What is the relationship between scale and rate of change in quantum mechanics?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
All quantum pairs, produced by such "splitting" experiments, are considered entangled. That should be rather obvious, since (as I've been pointing out repeatedly) you cannot literally split some massless particle in half, you can only split it's probability wave, so that it greatly probable that it is one of the two places.

It is not obvious at all since I don't know how this thing works. In principle I can make a device that would do the same thing without the need for entanglement.

And no I don't think we are really splitting a photons.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
you can only split it's probability wave, so that it greatly probable that it is one of the two places.

I don't know what this means. What is the mathematical meaning of splitting a wave function?

I can imagine other possibilities beyond whatever you mean here. For example, perhaps the incoming photon excites an atom in the crystal which then releases half the energy as a photon. It may then excite its neighbor to release another photon. In this way the two have a mapping but I think not entanglement.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, they did, after all use those very words, and it appears to fit with their hypothesis, since their "knowledge" would have to change the photon (and it doesn't appear that this could be the case, unless the photon, at some point, posessed knowledge of our knowledge).

Understand the experiment first.

But they didn't make all of these different changes on the same beem of light (did they?), and so it needn't be collapsed an then uncollapsed.

Why didn't they? It isn't relevant anyway. A beam of light is a beam of light. A photon is a photon. If an apple falling from a tree stops half way to the ground and then just floats, scientists all over the world would be shocked wouldn't they? Would you then say to them "Why are you guys so shocked? Sure all those other apples fell to the ground but this isn't the same apple"? I doubt it. If you understand the experiment, you will understand that it is just like the apple analogy.

It seems as if you have once again focused in on my words of collapse and uncollapse and interpreted them literally to mean that it was the same photon when that isn't really relevant to the experiment at all. Just like you're doing with the other words. Context seems to be a problem for you when you read. Perhaps it is the short amount of time you are devoting to reading and responding. But if it continues on from here it'll be my fault. I'm going to have to be more careful.

As far as that third step goes, I'd say that you've not taken into account the quantum effect on the very polarization of the photon.

If a photon is being passed through a device that sets it's polarity to X, what other quantum option is there? There is no quantum effect of the polarization. Surely you give these scientists more credit than this?

After all, you have not "split" some ball-shaped (yet massless) particle, but have just split it's probability - so that it is greatly probable that it is in one of those two positions, but it is not completely "true", since nothing is in the Quantum Mechanical world.

I'm not sure I like the way you worded this. I don't interpret it as "nothing is in the Quantum Mechanical world." If I said earlier that a photon was nowhere, I meant "nowhere in particular", which could mean that a photon is everywhere! It is in both places. So it is present and able to have it's polarization affected.

I would like to just note that you are not just disagreeing with me Mentat. You are questioning the validity of experiments being performed in major university labs by professional scientists. Now there's nothing wrong with that in principal but I think it is something worth pointing out since my whole entry into this thread was to rebutt what appeared to be dogmatic bias by the originator. If I were you I would take a lot more time to understand these experiments before responding. It's one thing to disagree on the notions of scientists in matters of philosophy but I don't have the guts to tell them their experiments are flawed.

To simply think outside the box and try to conjure up a problem that sounds good may be comforting but it seems somewhat like irresponsible philosophy. I think we have to take what science gives us and work with it.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
No it doesn't, since when you block a certain polarization from taking one of the paths, you have changed the quantum-bound photon.

Again, you have focused on the wrong point. I am agreeing with everything you've said about the EPR experiments. But that does not refute anything in these experiments.

Know, I don't think the Universe understands anything, as a whole. I think that mathematics is just a form of logic, which is the way that the Universe works - but not the way it had to work.

Do not gloss over what I've said. I can tell from this response that you "didn't get it". That's why I said simmer on it a while. I wasn't looking for an actually literal response on calculus and the universe. You're supposed to apply the analogy to the actual topic at hand and find the similarity. So take what you've said above and apply it to the implications of these experiments. Hopefully you will see why consciousness doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. There is no right answer here. This topic needs to be explored. I've said that all along. But we cannot discuss it if people keep ignoring it because they don't understand QM..

 

[Jagger2003]

Mind

Mentat, I haven't read Dennetts book. Although I am sure if he had proved the origin of consciousness, he would have a Nobel and we would have all heard of it. Undoubtably he has another theory amonst many.

Here is a good online book which provides a very comprehensive history of consciousness studies including the latest theories that you may enjoy. It will give you an idea of some of the difficulties in getting a grasp of the origin of the mind.

http://www.thymos.com/tat/title.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Fliption
...consciousness doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. There is no right answer here. This topic needs to be explored.

It would seem that since this controversial topic [for more than seventy years now] violates our every bit of sense by implication at least, the opinions expressed are often highly charged. For some reason, it seems that the potential significance of these matters is mostly avoided. I find that many professional scientists [works for IBM instead of USC] virtually deny any mystical implications here. By mystical I mean something with a WOW factor of > 0.95; where 0 <= WOW <= 1 for all WOW.

I don't mean forever unexplainable magic.
[EDIT: Which is what QM seems to be right now!]

If by some views the implications of these experiments are true, this does seem to be revolutionary in any real sense. This is no less revolutionary than Newton's lesson that things fail, and things don't fail as described by the laws of physics; not by goblins and fairies. As was implied by Jagger2003; one potential implication of this: We may have killed Maxwell's demon with information, but the goblins and fairies, THEEERE BAAAAAACCCCK.

This may finally boil down to an inconceivable, inexplicable set of equations that work without yielding insight. But if the goblins exist, then if we can ever understand this stuff in a philosophical way, we may be witnessing momentous paradigm shift for the human race. Really in any case we are. I think this is why many authors present their opinions as facts. This of course combined with the unusually straight forward and abrupt style of many scientists. I don't mean this to be critical. I only mean this as an observation from one person's point of view. This timbre creates confusion and I think impedes potentially grand new insights into that thing called reality. IMHO


And above all people like Mentat should be trying to figure this out!
Edit: Damnit!

 

[wimms]

I have few questions regarding main 3rd experiment in http://www.tardyon.de/ko2.htm

1) why do they need fancy down-converters? why splitters wouldn't do?
2) What is the function of beam splitters 2 and 3 - why are they required instead of using mirrors to direct necessary beams to converge at common spots on detectors?
3) Cutting off idler1 from splitter 3. Are we supposed to assume that beams idler1 and idler2 do NOT interact AT splitter3, but would be only directed to ID detector? If so, then it looks fishy, as cutting off idler1 is equivalent to moving ID detector into that cutoff point, or simply making idler1 path shorter.
4) I assume that if cutoff was done between splitter3 and detector, 'knowledge' would not change, thus interference of signals would remain?

This somehow reminds me unstable electronic circuit, beam paths acting as conductors, wave photons acting as resonant AC current, splitters acting like feedback leaks. How crackpot would it be to suppose that splitters that are more like adders change some sort of space impedance on both alternate paths, and cutting off one of beams causes impedance drop throughout the whole circuit for a beam path that remains intact? Braking AC oscillator circuit loop and making it into DC static current conduit, only instead of free electrons, photons are used.

5) any hint on how to repeat such experiment at home? no, really, penpointer laser, mirrors, digital camera for detector. Would be interesting homework.

 

[Jagger2003]

but the goblins and fairies, THEEERE BAAAAAACCCCK.

I agree that they could be back. Of course, way too early to conclude anything, but it is interesting there is so little discussion of the possible implications.

Whether knowledge or consciousness, the non-material component would bring down the assumption of a purely materialistic universe. It would also raise the question of which came first, matter or non-matter or did they arise simultaneously. If one came first and if a non-material component is essential to cause and effect, then we would have to have matter arise from the non-material.

Then we would wonder what is this non-matter composed of and where comes its ability to impact matter with knowledge or will or intent or whatever. I suspect we would end up examining the consciousness for its unique qualities as the only known example of a type of non-material entity which recognizes knowledge, contains intent and will unlike purely physical matter. Then we might theorize some sort of overarching quality of consciousness beyond the individual consciousness to produce a unified experience of existence. UMMMMmmmm...No, we don't want to go down that road until it is absolutely necessary.

Of course, first we must understand the cause of a waves collapse.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Jagger2003
Mentat, I haven't read Dennetts book. Although I am sure if he had proved the origin of consciousness, he would have a Nobel and we would have all heard of it. Undoubtably he has another theory amonst many.

Here is a good online book which provides a very comprehensive history of consciousness studies including the latest theories that you may enjoy. It will give you an idea of some of the difficulties in getting a grasp of the origin of the mind.

http://www.thymos.com/tat/title.html

Thanks, Jagger2003, this is right up MY alley (where I generally get mugged by materialists). In fact, a few of the sentences are almost verbatum what I have been saying: "No scientific theory of the Universe can be said complete if it doesn't explain consciousness."

Still, at first scan, it looks as though this might be confined (and, being a panpsychist, I'm using the word "confined" advisedly) to human -- or biological -- consciousness. But no matter ...I'm sure it will be a good read. Thanks again.

By the way, did you read the introductory post? Some don't like the "C" word here. Thus, I have only been "auditing" this thread...that is, "receiving no credits" for keeping my opinions to myself.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Jagger2003
Fascinating thread. IMO, the implications are revolutionary. Assuming knowledge is non-material, what we are seeing is a possible non-material component of cause and effect./B]

Now you did it: new buddy. (Careful: we are not among friends.)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It is not obvious at all since I don't know how this thing works. In principle I can make a device that would do the same thing without the need for entanglement.

And no I don't think we are really splitting a photons.

If you "split" a photon, you are splitting it's probability wave, because that's all the photon really is in the first place. You appear to be stuck on a classical image of particles (as though they were individuals). This image has long been abolished by the EPR experiment (and many other such experiments). Thus, you cannot really ever fire "one photon", and then split it, but rather you can fire the greatest probable area for the particle to be, and split that, so that it is greatly probable in two places. However, if you do this, you must recognize that the "two" photons are entangled, so that whatever you do to one affects the other (since they are, for all practical (classical) purposes, the same photon).

Also, please remember that no one can actually envision quantum effects exactly (much like we cannot envision the fourth spatial dimension).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
If you "split" a photon, you are splitting it's probability wave, because that's all the photon really is in the first place. You appear to be stuck on a classical image of particles (as though they were individuals). This image has long been abolished by the EPR experiment (and many other such experiments). Thus, you cannot really ever fire "one photon", and then split it, but rather you can fire the greatest probable area for the particle to be, and split that, so that it is greatly probable in two places. However, if you do this, you must recognize that the "two" photons are entangled, so that whatever you do to one affects the other (since they are, for all practical (classical) purposes, the same photon).

Also, please remember that no one can actually envision quantum effects exactly (much like we cannot envision the fourth spatial dimension).

Boy are you missing the point. Where is the information that tells me that this down-converter produces entangled pairs? I am not really disputing that this is the case but they need not necessarily be entangled. Or, if they must be then this has not been clearly demonstrated either.

And I got over the particle model 20 years ago. Back when I was your age.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
One book is hardly a consensus. I am quite sure that no notices have gone out to the journals announcing that the mystery of consciousness is solved.

I can show evidence that consciousness continues even if no EEG can be measured. Would this scenario be explained by Clement's thesis?

Do you mean that no neural activity can be measured, and yet consciousness continues?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
Do you mean that no neural activity can be measured, and yet consciousness continues?

Yes. This was the surprising realization had about these death experiences that people report. The people who technically die on the table are acquiring memories without any measurable brain function. Everyone has argued about whether or not these people are "leaving their bodies". The thing everyone seemed to have missed is that according to everything we know, they can't remember these experiences - much less recite discussions had in the ER, or describe how a particular instrument looked, or the faces of people present only during the code - because they had no measurable brain activity at the time. I will dig up the link if you want.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Boy are you missing the point. Where is the information that tells me that this down-converter produces entangled pairs? I am not really disputing that this is the case but they need not necessarily be entangled. Or, if they must be then this has not been clearly demonstrated either.

I already told you, there was no splitting of some individual particle to begin with. They just split it's probabily wave so that it was greatly probable in those two positions. In doing so, however, you have produced the illusion of two photons, which must (in all factors (e.g. spin)) coincide to (in sum) equal the properties of the one "original" photon. This is what quantum entanglement means.

And I got over the particle model 20 years ago. Back when I was your age.

Much like the Psychologists and Neurologists who think they are over the "Cartesian Theater" model of consciousness, and yet still hint at a "place" where consciousness occurs (no offense).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Yes. This was the surprising realization had about these death experiences that people report. The people who technically die on the table are acquiring memories without any measurable brain function. Everyone has argued about whether or not these people are "leaving their bodies". The thing everyone seemed to have missed is that according to everything we know, they can't remember these experiences - much less recite discussions had in the ER, or describe how a particular instrument looked, or the faces of people present only during the code - because they had no measurable brain activity at the time. I will dig up the link if you want.

No, that's alright, I've seen such sites referenced before. However, I do think that Dennett's theory of concsiousness can account for this, since the mental input can still be occurring, without the constant revision and partial memorization that is consciousness (according to this theory).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, that's alright, I've seen such sites referenced before. However, I do think that Dennett's theory of concsiousness can account for this, since the mental input can still be occurring, without the constant revision and partial memorization that is consciousness (according to this theory).

This will be real news to neurologists and the like! This must be some real cutting edge [fringe] stuff.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
Much like the Psychologists and Neurologists who think they are over the "Cartesian Theater" model of consciousness, and yet still hint at a "place" where consciousness occurs (no offense).

You response

I already told you, there was no splitting of some individual particle to begin with. They just split it's probabily wave so that it was greatly probable in those two positions. In doing so, however, you have produced the illusion of two photons, which must (in all factors (e.g. spin)) coincide to (in sum) equal the properties of the one "original" photon. This is what quantum entanglement means.

sought to avoid my question with sarcasm. I showed that we might be able to create two photons that are mapped but not entangled. I never said anything about splitting photons; in fact I said that I am sure we are not. I said this because the statement makes no sense. Then you put words in my mouth to avoid the question. Prove to me that these are entangled photons. At first I was just looking for the information, but now your evasiveness makes me think you are only assuming that they are entangled.


You don't need to explain the difference between a probability wave existing over space, and splitting BB's. My first semester Quantum Mechanics professor already did that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, that's alright, I've seen such sites referenced before.

This is Mentat for: I've looked at the evidence?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This will be real news to neurologists and the like! This must be some real cutting edge [fringe] stuff.

This won't be news at all, the Multiple Drafts model has existed since the late 80's or early 90's. That not everyone has accepted it is evidence that Science doesn't easily conform (as well it shouldn't).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Your response sought to avoid my question with sarcasm. I showed that we might be able to create two photons that are mapped but not entangled. I never said anything about splitting photons; in fact I said that I am sure we are not. I said this because the statement makes no sense. Then you put words in my mouth to avoid the question. Prove to me that these are entangled photons. At first I was just looking for the information, but now your evasiveness makes me think you are only assuming that they are entangled.

My sincerest apologies for the sarcastic nature of my previous post. It's been a long day, but there is no excuse for having spoken insultingly (if that's a word).

Yes, I have indeed assumed that the photons were entangled, but I did so because the experiment is based on an apparatus that "splits the photon".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
My sincerest apologies for the sarcastic nature of my previous post. It's been a long day, but there is no excuse for having spoken insultingly (if that's a word).

Yes, I have indeed assumed that the photons were entangled, but I did so because the experiment is based on an apparatus that "splits the photon".

Really no need for any apologies here. As I am sure you now know I think very highly of you. I am just trying to get you to back off on your certitude. Many very great minds do not agree on these issues. I would just hate to see your mind already made up...at what, 16?

So I want to know if these things are entangled! Then I can argue the rest of the experiment. Gotta go for a bit though...

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
So I want to know if these things are entangled! Then I can argue the rest of the experiment. Gotta go for a bit though...

Argue twice:
a) entangled
b) not entangled
both are nice options

 

[Jagger2003]

Consciousness

Gapser, glad you like the site.

The author is a pure materialist. He does cover non-material theories although without much attention and very quickly. He does not take them seriously.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Jagger2003
Gaspar, glad you like the site.

The author is a pure materialist. He does cover non-material theories although without much attention and very quickly. He does not take them seriously.

And you?

 

[Jagger2003]

From a science viewpoint, I will follow wherever the evidence leads.

Although I started wondering about my belief in a purely materialist universe when my father had a near death experience. From an agnostic/atheistic veiwpoint, I have spent three years trying to understand NDE's. My opinion is they are currently unexplainable assuming a materialistic universe. Today I would not be surprised if NDE's are exactly what they appear to be. So gradually I have reached the belief that fundamental existence may go far beyond what mainstream science finds acceptable to even consider. However I doubt if we will know the answers within my lifetime. But I keep my mind open to whatever evidence appears.

One thing I have learned over the last three years is to look very, very closely at the assumptions within science. What is stated as fact is often unproven theory when you look closely. Interestingly enough, studying NDE's has given me a different and more questioning perspective from many others that don't question the mainstream assumptions. This questioning perspective has come in very useful in many areas beyond science.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Memories and NDEs

Since I just received a PM requesting this I am posting for those who are interested. This is one report about the issue of memories acquired in the absence of any measurable EEG.

http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/articlesN75+/N76Parnia_nde.htm

Welcome to PF.com Hypnagogue

 

[hypnagogue]

Thanks for the info. I didn't ask in here because I didn't want to get things too off topic.
Speaking of which, this is a great thread. FWIW, I throw my lot in with Fliption although I'm really interested to see where this all will wind up. That said... have at it! *steps back*

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This post is absolutely meaningless

But it does allow me to pass up Tom and become one of the top ten posters.

Oh I know...you're welcome Hypnagogue. Ok now this post is legit.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Entanglement

They are entangled. These sources reference this point as well as variations on this experiment.

http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~frioux/2photon.htm

http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~frioux/n2photon.htm

A comment on the internal workings:
"When a photon reaches the down-converter, it excites an electron into a higher energy level. But the electron returns to its ground state via an intermediate energy level, and emits a lower-energy photon at each stage."

http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/7/19

Here are a few other sites that came up while looking for this information:

http://www.physics.iupui.edu/Physics/faculty/ou.html

"Besides squeezed light, parametric down-conversion processes also produce nonclassical states such as a single photon state and a two-photon entangled state, which can give rise to phenomena such as sub-Poissonian photon statistics and nonclassical interference that are unexplainable by classical wave theory. These states are also associated with the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox of quantum theory. The problems that we are interested in are the nonlocality of single-photons and the EPR paradox with continuous variables."

Also:
http://science.exeter.edu/ssaltman/quantum/quantum.htm

http://fergusmurray.members.beeb.net/Causality.html

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Really no need for any apologies here. As I am sure you now know I think very highly of you. I am just trying to get you to back off on your certitude. Many very great minds do not agree on these issues. I would just hate to see your mind already made up...at what, 16?

15, actually, and my mind is not completely made up on much of anything. I just sound convinced because we are discussing reality as it exists in a Quantum Mechanical framework, and all of the texts that I've read on QM gave pretty much the same view I was giving.

However, I think you are right, our disagreement really has to do with whether or not the photons are entangled or not. And, as you've shown in your more recent post, they are.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
and all of the texts that I've read on QM gave pretty much the same view I was giving.

I don't see how you can have the time required to dig into books and be assured that you have understood them properly when you have struggled with taking time to understand the information posted here.

This means nothing to some people, but I was in the book store last night and looked through all sorts of books on QM. I'm not taking about Tao of physics stuff either. If you undertsand this stuff enough you can weed out the speculative text from those that are really hitting the issues of current science. It was amazing to me how not one single book that I look at had the view that Tiberius and Mentat have been arguing for. Of course these authors were also claiming that they didn't believe that consciousness had anything to do with it either. But they did realize that there were implications to QM research that many scientists disagree on. One quote I remember in particular was talking about the explanation that a photon has to hit an electron in order for us to observe it. The photon hitting the electron causes it to "kick" knocking it out of it's position thus our measurement affects the thing being mesasured. This is pretty much what Tiberous has claimed is obviously going on.
But this text went on to say..(I paraphrase)

"It is unfortunate that this is the explanation that many people give for the Uncertainty Principle. This view paints a common sense classical picture of the subatomic world as if it is nothing but billiard balls bouncing into one another. The truth is that the uncertainty in the quantum world is far more fundamental than that."

It went on to say that even Newton could have figured this out if that's all the uncertainty principle was.

Regardless of what is really going on in QM, I am simply trying to point out that science does NOT have an accepted consensus on it. There is nothing "obvious" about it. But I am glad to see several people have jumped into this thread and all seem willing to explore this a bit which is what I'd hoped would happen in this forum one day. I haven't had time to thoroughly read some of the links provided by some of you but I definitely want to!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
I don't see how you can have the time required to dig into books and be assured that you have understood them properly when you have struggled with taking time to understand the information posted here.

First off, I've had very little trouble understanding what you've posted, it's agreeing with it that I haven't done.

Secondly, I have (as I've said enough times, I'm sure, to make people sick of hearing it) very little time to post. So, I don't have time to mull over what people say (unless it is really profound, in which case I do lose time over it), before responding.

This means nothing to some people, but I was in the book store last night and looked through all sorts of books on QM. I'm not taking about Tao of physics stuff either. If you undertsand this stuff enough you can weed out the speculative text from those that are really hitting the issues of current science. It was amazing to me how not one single book that I look at had the view that Tiberius and Mentat have been arguing for. Of course these authors were also claiming that they didn't believe that consciousness had anything to do with it either. But they did realize that there were implications to QM research that many scientists disagree on. One quote I remember in particular was talking about the explanation that a photon has to hit an electron in order for us to observe it. The photon hitting the electron causes it to "kick" knocking it out of it's position thus our measurement affects the thing being mesasured. This is pretty much what Tiberous has claimed is obviously going on.
But this text went on to say..(I paraphrase)

"It is unfortunate that this is the explanation that many people give for the Uncertainty Principle. This view paints a common sense classical picture of the subatomic world as if it is nothing but billiard balls bouncing into one another. The truth is that the uncertainty in the quantum world is far more fundamental than that."

It went on to say that even Newton could have figured this out if that's all the uncertainty principle was.

You mean the writer didn't even attempt an explanation of what's actually going on, and just said it was a pity that people though of it (the photon) as the cause of the electron's change?

BTW, I'm sure there are a lot of (very respectable) texts that have other opinions about what's "really" going on at the Quantum level, but I just haven't run into any (yet) that explain (mathematicall, or at least logically) how what kind of observer you are could make any difference at the quantum level.

Regardless of what is really going on in QM, I am simply trying to point out that science does NOT have an accepted consensus on it. There is nothing "obvious" about it.

Ok. That's very reasonable of you, and I'm sorry if I made it seem as though there were no contraversy on the issue. I'm positive that there is. However, it was ("was" being the operative word here) my opinion that, like Joao Magueijo's disagreement with General Relativity, the contraversy was just some scientists attacking the original principle. I see now that there doesn't seem to have been an "original principle", they (QM theorists) were just explaining what they observed to be true.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
15, actually,

Excuse me while I go shove this pencil into my head.

Maximus and Tiberius are no slouches either. Aren't they about your age?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
First off, I've had very little trouble understanding what you've posted, it's agreeing with it that I haven't done.

I was referring more to the links.

So, I don't have time to mull over what people say (unless it is really profound, in which case I do lose time over it), before responding.

Hmm should I be insulted?

You mean the writer didn't even attempt an explanation of what's actually going on, and just said it was a pity that people though of it (the photon) as the cause of the electron's change?

I'm sure the writer did. But I can't read the entire book in one night at the book store. I will admit to hopping over to the issue that this thread is about.