Wave particle duality and ferrets

If quantum theory doesn't bedazzle your intellect and have you scratching your bonce in frank bewilderment then you have failed to understand its fundamental tenets. But therein lies the problem. Reality at the quantum level is so bizarre and fantastically weird that it defies coherent contemplation. Very smart physicists gape in wonder at their experimental results. It is as if the human brain is not wired to fully appreciate the workings of nature at the infinitesimal level. The world of the subatomic eludes logical appreciation and appears forever counter to our model of reality. This may explain why sub-atomic particle physicists, more than any other group of scientists, are prone to mysticism.

Take light for example. Light is the visible form of electromagnetic radiation. Up until the turn of the last century, light seemed well behaved and could be described as a wave. However, disturbing experiments began to suggest that light under certain circumstances behaved as a 'quanta package', a particle called a photon. But how can this be? Light is either a particle or a wave, how can it be both? In fact it seems that all sub-atomic particles can be described this way. Depending on how the experiment is designed light can be observed as a wave or a particle. But even more strange, it appears that light behaves as a particle or a wave depending on whether it is being 'observed' or not. It is as if the particle/wave knows it is being watched. For those who would like to know more about nature's absurdity I've embedded a short video which explains this phenomenon simply and elegantly.

Life at the macroscopic level is never so strange, or is it? After all we are composed of a near infinite number of particles which if they prefer, transform to waves. How does all this impact on the real macro world we inhabit? This happens to be a highly controversial subject, and not just confined to the world of science. The implications of quantum physics delves deep into our core reality. Counterintuitive it may be, but the quantum world can be readily demonstrated and underpins all existence. The philosophical implications are profound and even impinge on ancient philosophical conundrums traditionally relegated to the realm of pure speculative thought. Thus, the notion of whether we are able to exercise 'free will' or whether we are deterministic automata has engaged minds for over two millennia. If anything quantum physics has added an extra layer of complexity to an already intellectually dense and troubling debate. It seem that quantum theory can be used to support either standpoint and every subtlety in between. It would be interesting to return to this fascinating topic at a later juncture. I feel a series coming on.........                 

 Big Albert gets the last word:

 "It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do."   

No one likes a smart arse (big fat arse)

Turned out nice again

                                                             George, stop being a twat......

George Formby was born in abject poverty in North Tipton circa 1904, next to the ill famed ‘Ferret Factory of fun’, a bawdy house of ill repute. His formative years were spent cleaning windows and when not gainfully employed he would often be found leaning on a lamp post. His big break came in 1932 when he invented the ‘George Formby grilling banjo.’ His great insight was to tilt a hot banjo at a jaunty angle of 45 degrees. In this way the molten lard rolled clean orf the food and wended its way to the adjacent midden pit. Inventions thereafter came thick and fast. Who can forget the ukulele that doubled as a cheese slicer?

Still a twat

In 1940 ‘Fulsome Toothed George’ married a shrew of a woman called Agnes, although from some angles Agnes resembled a ferret and this association was somewhat reinforced by her penchant for gnawing through electric cables. Under her baleful gaze George ascended to new dizzy heights of culinary genius and invented an electric guitar which doubled as a deep fat fryer. But in 1948 Agnes was electrocuted during an ill advised mastication session involving a 240 volt transformer. This was an all too common occurrence in the Formby household, however on this occasion the transformer happened to be plugged into the electric supply. 

Agnes before the accident

George was never quite the same and began frequenting the local hostelries thereabouts. It was during an ill fated night of inebriation that George had an epiphany. He awoke, stark bollock naked, on a park bench, at 4am in the morning, with a Chinaman sucking his toes. The Chinaman with the toe fetish turned out to be none other than Mr Wu (it could be no other) and they decided there and then to go into the laundry business together...........Arse bucket. 

    

                                                                         To be continued............ 

    

Vagina Dentata

An image from my private collection

A vagina replete with teeth is a folk myth common to many cultures. It is meant as a cautionary tale and a warning for those who practise unprotected sex with wanton and reckless abandon. But how are we to protect ourselves from misplaced dentition? Condoms are notoriously thin to provoke the ultimate sexual experience. Chain mail condoms have never caught on and chafe something awful.

Like most myths there is a germ of truth lurking within. There exists a rare tumour called a teratoma. Teratomas contain highly differentiated tissue and are capable of forming fully formed dentition, and even hair. It is not inconceivable that a woman could be afflicted with a vaginal teratoma. This lamentable malignancy, if not excised, could result in the development of teeth.

On two occasions,  I have dissected teratomas as part of my professional duties, and can vouch personally that teratomas contain teeth. They are perfect in every regard and resemble a child's first dentition. The teeth make an exotic addition to my rare artefact collection and reside on my mantelpiece as if in repose.

OUCH!

                                                                Watch and weep

Darwin and Evolutionary Thought: Preamble, part I

I have given a great deal of thought of how to start my much anticipated series on the 'The Theory of Evolution' (a trilogy in twelve parts) and after considerable contemplation  have decided to go back to the origins (no pun intended), and to the man who initiated modern biological thought, Charles Darwin (1809-1882).

From our perspective of a 160 years of established evolutionary theory it is easy to forget the profound affect Darwin's book of 1859, 'The Origin of the Species' had on staid, Victorian society. Intellectually it took time to percolate but theologically, the reaction from the first, was fierce and overwhelmingly negative. Once the seminal message of the book insinuated thoroughly, the reaction from the intellectual establishment was mixed. In science we talk of paradigm shifts. Rarely in science are we confronted with such a fundamental lurch in our knowledge base that we have to catch our intellectual breath and resume our scientific journey anew. Although probably not recognised as such at the time, Darwin's core insight was one of those occasions. Scientists are often, although they shouldn't be, resistant to change and especially to new concepts which challenge long held and cherished beliefs. Scientists are human after all, and are trained according to the standing truths of their time. If there is one feature that comes with age, of which we should be ashamed, is the stolid uncritical acceptance of what we have been previously taught (Flaxen lowers his head/arse in shame). Our core knowledge is like a comfy chair. It fits all our nooks and crannies but intellectually it is bad posture. There is a conceptual atrophy that comes with age and science is often advanced by one funeral at a time.

 

Thoughtful biologists, of the time, were struck by Darwin's fundamental insight into the natural world and how deceptively simple his notion appeared. Indeed, many clever men wondered why they hadn't thought of it themselves and gaped open mouthed at the man with the theology degree, who did.

Darwin's ideas did not materialise out of an intellectual vacuum. The Victorian era was a time of great intellectual, scientific and technical achievement and before passing on to a discussion of evolutionary theory itself it is instructive to examine the intellectual milieu of the time which influenced and shaped Darwin's ideas. This will be the basis of my next post on evolutionary theory, unless I become distracted......     

Itchy and Scratchy

I preferred their earlier stuff

Is there nothing more exquisitely divine than scratching an itch? Especially if the time from initiation to abrasive consummation is delayed for what seems an eternity……. Delayed gratification is always the purest and most delectable of sensory fulfilment.

For you and me this most esoteric of pursuits is just a hedonistic distraction on a slow Sunday afternoon. However, there are folk out there who study the itch/scratch phenomenon for a living. The scratch reflex makes sound evolutionary and adaptive behavioural sense. Foreign objects alighting on our skin such as insects and potential parasites elicit the characteristic itch and are subsequently whisked orf with a deft rake of the finger nails, or paw if you happen to be a ferret.

The skin represents our largest organ and the average person sports about 20 square feet. However, if you are endowed with a big fat arse (ARSE), the coverage may be substantially higher. Like most things in life, the itch-scratch reflex is complex. Whilst it is true the nerve conduction pathway to the cerebral cortex is the same for the transmission of an itch or pain, the underlying chemicals which mediate each response is different. In fact it was originally proposed that the distinction between the itch and pain sensation was just a matter of degree. Hence minor stimuli would evoke an itch, whilst more profound sensations produced pain. Although conducted through the same nerve conduit, pain and itching clearly elicit divergent reactions in the human organism. When in pain we withdraw the affected limb, or region, away from the stimuli in order to protect the endangered part of the body, with an itch, a reflex commands us to scratch. For the most part we react automatically/autonomically to the itch reflex and act as if in an unconscious delirium. I wax lyrical and digress. 

Like beauty, the itch reflex is only skin deep. Muscle and brain tissue never itch and consequently never need to be scratched.

Some folk are possessed of a caste iron will and are not to be beseeched by a powerful and dictatorial itch. There is pleasure in abundance to the adamant soul who can resist and saviour this most vehement of provocations. And there are those, equally possessed (by what, you ask?), who allow the itch to build to a crescendo of white heat sensation before satiating with the inevitable chafe. Tis no wonder then that the itch-scratch cycle tracks to the region of the brain associated with pleasure and addiction. There is also a powerful psychological element to itching. Whilst reading this nonsense I bet you have felt the urge to scratch at least once? If I'm any judge (which I'm not), most will be scraping their bodily areas with unashamed and unrestrained abandon. I counsel prudence in your pruritus, otherwise madness will insinuate itself to the very core of your being and loved ones will seek refuge in the arms of one less afflicted and probably less scaly.......    

Shagger having a scratch

Flaxen spouting bollocks, once again......

Another fucking Venn diagram

What is knowledge and more importantly how do we know whether something is true as opposed to total bollocks? For those who are interested there is a an accepted method which helps us to distinguish between these often bewildering concepts. It has a fancy name, epistemology. Essentially, it defines the methodology involved in deciding whether something should enter the accepted pantheon of 'true' knowledge or whether it should be rejected and discarded into the deep recesses of detritus which litter our imaginative landscape.

Over eons, very clever men (for it is they) have forged the concept which underpins our core knowledge basis. Often this sounds like sound common sense. But we only perceive this as such due to the brave intellectual pioneers who carved out the fundamentals. I'm talking a mere four centuries ago when the intellectual world existed on the cusp of reason and religious dogma. Luckily for the Western world, reason prevailed. Although the church did not go down without a fight. True to form, the church, transcendent at the time, tried to influence the debate through intimidation. If the intrepid could not be beaten down with the old refrain of 'hell fire' they risked being physically broken on the wheel, ouch. Predictable, I know. For those who could, and have power, violence to 'change minds' is an easy option.  But the march of reason was unstoppable. Once sensible men found confidence in their principles, religious dogma went on the run. Today, fundamentalist religious belief is resplendent in the ignorant third world and the ignorant bible belt of America. I digress.

And so, coming back to my original question, what constitutes the wherewithal for obtaining knowledge? Again the solution is relatively simple and gives scant evidence to the hard earned intellectual cost suffered by the likes of Galileo.  There are only two paths to knowledge; induction and deduction. Deduction proffers true, absolute knowledge, and is represented by the facts garnered by mathematics and logic. Once established, these truths hold for an intellectual eternity. Induction is knowledge obtained from the senses. It is the basis of the scientific method and is the 'mainstream' method by which most folk obtain their knowledge base- unless they are logicians or mathematicians. The observable world gives us evidence. It is not true knowledge like mathematics, but after calculus it is the only method available for obtaining verity about the world. To be fair, induction gives us probabilities about whether something is true, but never absolutes.

There are some who would argue the contrary, and state with zeal that there are alternative methods to obtain knowledge. To those who proselytise thusly, I leave the onus of proof upon their unrepentant and irrational bonces. If they believe that faith offers a pathway to true knowledge, then they should offer sound judgement and reasoning (which they never do), otherwise they are just pissing in the wind and contributing bugger all to this most important of debates......   

A pongid contenplating the cosmic awe (arse)

                                                                                                    Arse bucket on a stick

Mermaid spotted in the Dudley canal (cut)

Mr Mugumbo on the way to pub

Breaking news from the beautiful and majestic spa town of Dudley West, incorporating North Tipton and environs there about. This reporter can conclusively report a confirmed sighting of the legendary aquatic mammal, ‘The Mermaid’ frolicking in the Dudley canal at closing time. Mr Eli Mugumbo (who else?) relates the story with habitual poise: “I had just left the ‘Felching Ferret’ hostelry after a particularly heavy session of imbibing alcoholic beverages. On this particular occasion I had consumed 15 pints of Tipton Best bitter, 12 malt whiskies, a sweet sherry and a magnum of babysham. As I lurched down the tow path of the Dudley canal, wending my way home precariously after imbibing large amounts of alcoholic beverages which comprised………I digress. Although the light was poor and my vision befouled and be speckled, I discerned out of the corner of my good eye, a splishing and a splashing emanating from said canal. On further inspection I distinctly saw a mermaid reclining on a fiat uno. It had the lower body of a fish and the upper body of a ferret (surely some mistake). As I approached it transfixed my visage with steely blue eyes, and rasped. “Fancy a good time sailor?” Although taken aback I recovered my composure and retorted with fortitude born of extreme inebriation: “Yer my bessie mate, I love ya, can ya lend me 20 quid for a case of Special Brew Extra, burrrrrrrrp".  

Afterwards whilst encapsulated in a brief moment of sobriety, Mr Mugumbo admitted that he might have seen half a bloater cunningly nailed to a rusty perambulator.

I threw this one back

But kept this one........

Are mermaids a product of our atavistic and overwrought imagination? A mere fevered wraith of fancy. Or are there creatures lurking in our canals (dead tramps excepted) unknown to science waiting to be flung flapping into the light of day by brave and intrepid researchers, boldly ferreting (steady Shagger) into the dark, dank, slimy, ordure at the bottom of the recesses of our………. (Arse).   

Artist impression of the 'creature' from the cut