science' while the particle physicist at his elbow is soldering together a circuit board. Science and engineering at my place of work (which you have probably guessed by now) are considered more as gradients on continuum, rather than separate disciplines who don't normally work side by side. We even drink beer together on occasion. Imagine that! Consequently, it seems as natural to me to puzzle over a photon's size as it is to consult a photodiode datasheet for its dark-current characteristics. So, given my daily experiences, my questions here may seem to have something of a scientific bias. For this I do not apologize. This forum is large enough that I can reasonably expect to find others here having overlapping interests. Did not you yourself write a short series on relativity recently? (Or was that by somebody else? Somebody with the name "Jolie?" :-) See, I'm not alone! Take care. --Europium

Hi Europium, no problem, Jolie or Jorrie - these are all nicknames anyway.

Unlike you, I'm an engineer amongst mostly engineers, so here's very little scientific stimulation! I tried for years to educate the engineers around me in relativity and cosmology, but with limited success. They all told me to write it up, but when I did, very few read it!

Eventually I completed an eBook called "Relativity 4 Engineers" and have just published it on the web here. Not a scientific treatment, but better than the usual popular book (IMO at least!).

QM and QED are not really my bread and butter - I prefer the more deterministic world of Einstein. Your world sounds extremely exiting, I must say!

Best regards,

Jorrie

That is a complete cop out for an intelligent person such as yourself.

There few simple HTML codes can do wonders for your reply if indeed you get stuck with a simple editor. The editor I am looking at is a bit fancier - I just don't remember how I changed it from the DHTML editor to the KOVI(?) editor.

I just have to pess the B button to bold, the I to italic, and the U to underline. An enter is sufficient to get the necessary white space.

However, on a simple editor I would have to do these commands myself. In that case you simply put the code in the appropriate brackets. Typically < > but sometimes [ ]. A backslash / mare is used before the code to terminate the function.

The code to BOLD something is the letter B. Thats easy enough to remember.

The code to Italisize something is the letter I. Also easy to remember.

Underline is a U. Dead easy.

Line breaks is the letters BR.

Paragraph breaks are is the letter P.

So it looks like this.

<b> BOLD IT </b> <i> ITALICISE IT </i> <P> for a paragraph break. <BR> for a line feed.

Got it now?

By Jove, it worked! Again! (pssst: see, all I do is feign ignorance and then they practically fall over yourselves to do the actual work! I get what I want and they get to feel great about helping someone in need. It's a win-win situation!) Seriously, I do appreciate your help and I'll give this a try. At least you're not trying to teach me emacs (EmacsMakesAComputerSlow, EscapeMetaAltCtrlShift, etc) whilst standing on one foot (together with its lovable and endearing 'macro' language, elisp. The pox on you, Richard Stallman! Friggin' MITwit!) Thanks, guy! -- Europium

Errata: "...fall over *themselves*..." As with marriage, the chains of dyslexia are so heavy that it takes two - and sometimes three - people to carry them. :-\

Hi there europium and all,

I'm reading all this as a designer only and will explain my self first so as not to go through that keel hauling in the gulf of mexico besides I'd need a new passport sounds like great stuff though all those tresures undiscovered I'm in.

firstly I learned Astrology, born in the year of the dragon 52 the last month of the year, I am a capricorn with a libra moon sign making me somewhat proned to being accused of double talking (yin yang and all that stuff) and the fast typing doesn't help either. so there you have it in a nutshell.

these Photon's are they per chance the same photon's that when attempting to split them in a Particle Accelerator you end up with two...?

your debate about the rights and wrongs of this particular disscussion reminds me also of the first instance of the definition of science being then called "positive science" and described as "proving the sicence to be positive and if they can not be proven positive they are to be disregarded" an understatement of the Hypocrisy of those times and we still now live within it's ignorance, to some extent although conjecture eventually levels the playing field. And I'm always telling folk "talk about the things you want and (outside of the facts of conological time) they will arrive, talk about the things you don't want and you'll get them toO.

finally I note:

anything that is contacted by light never remains the same

and that the speed of dark is just that bit faster (a speculation by myself from observed black holes gobbling up planetery systems (Light sources) some where on the internet, actually probably magnitude faster by my calculated guesses)

I did try to start a discussion about UFO's (albeit a tad hyperthetical [ufo's])and how they might use repulsion a force. such as the ones that hold the earth and moon in orbit (static electricity I thought) but alas got only one negtive responce a small minded view, possibily linked to keeping the status Quo or other, I don't understand that at all. open discussion I find far more stimulation as shown in my tag line I suppose

Robbie.

Robbie, where on Earth (or Heaven) did you get the idea from that there is a repulsive force holding the moon and Earth in orbit?

They attract each other and it is purely due to their transverse (tangential) velocity components that the stay in orbit. In simple terms, they fall, but they miss each other continuously due to sideways movement. Same for the Earth around the Sun...

Regards, Jorrie

From fris's notion of dark matter.

[Quote]I think all the dark matter in the universe, which scientists do not know what it is, is really anti matter. Very small particles, which are unseen, but have repulsion, in place of attraction, just the opposite to the attraction of gravity. Not as strong as gravity. This explains a lot. The small anti-matter particles have the same Distance square loss of repulsion as does gravity's attraction. But the repulsion of the anti-matter to normal matter causes the anti matter to be compacted and thus the repulsion actually adds, so it builds great repulsion in the rifts of the universe. There is evidence of these particles, by the Motion of celestial bodies orbiting other celestial bodies.[/unquote]

it goes on to explain the rest in his thread

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/8137

which I also have room for in my theoretical mind... of course it's very contorversial at this point but worth a thought and make some sense in my minuscule mind about the antics of the UFO story I mentioned. Who knows what they (if they exsist) used or know about that we don't Science should think further away for proving everything postive as with the formulars of the fractint program they discovered that making the square root of 1 = e being e = -0.5 I think a guess from memory where the form that is created is some what like the flow of air around a moving object retracting into it's self at the rear end of the object as shown in the attached pic..

by all accounts UFO with their instant multi directional ability must be somewhere in the maths we use or otherwise our equations can not bear the antics of these presumably authentic sighting out. Or can we...?

besides are they the same photons I mentioned? I'm curious

I must say Jorrie, your right there are mainly know attractive forces between the earth and the moon that hold them together, my error for omitting that. Although the repulsive forces could be a valid scenario for the falling away of the planetary bodies that stops them from colliding within the time frame of recorded history and beyond. As they do.., as I understand it, The distance between the orbiting of the earth and the moon is not a constant value so the two form a elliptic motion to a small extent in relationship to their size of course.

Robbie

"these Photon's are they per chance the same photon's that when attempting to split them in a Particle Accelerator you end up with two...?" < p > Photons are not 'split in two' in particle accelerators, but I suspect you may be referring to a QM phenomenon called "twinning" in which certain light sources can generate pairs of photons having identical - and entangled - quantum states. You don't need a particle accelerator for this, just in case you were planning to do your own experiments. That annoying mercury-arc street light that shines in my bedroom window emits twinned photons. Of course, if you do, you may find that you need slightly more apparatus than that. :-) < p > "firstly I learned Astrology, born in the year of the dragon 52 the last month of the year, I am a capricorn with a libra moon sign..." < p > I've heard of Astrology. Isn't Astrology the primary reason why Weather Forecasters exist? To make Astrology respectible? < p > -- Europium

yes your right Europium,

although it's the fact that the weather forcasters get it so wrong the make astrology so repectable. take for example the rain before the full moon, You can do this it works.

check out the amount of rain that falls prior to the moon becoming full and relate it to the amount of rain full of the preceeding month. if there is more rain proir to the full moon from the amount there was in the prevous months rainfall at the same time generally about a half an hour befroe the moon goes full then have measured the difference in the amount of rainfull within the next luna cycle. if it's more rain in the rainfall preceeding the moon at full then that t lunar cycle will follow with that percentage of difference.

or if your constantly bombarded with feeling in your lunar month you can do this over three months of the lunar cycle, write down in short your feeling ever two hours or just when you can rememeber to put down the time, do it three months in sucsession and compare notes only after the thrid moth you will see that your feeling cycle every two hours

Yes. Thank you for bringing this my attention. I'm sure that if I were to carefully review the statistics, the correlation would be one hundred percent. But I'm not going to that, of course so, please, allow me take your word for it. By the way, I'd also like to say that I thoroughly enjoy discussions of sheng fui, out-of-body experiences, teleportation, psychokinesis (all you who believe in psychokinesis, please raise my hand), UFOs, the fabulous claims of Nikola Tesla made by the lunatic fringe (you seem to have neglected to mention Mr. Tesla in your posts, by the way) and, of course, Astrology. < p > It helps me to read this stuff; usually late at night and whenever things seem to be going too well. This ominous, creepy feeling comes over me at such times and I begin to suffer from the delusion that the world is basically a sane place. So, please, give me your phone number so that I can call you whenever I find myself in this condition. Do you mind? --Europium

yeA sure if you want and it helps
I dought it will although you can all way reach me on my meebo widget at my site.

or search for mdbobbo on googly you'll find me out there some where...

It even has some interesting stuff about "germs are good for us" maybe it will ease your mind a bit in these twilight hours with that pesky street light or just remeber to have some yoghurt after finishing those anti-biotics they perscribe so readily, thats science for you too. By the way "psychokinesis". Does that work on Biological organisms I thought not. and if you'd rather talk about the advantages of not having an axle in a wheel I could get excited about your eventuality of disscussing something fruitfull with me. for my double talk (fruit being the key word) you must realise that even meat eaters are actually vegetarians for the meat we eat - eats what? yes you see it's all just science and how we pecieve it.
I just don't understand the postive or disregard reality of science.

or for that fact the computer tech's attitude that "if they don't need to know don't tell them.." just charge them $120 per hour and laugh all the way to the bank.

It's been fun, mdbobbo, but I have to scream now: "NEXT!"

and it's abit of subject I know but sure thing I'll leave you and your gametes to have their scream and just to make you feel at home I-scream too, just so they don't feel left out...