Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

George replied to Henry:

What makes a photon different from anything else
then George?

It has different intrinsic properties.

How can anything have 'intrinsic properties' (which can be
measured in 3space1time) if it doesn't have a 'structure'?

Consider some entity A. It is made of entities B and C.
A has properties which come from the properties of B
and C plus some influence from the relationship between
B and C. For example the mass of A might be the sum
of the masses of B and C plus the binding energy of the
pair. As you go down the scale, eventually you come to
something fundamental which is not composed of other
things, and yet it must have some properties of its own.

This idea has surely been expressed so many times that I
was hoping for a very refined, elegant exegesis. I'll
just add my own slap-dash, spur-of-the-moment examples.

A rectangle has no structure, yet has intrinsic properties
such as length, width, and area. A circle has no structure,
yet has intrinsic properties such as diameter, circumference,
and area. An electron has no structure, yet has intrinsic
properties such as mass, charge, and magnetic moment.

Of course that doesn't answer Henry's question. Things just
have intrinsic properties regardless of whether they have
any structure, so it isn't possible to say how that can be.

How can anything have fur if it doesn't have wheels?


When you calculate the probability of detection of a
photon at some location, there is a sine function in
that equation.

Oh crap. Probability theory doesn't work with sample
sizes of unity.

Location is a continuous variable. It is not possible to
calculate exactly where a photon will land given an
experimental setup, you can only calculate the probability
as a function of location. That is an intrinsic property of
all particles.

George, if a thousand bullets are fired at a target,
the way they are distributed around the bull follows an
established statistical law.

Yes, and that is true even if the gun is locked into position.

However, if single ONE bullet is fired at the target, it has
zero probability of landing anywhere other than at the point
where the gun was aimed. (please don't mention wind shear)

No, it has exactly the same probability of landing at any
location as each of the thousand.

Statistics is the most misinterpreted science of all....

Indeed, though your mistake above is less common than
others. The key here is that the probability for each
bullet is unaffected by the existence of any preceding
shot. It is similar to tossing an unbiassed coin, the
probability is 50:50 regardless of the outcome of
preceding tosses, only the variable is 2D real (location
on the target) rather than binary (heads or tails).

A sequence of binary coin tosses can generate a gaussian
probability distribution which describes the pattern of
bullet hits.

Henry will put forth a superficially plausible but
incorrect explanation for the many photon or electron
impacts in the images you linked to which are not in the
constructive areas of the interference patterns. You will
show him what is wrong with his explanation, and he will
defend it by telling you that you are wrong and modify his
explanation to make it work. You will show him why the
modification doesn't work, and he will respond again by
saying that he was mistaken, the modification wasn't
needed, his original explanation was correct.


the constancy of cepheid periods strongly suggests
some kind of connection with an orbit.

No, Cepheid variation is less stable.

So are many orbit periods.

No orbital periods are more stable and don't show the
discontinuous phase changes of Cepheids.

Was there supposed to be a comma after the "No" ?

Don't, stop! No, don't stop!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis