[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

>The most common complaint is that an atom can only absorb very specific wavelengths, but light of all wavelengths is slowed down by materials

Yeah, but not slowed at the same rate (dispersion), which is where I think quantum treatment of the system may be more insightful. Truth is that there is a fundamental problem of trying to account for everything on the very small scale (scattering, absorption, phonon interactions etc.) to match observations on the large scale ( "simple" intensity and spectral measurements, maybe with a clock).

It's like having a large container of 100+ tennis balls, and then trying to predict where they all land if the container is flipped. I think it's unfair to dismiss the insights of the dynamics of a single tennis ball, but clearly it's not enough to predict how the group collectively behaves.

Short answer is we don't know if it is the same photon or not, because our useful models treat them as fields and waves for the most part. We treat light as a particle when it's interacting with matter, but not when it's propagating. Whether we'd find the same unique ID or not is something yet to be seen maybe one day.

>Are all photons at the same wavelength identical so that it just doesn't make any sense to ask this question or are there some properties that are effectively randomized each time it is re-emitted?

This depends on the laser, and I don't think it's wise to write a whole wall of text to explain the ways in which a laser may emit photons with the same energy, but other factors may be different and make the laser better or worse for the intended application. Given the nature of lasers (and any radiating black body) we can't produce a laser that emits photons that all have the same energy; we can roughly select for a desired wavelength and it's far more efficient than with conventional light sources, but still we have for every laser emission a bandwidth. Depending on whether you want a light pulse with extreme short time duration or extremely high temporal coherence, you'll pick broad bandwidth or narrow bandwidth respectively. Unfortunately, as of now this is not a simple switch we flip, it requires the addition or removal of many optical components to the point that it's a total overhaul of the system.

Your explanation isn't relevant to the OP. You're using classical explanations, while OP asked how the photon behaves (i.e asked for the quantum model).

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Not really. Arms and legs have way too simple a function to be comparable and internal organs are completely asymmetrical.

[removed]

[removed]

> however, it of course follows the same structure on both sides. the superior frontal gyrus is gonna be in approximately the same spot on either side, the uncus gyrus in approximately the same spot, the pre&post central gyri in approximately the same spot on either side of the central sulcus.

Could you compare it to the body being symmetrical because you have one hand on each side, but that doesn't mean your hands themselves are exactly symmetrical - e.g. fingers could have different lengths.

Birds of Paradise and Manakin birds definitely have learned dances. In particular Manakin birds practice for thousand and thousands of hours before they can get a mate (rising through the ranks of a dance group of male manakin birds).

[removed]

We have figured out that certain song birds (passerines) have learned songs while others have genetic/innate song repertoires. Without looking up additional research I would say it’s probably the same for dances. Some species probably have learned dances while others have dances that are genetic. (This comment is primarily for visibility of the post since I’m too tired right now to search for and include sources).

[removed]

To get more sourced material acceptable to the mods, you will probably need to narrow your question down to WHICH birds you were interested in (there are very few papers published that just talk about generic “birds”!) but the short answer is: a lot of bird behavior is a bit of both. They will inherit instinctive behaviors they can perform with no experience when they find themselves in the right conditions to trigger or “release” the behavior, but over their lifetime they will also practice and learn to get better at performing them, or figure out ways to modify them if something about their first instinctive attempts don’t work.

Here is an article that cites sources but is written for a non scientific audience, about one of the coolest examples of this. Different types of lovebirds will carry nesting material (strips of bark and leaves in the wild, often strips of paper in captivity) using different methods: peach-faced lovebirds will tuck multiple strips into their feathers and carry them that way, while Fischer’s lovebirds will carry one strip at a time in their beak. These species can also be hybridized. What method do the babies use?

> Dilger found that the hybrid lovebirds demonstrated a confused combination of the two nest material carrying strategies: initially, the young birds tucked the nest material (strips that they had chewed from a larger piece of paper) into their flank and rump feathers but failed to let go, so they pulled them out again and again, repeating this pattern many times. As the birds matured and gained experience over a period of three years, they eventually settled on carrying nest materials in their beaks, like their Fischer's lovebird parent. However, they still maintained a peculiar ritual associated with the tucking of nest materials, like that of their peach-faced lovebird parent, prior to flying off with the paper in their beaks.

It must have been so frustrating for them to have an urge to tuck those strips in but not be able to get it to work right!

If you’re interested in other instinctive bird behavior, look up “Fixed Action Patterns.” We are starting to learn they’re not always quite as “fixed” as they used to believe, but it’s still incredible how many surprisingly complex behaviors can be inherited and performed without any trial and error learning beforehand. Hope this somewhat answers your question!

Edit to add the link I forgot: https://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/12/06/lovebird-behavior-nature-or-nu

[removed]

[removed]

There's some decent hemispherical asymmetry in the temporal lobes. If i recall correctly (unlikely), the left side is specailized for language and the right side for music or other non language sounds. But they both do both still, its relative activation. The speech zones in the left temporal lobe were, in general, larger from what i can recall.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]