Form W-9 - Salem State University: Fill & Download for Free

I believe I already answered this exact question a few weeks ago. I hate to disagree with Dr Muller, but in this case, in my opinion, the uncertainty of the proton’s position is not an answer, sorry Dr Muller. Uncertainty is a black box that ‘in my opinion,’ is used to explain off too many phenomenon that no one wants to give thought to.The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle gives us the minimum constraint on a wave function’s position, not how BIG it can be. That is, The HUP is given byThe 4 pi in the denominator is the result of usually seeing Planck’s constant written in ‘reduced form,’ represented by h-bar. There are a few things to know here. First, Planck’s constant, by definition is indivisible, as it represents the smallest slice of energy possible in normal space-time. You therefore do not divide the indivisible h by 4 pi (I see this in doctoral level lectures, and it is the second most stupid thing I have ever seen; I’ll save the first most stupid for some other post). Second: pi is not even a rational number. Dividing the indivisible h by an irrational number that has no discrete value in itself is - absurd. Third, h-bar was written by Dirac because he recognized that since h only deals with wave functions, it must have a value fundamentally related to a wave cycle, which is 2-pi. This is why h-bar is h/2pi. Four: 4-pi represents two full wave cycles, the minimum number to describe a wave function as being in one of two possible positions. Thus, the 4-pi in the denominator purely represents the smallest amount of energy possible in normal space-time, spread over the minimum requirement for a wave cycle to be considered as being in more than one position.Five, sigma-x represents the distribution of possible locations of the wave function, sigma-p represents the distribution of velocities (and hence momenta) that got the wave function to those superpositions distributed over sigma-x. The equation ONLY STATES THAT THIS DISTRIBUTION MUST BE GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM SLICE OF ENERGY POSSIBLE IN NORMAL SPACE-TIME SPREAD OVER TWO WAVE CYCLES. THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR ALLOWING A PROTON TO INFLATE TO 10,000 TIMES ITS SIZE.SIX: I don’t know how many times I have had to repeat this, the HUP only refers to wave functions, not ‘particles.’ Once a wave function is detected, it is no longer a wave function, and the HUP is non-sequitur. The proton is not a wave function. According to the Standard Model (We’ll go with that for a moment) it is a composite of we don’t know what. It has taken ‘particle physicists’ half a century of smashing them with a giant hammer to figure out that they don’t know what it is made of by looking at the broken pieces. The pieces, so far, weigh 100 times more than the thing before they smashed it with a hammer. So, they invoke the HUP to (Uncertainty Principle) claim the excess mass comes from the Uncertainty Principle, with a certainty out to about 15 decimal places… The spin of these invoked contents account for 2% of the proton’s spin. (Referred to a the ‘spin catastrophe.’)Now, we have someone claiming this composite region inflates to 10,000 to a million times it size, consistently, to explain the position of the electron; as absurd as the answer is, doesn’t answer the question, ‘why do electromagnetic things attract?’If we use the spin angular momentum of the electron, and the proton or positron, whatever, and think of it as a boomerang, I use this analogy:In Feynman terms, imagine a man in one boat and a woman in another. They have no means of propelling their boats, but happen they are supplied with boomerangs. How can they get their boats together? By throwing a boomerang away from the man, the woman would experience a reaction force from the boomerang towards the man. The boomerang could then circle round and approach the man from behind, and on reaching him, could exert a force on him towards the woman.In this diagram, the woman throws the boomerang (virtual photon, spin 1), which has spin +1/2, producing force Fv, the momentum of the throw also producing force F1. The man catches the boomerang, producing force F2. In this instance, there is an ‘attractive’ force, likened to the man being an electron and the woman being a positron. But why does the ‘force’ obey the inverse square law?We can generalize the electromagnetic force in terms of any constant, represented by k, two charges, and distance:And again, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, purely in terms of delta-E:In this case, delta-t is purely mediated by r^2, the distance.That is as close to a Feynman explanation as one would get, perhaps.A virtual photon is not massless, but is off mass shell, that is, possess mass. This is where we come to chirality and helicity. Helicity is a spinning massive particle, we’ll say counter clockwise. Because it has mass, it cannot go as fast as light, meaning thqat you can get in front of it and see it apparently spinning the opposite way, clockwise. Chirality refers to massless photons, which you cannot get in front of because you cannot exceed v=c to do so, so they only ‘spin’ in two polarization states, clockwise or counterclockwise.Because a virtual photon has mass, it is helic, not chiral, giving it 3 polarization states. The 3rd polarization state is observed by passing the slow moving virtual photon and watching it ‘spin’ apparently in the opposite direction.Its mass and 3rd polarization state account for the boomerang effect shown above. Note that in order for the boomerang argument to work, the arrow goes around and points the opposite way, as seen coming at you as opposed to the helic spin of when it was launched.I hope this over simplified explanation helps. As for the proton’s uncertain position as a wave function, you will note that the delta-t in the HUP equation above simply will not allow for a proton to extend as far as a valence electron. So, that is just wrong.In fact, as I look at this a few months later, I can tell you exactly how wrong it is. A virtual photon mediating a magnetic field can live exactly 3 wavelengths. That is a certainty; exactly three. This is referred to as a Near Field Effect. Radio antennas, for instance, produce a powerful magnetic field that does not drop off with the square of the distance. For instance, if your transmission is at 300 megahertz, then your wavelength is 1 meter. The magnetic field produced by the Near Field Photons is exactly uniform throughout a 3 meter domain from the antenna; then comes to a dead stop, like a brick wall.A proton has a diameter of 1 femtometer, 10^-15 meters. The first electron orbital is out at 10^-10 meters. That means Muller’s Uncertainty Principle explanation has to extend the proton diameter 5 orders of magnitude greater than it normal cross section. In order for that to happen, the delta-t has to decrease by 5 orders of magnitude, spontaneously. In this amount of time, if you do the algebra, you find that the massive virtual photon actually has to exceed the speed of light in order for there to be any prayer of that answer being in any way possible.The proton has a diameter of 10E-15 meters, a hydrogen atoms valence electron is 10E-10 meters, meaning the uncertainty principle would have to allow the photon to inflate to 10,000 times its diameter, for just the lowest ground state of hydrogen. When you take the virtual photon mass and spin angular momentum, that is impossible. The HUP will work no magic here. The argument via HUP might hold some, but very little, water if the virtual photon had no mass, but this is not the case.The uncertainty of the photon’s position is also equally outward as it is inward, that is, of what little uncertainty there is in a virtual photon’s position (because of its mass, reduces the uncertainty, such as the uncertainty of a battle ship’s position) it is not emitted unidirectionally away from the proton from the electron. This exacting vector must be exactly 180 degrees opposite the proton’s position to be true. Since it is the electron’s position that is uniquely uncertain, this requires the electron to have 1) a certain position and 2) foreknowledge of its vector toward the proton from where it will be when it emits the virtual photon, exactly 180 degrees away from the proton’s position and 3) a reason for emitting only photons 180 degrees away from the proton.Thinking inside the box and staying there because it feels safe when people agree with you is why we are living in the Holocene Extinction. If we thought for ourselves, the world would change; would already have done so.I’d like to thank Dmitry Popov for catching my typos, I was writing proton when I was thinking photon.I answered a similar question at When we say that spin-1/2 fermions must go through 720 degrees to equal the 360 degrees required by spin-1 bosons, what exactly is being measured?I found this in an old text I wrote some years ago:It is not possible to ignore the relativistic effect of velocity of recession. Therefore, G takes on G’ as a function of t’, given by simple time dilation.REFERENCESPersonal lecture (conference) notes: Leonard Susskind, lecture July, 2013Personal lecture (conference) notes: Mark van Raamsdonk of the University of British Columbia, Oct 2015Personal lecture (conference) notes: Erik Verlinde, Oct 2017Personal lecture (conference) notes: Gerard T’ Hooft Feb 2015Personal lecture (conference) notes: Gerard T’ Hooft May 20131.Astier, Pierre (Supernova Legacy Survey); Guy; Regnault; Pain; Aubourg; Balam; Basa; Carlberg; Fabbro; Fouchez; Hook; Howell; Lafoux; Neill; Palanque-Delabrouille; Perrett; Pritchet; Rich; Sullivan; Taillet; Aldering; Antilogus; Arsenijevic; Balland; Baumont; Bronder; Courtois; Ellis; Filiol; et al. (2006). "The Supernova legacy survey: Measurement of ΩM, ΩΛ and W from the first year data set". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 447: 31–48. arXiv:astro-ph/0510447 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2006A&A...447...31A. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054185.2.Zelong Yi; Tongjie Zhang (2007). "Constraints on holographic dark energy models using the differential ages of passively evolving galaxies". Modern Physics Letters A. 22 (1): 41. arXiv:astro-ph/0605596 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2007MPLA...22...41Y. doi:10.1142/S0217732307020889.3.Haoyi Wan; Zelong Yi; Tongjie Zhang; Jie Zhou (2007). "Constraints on the DGP Universe Using Observational Hubble parameter". Physics Letters B. 651 (5): 352. arXiv:0706.2723 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2007PhLB..651..352W. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.06.053.4.Cong Ma; Tongjie Zhang (2010). "Power of Observational Hubble Parameter Data: a Figure of Merit Exploration". Astrophysical Journal. 730 (2): 74. arXiv:1007.3787 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011ApJ...730...74M. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/74.5.Tongjie Zhang; Cong Ma; Tian Lan (2010). "Constraints on the Dark Side of the Universe and Observational Hubble Parameter Data". Advances in Astronomy. 2010 (1): 1. arXiv:1010.1307 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010AdAst2010E..81Z. doi:10.1155/2010/184284.6.Wiltshire, D. (2008). "Cosmological equivalence principle and the weak-field limit". Physical Review D. 78 (8): 084032. arXiv:0809.1183 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..78h4032W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.084032.7.Gray, Stuart. "Dark questions remain over dark energy". ABC Science Australia. Retrieved 27 January 2013.8.Merali, Zeeya (March 2012). "Is Einstein's Greatest Work All Wrong—Because He Didn't Go Far Enough?". Discover magazine. Retrieved 27 January 2013.9.H. Arp, Dark Energy and the Hubble Constan ;arXiv:0712.3180 (Cornell University)10.Arp, H. 1990, Ap&SS 167, 18311.Arp, H. 1994, 430, 7412.Arp, H. 1998a, Seeing Red, Apeiron, Montreal13.Arp, H. 1998b, ApJ 496, 66114.Arp, H. 2002, ApJ 571, 61515.Bell, M. 2007, ApJ 667, L12916.Freedman,W., Madore, B., Gibson, B. et al. 2001, ApJ 553, 4717.Narlikar J. 1977, Ann. Phys. 107, 32518.Narlikar J. and Das, P. 1980, ApJ 240, 40119.Narlikar J., Arp H. 1993 ApJ 405, 5120.Sandage A., Tamman, G., Saha, A. 1998 Phys. Rep. 307, 1– 8 –21.Sandage, A. et al. 2006, ApJ 653, 84322.Shafieloo. A. 2007, Mon. Not. Roy. Soc. 380(4), 157323.White, S. 2007, astro-ph, arXiv:0704.22924.Wimmel, Hermann (1992). Quantum Physics & Observed Reality: A Critical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. World Scientific. p. 2. ISBN 978-981-02-1010-6.25.J. Mehra and H. Rechenberg, The historical development of quantum theory, Springer-Verlag, 2001, p. 271.26.Howard, Don (2004). "Who invented the Copenhagen Interpretation? A study in mythology" (PDF). Philosophy of Science. 71 (5): 669–682. doi:10.1086/425941. JSTOR 10.1086/425941.27.Bohm, David (1952). "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of 'Hidden' Variables. I & II". Physical Review. 85 (2): 166–193. Bibcode:1952PhRv...85..166B. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166.28.H. Kragh, Quantum generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century, Princeton University Press, 1999, p. 210. ("the term 'Copenhagen interpretation' was not used in the 1930s but first entered the physicist’s vocabulary in 1955 when Heisenberg used it in criticizing certain unorthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics.")29.Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, Harper, 195830.Olival Freire Jr., "Science and exile: David Bohm, the hot times of the Cold War, and his struggle for a new interpretation of quantum mechanics", Historical Studies on the Physical and Biological Sciences, Volume 36, Number 1, 200531."Popper's experiment and the Copenhagen interpretation". Stud. History Philos. Modern Physics. 33: 23. arXiv:quant-ph/9910078 Freely accessible. Bibcode:1999quant.ph.10078P.32.Bohr, N. (1928). 'The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory', Nature, 121: 580–590, doi:10.1038/121580a033.Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, Z. Phys. 43: 172–198.34.Jammer, M. (1982). 'Einstein and quantum physics', pp. 59–76 in Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives; the Centennial Symposium in Jerusalem, edited by G. Holton, Y. Elkana, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, ISBN 0-691-08299-5.35.Born, M. (1955). "Statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics". Science. 122 (3172): 675–679. Bibcode:1955Sci...122..675B. doi:10.1126/science.122.3172.675. PMID 17798674.36.Bohr, N. (1928). 'The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory', Nature, 121: 580–590, doi:10.1038/121580a0, p. 58637.Claus Kiefer (2002). "On the interpretation of quantum theory – from Copenhagen to the present day". arXiv:quant-ph/021015238.David Bohm, A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables", I, Physical Review, (1952), 85, pp 166–17939.David Bohm, A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables", II, Physical Review, (1952), 85, pp 180–19340.Hugh Everett, Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics vol 29, (1957) pp 454–462, based on unitary time evolution without discontinuities.41.H. Dieter Zeh, On the Interpretation of Measurement in Quantum Theory, Foundation of Physics, vol. 1, pp. 69–76, (1970).42.Wojciech H. Zurek, Pointer Basis of Quantum Apparatus: Into what Mixture does the Wave Packet Collapse?, Physical Review D, 24, pp. 1516–1525 (1981)43.Wojciech H. Zurek, Environment-Induced Superselection Rules, Physical Review D, 26, pp.1862–1880, (1982)44.Camilleri, K (2006). "Heisenberg and the wave–particle duality". Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 37: 298–315.45.Camilleri, K. (2009). Heisenberg and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: the Physicist as Philosopher, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, ISBN 978-0-521-88484-6.46.Duane, W. (1923). The transfer in quanta of radiation momentum to matter, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 9(5): 158–164.47.Jammer, M. (1974). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: the Interpretations of QM in Historical Perspective, Wiley, ISBN 0-471-43958-4, pp. 453–455.48.Gribbin, J. Q for Quantum49.Max Tegmark (1998). "The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words?". Fortsch. Phys. 46 (6–8): 855–862. arXiv:quant-ph/9709032 Freely accessible. Bibcode:1998ForPh..46..855T. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1521-3978(199811)46:6/8<855::AID-PROP855>http://3.0.CO;2-Q.50.M. Schlosshauer; J. Kofler; A. Zeilinger (2013). "A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 44 (3): 222–230. arXiv:1301.1069 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2013SHPMP..44..222S. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.04.004.51.C. Sommer, "Another Survey of Foundational Attitudes Towards Quantum Mechanics", arXiv:1303.2719. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2719v152.T. Norsen, S. Nelson, "Yet Another Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics", arXiv:1306.4646. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.4646v2.pdf53.Steven Weinberg (19 January 2017). "The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics". New York Review of Books. Retrieved 8 January 2017.54.Erwin Schrödinger, in an article in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 124, 323–38.55.Nairz, Olaf; Brezger, Björn; Arndt, Markus; Zeilinger, Anton (2001). "Diffraction of Complex Molecules by Structures Made of Light". Physical Review Letters. 87 (16): 160401. arXiv:quant-ph/0110012 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2001PhRvL..87p0401N. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.160401. PMID 11690188.56.Brezger, Björn; Hackermüller, Lucia; Uttenthaler, Stefan; Petschinka, Julia; Arndt, Markus; Zeilinger, Anton (2002). "Matter-Wave Interferometer for Large Molecules". Physical Review Letters. 88 (10): 100404. arXiv:quant-ph/0202158 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2002PhRvL..88j0404B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.100404. PMID 1190933457.Beller, M. (1992), “The Birth of Bohr's Complementarity: The Context and the Dialogues”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23: 147–180.58.Beller, M. (1999), Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.59.Brock, S. (2003), Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Quantum Physics in the Light of the Helmholtzian Tradition of Theoretical Physics, Berlin: Logos Verlag.60.Bunge, M. (1967), “The Turn of the Tide”, in Mario Bunge (ed.) Quantum Theory and Reality, New York: Springer, pp. 1–12.61.Camilleri, K. (2006), “Heisenberg and the Wave-particle Duality”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37: 298–315.62.Camilleri, K. (2007), “Bohr, Heisenberg and the Divergent Views of Complementarity”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38: 514–528.63.Chevalley, C. (1991), “Introduction: Le dessin et la couleur”, in Niels Bohr, Physique atomique et connaissance humaine, Edmond Bauer and Roland Omnès (trans.), Catherine Chevalley (ed.), Paris: Gallimard, pp. 17–140.64.Chevalley, C. (1994), “Niels Bohr's Words and the Atlantis of Kantianism”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, pp. 33–55.65.Clifton, R. and H. Halvorson (1999), “Maximal Beable Subalgebras of Quantum Mechanical Observables”, in International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 38: 2441–248466.Clifton, R. and H. Halvorson (2002), “Reconsidering Bohr's reply to EPR”, in Placek, T. and J. Butterfield (eds.) Non-locality and Modality Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher,67.Cushing, J. (1994),Quantum Mechanics, Historical Contingency, and the Copenhagen Hegemony, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.68.Dickson, M. (2001), “The EPR Experiment: A Prelude to Bohr's Reply to EPR”, in Heidelberger, M. & F. Stadler (eds.) History of Philosophy of Science — New Trends and Perspectives Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher, pp. 263–275.69.Dickson, M. (2002), “Bohr on Bell: A Proposed Reading of Bohr and Its Implications for Bell's Theorem”, in Placek, T. and J. Butterfield (eds.) Non-locality and Modality Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher,70.Einstein, A., B. Podolsky and N. Rosen (1935),“Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review, 47: 777–780.71.Faye, J. (1991), Niels Bohr: His Heritage and Legacy. An Antirealist View of Quantum Mechanics, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.72.Faye, J. (2008), “Niels Bohr and the Vienna Circle”, in Manninen, J. and F. Stadler (eds.) The Vienna Circle in the Nordic Countries (The Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, 14), Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.73.Faye, J., and H. Folse (eds.) (1994), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Volume 158), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.74.Folse, H. (1985), The Philosophy of Niels Bohr. The Framework of Complementarity, Amsterdam: North Holland.75.Folse, H. (1986), “Niels Bohr, Complementarity, and Realism”, in A. Fine and P. Machamer (eds), PSA 1986: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. I, East Lansing: PSA, pp. 96–104.76.Folse, H. (1994), “Bohr's Framework of Complementarity and the Realism Debate”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (1994), pp. 119–139.77.Gomatam, R. (2007), “Niels Bohr's Interpretation and the Copenhagen Interpretation — Are the two incompatible?”, in Philosophy of Science, 74(5): 736–748.78.Halvorson, H. (2004), “Complementarity of Representations in Quantum Mechanics”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35: 45–56.79.Hebor, J. (2005), The Standard Conception as Genuine Quantum Realism, Odense: The University Press of Southern Denmark.80.Heisenberg, W. (1955), “The Development of the Interpretation of the Quantum Theory”, in W. Pauli (ed), Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics, London: Pergamon pp. 12–29.81.Heisenberg, W. (1958), Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science, London: Goerge Allen & Unwin.82.Held, C. (1994), “The Meaning of Complementarity”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 25: 871–893.83.Henderson, J. R. (2010), “Classes of Copenhagen interpretations: Mechanisms of collapse as a typologically determinative”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41: 1–8.84.Honner, J. (1987), The Description of Nature: Niels Bohr and The Philosophy of Quantum Physics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.85.Hooker, C. A. (1972), “The Nature of Quantum Mechanical Reality”, in R. G. Colodny (ed.), Paradigms and Paradoxes, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 67–305.86.Howard, D. (1994), “What Makes a Classical Concept Classical? Toward a Reconstruction of Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Physics”, in Faye and Folse (1994), pp. 201–229.87.Howard, D. (2004), “Who Invented the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation?’ A Study in Mythology”, Philosophy of Science, 71: 669–682.88.Kaiser, D. (1992), “More Roots of Complementarity: Kantian Aspects and Influences”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23: 213–239.89.Katsumori, M. (2005), Niels Bohr's Complementarity. Its Structure, History, and Intersections with Hermeneutics and Deconstruction, Ph.D. Dissertation, Vrije University Amsterdam.90.Landsman, N. P. (2006),“When champions meet: Rethinking the Bohr-Einstein debate.”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37: 212–242.91.Landsman, N.P. (2007), “Between classical and quantum”, in Handbook of Philosophy of Science (Volume 2: Philosophy of Physics), J. Earman & J. Butterfield (eds.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 415–555.92.Massimi, M. (2005), Pauli's Exclusion Principle. The Origin and Validation of a Scientific Principle, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.93.Murdoch, D. (1987), Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Physics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.94.Petruccioli, S. (1993), Atoms, Metaphors and Paradoxes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.95.Plotnitsky, A. (1994), Complementarity: Anti-Epistemology after Bohr and Derrida, Durham: Duke University Press.96.Popper, K. R. (1967), “Quantum Mechanics Without ‘the Observer’”, in Mario Bunge (ed.), Quantum Theory and Reality, New York: Springer, pp. 1–12.97.Schlosshauer, M. Camilleri, K. (2011), “What classicality? Decoherence and Bohr's classical concepts”, in Advances in Quantum Theory, American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings 1327, pp. 26–35.98.Tanona, S. (2004a), “Uncertainty in Bohr's Response to the Heisenberg Microscope”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35: 483–507.99.Tanona, S. (2004b), “Idealization and Formalism in Bohr's Approach to Quantum Theory”, in Philosophy of Science, 71: 683–695.100.Whitaker, M.A.B. (2004), “The EPR Paper and Bohr's Response: A Reassessment”, in Foundation of Physics, 34: 1305–1340.101.Zinkernagel, H. (2011), “Some Trends in the Philosophy of Physics”, in Teoria, 26(2): 215–241.102.Zinkernagel, H. (forthcoming), “Are we living in a quantum world? Bohr and quantum fundamentalism”, in The Danish Royal Academy of Sciences and Letters' Series.103.Larson, Calculus, 9th Edition, Theorem 3.10104.Dimitar Valev, Estimations of total mass and energy of the universe; April 8, 2010, arXiv:1004.1035v1 [physics.gen-ph] 7 Apr 2010105.Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.106.Kennard, E. H. (1927), "Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewegungstypen", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German), 44 (4–5): 326–352, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...44..326K, doi:10.1007/BF01391200.107.David H. Reser et al, Claustrum projections to prefrontal cortex in the capuchinmonkey (Cebus apella); SYSTEMS NEUROSCIENCE, published: 03 July 2014;doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00123108.Cambridge, Mark Thomson, University of (2013). Modern particle physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1107034266.109.Hawking, Stephen (1998). A brief history of time (Updated and expanded tenth anniversary ed.). New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 9780553896923.110.Mitrofanov, Igor G. (April 1994). "Cosmic gamma-ray burst sources: The phenomenon with the smallest angular size in the observable universe". Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 424 (2): 546–549.111.M. Tegmark; N. Bostrom (2005). "Is a doomsday catastrophe likely?" (PDF). Nature. 438 (5875): 754. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..754T. doi:10.1038/438754a. PMID 16341005.112.L. Susskind, "The anthropic landscape of string theory", arXiv:hep-th/0302219.113.M. Douglas, "The statistics of string / M theory vacua", JHEP 0305, 46 (2003). arXiv:hep-th/0303194; S. Ashok and M. Douglas, "Counting flux vacua", JHEP 0401, 060 (2004).114.M.S. Turner; F. Wilczek (1982). "Is our vacuum metastable?" (PDF). Nature. 298 (5875): 633–634. Bibcode:1982Natur.298..633T. doi:10.1038/298633a0. Retrieved 2015-10-31.115.Coleman, Sidney; De Luccia, Frank (1980-06-15). "Gravitational effects on and of vacuum decay" (PDF). Physical Review D. D21 (12): 3305–3315. Bibcode:1980PhRvD..21.3305C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.21.3305.116.M. Stone (1976). "Lifetime and decay of excited vacuum states". Phys. Rev. D. 14 (12): 3568–3573. Bibcode:1976PhRvD..14.3568S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3568.117.P.H. Frampton (1976). "Vacuum Instability and Higgs Scalar Mass". Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (21): 1378–1380. Bibcode:1976PhRvL..37.1378F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.1378.118.P.H. Frampton (1977). "Consequences of Vacuum Instability in Quantum Field Theory". Phys. Rev. D15 (10): 2922–28. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2922F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2922.119.Peralta, Eyder (2013-02-19). "If Higgs Boson Calculations Are Right, A Catastrophic 'Bubble' Could End Universe". Home Page Top Stories. Article cites Fermilab's Joseph Lykken: "The bubble forms through an unlikely quantum fluctuation, at a random time and place," Lykken tells us. "So in principle it could happen tomorrow, but then most likely in a very distant galaxy, so we are still safe for billions of years before it gets to us."120.N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa, “The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force,” JHEP 06 (2007) 060, arXiv:hep-th/0601001121.R. Bousso, B. Freivogel, and M. Lippert, “Probabilities in the landscape: The Decay of nearly flat space,” Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 046008, arXiv:hep-th/0603105122.A. Aguirre, T. Banks, and M. Johnson, “Regulating eternal inflation. II. The Great divide,” JHEP 08 (2006) 065, arXiv:hep-th/0603107123.H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Non-supersymmetric AdS and the Swampland,” arXiv:1610.01533124.U. H. Danielsson, G. Dibitetto, and S. C. Vargas, “Universal isolation in the AdS landscape,” arXiv:1605.09289125.A. Hebecker, F. Rompineve, and A. Westphal, “Axion Monodromy and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP 04 (2016) 157, arXiv:1512.03768126.A. Hebecker, P. Mangat, S. Theisen, and L. T. Witkowski, “Can Gravitational Instantons Really Constrain Axion Inflation?,” arXiv:1607.06814127.M. Cvetic and H. H. Soleng, “Supergravity domain walls,” Phys. Rept. 282 (1997) 159–223, arXiv:hep-th/9604090128.S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, “Gravitational Effects on and of Vacuum Decay,” Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 3305.129.M. Cvetic, S. Griffies, and S.-J. Rey, “Nonperturbative stability of supergravity and superstring vacua,” Nucl. Phys. B389 (1993) 3–24, arXiv:hep-th/9206004130.B. Heidenreich, M. Reece, and T. Rudelius, “Evidence for a Lattice Weak Gravity Conjecture,” arXiv:1606.08437131.L. Dyson, M. Kleban, and L. Susskind, “Disturbing implications of a cosmological constant,” JHEP 10 (2002) 011, arXiv:hep-th/0208013132.B. Freivogel, “Making predictions in the multiverse,” Class. Quant. Grav. 28 (2011) 204007, arXiv:1105.0244133.R. Bousso, B. Freivogel, and I.-S. Yang, “Properties of the scale factor measure,” Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 063513, arXiv:0808.3770134.A. De Simone, A. H. Guth, A. D. Linde, M. Noorbala, M. P. Salem, and A. Vilenkin, “Boltzmann brains and the scale-factor cutoff measure of the ultiverse,” Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 063520, arXiv:0808.3778135.G. T. Horowitz, J. Orgera, and J. Polchinski, “Nonperturbative Instability of AdS(5) x S**5/Z(k),” Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 024004,arXiv:0709.4262136.I. Heemskerk, J. Penedones, J. Polchinski, and J. Sully, “Holography from Conformal Field Theory,” JHEP 10 (2009) 079,arXiv:0907.0151137.M. Stone (1976). "Lifetime and decay of excited vacuum states". Phys. Rev. D. 14 (12): 3568–3573. Bibcode:1976PhRvD..14.3568S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3568.138.P.H. Frampton (1976). "Vacuum Instability and Higgs Scalar Mass". Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (21): 1378–1380. Bibcode:1976PhRvL..37.1378F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.1378.139.M. Stone (1977). "Semiclassical methods for unstable states". Phys. Lett. B. 67 (2): 186–188. Bibcode:1977PhLB...67..186S. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90099-5.140.P.H. Frampton (1977). "Consequences of Vacuum Instability in Quantum Field Theory". Phys. Rev. D15 (10): 2922–28. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2922F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2922.141.S. Coleman (1977). "Fate of the false vacuum: Semiclassical theory". Phys. Rev. D15: 2929–36. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2929C. doi:10.1103/physrevd.15.2929.142.C. Callan; S. Coleman (1977). "Fate of the false vacuum. II. First quantum corrections". Phys. Rev. D16: 1762–68. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..16.1762C. doi:10.1103/physrevd.16.1762.143.Instantons in Gauge Theories. Edited by Mikhail A. Shifman. World Scientific, 1994.144.Interactions Between Charged Particles in a Magnetic Field. By Hrachya Nersisyan, Christian Toepffer, Günter Zwicknagel. Springer, Apr 19, 2007145.Large-Order Behaviour of Perturbation Theory. Edited by J.C. Le Guillou, J. Zinn-Justin. Elsevier, Dec 2, 2012.146.Patrick Heelan, REALITY IN HEISENBERG'S PHILOSOPHY - Chapter Eight of Heelan's Quantum Mechanics and Objectivity. Hermeneutic and Phenomenological Philosophies of Science, 1965147.Vassilios Karakostas∗. Realism and Objectivism in Quantum Mechanics . Journal for General Philosophy of Science 2012 (Vol. 43, Issue 1)Andrea Oldofredi∗ Michael Esfeld. On the possibility of a realist ontological commitment in quantum mechanics. arXiv:1801.05307v1 [quant-ph] 13 Jan 2018

Based on my knowledge of current biomedical research enterprise, the picture is not one of cooperation and collaboration so much as of co-option. Today Medicine and Veterinary science are deeply intertwined, and have been since at least the 1950s. In fact, Medical + Veterinary fields = Modern biomedical research. OTOH, pragmatism has led to Botany + Medicine = Transgenic plants for new generation of edible biopharmaceuticals and vaccines for humans.Over the last 60 years biomedical research animal use has expanded greatly, use that's codified and regulated by a vast bureaucracy within which veterinarians are essential, albeit co-opted, gatekeepers. Why co-opted gatekeepers ? It's not they but scientists who control the biomedical research agenda. Though gatekeepers mandated by federal regulations, over the decades veterinarians have become consigned to the role of rubber-stampers. Today, biomedical scientists and veterinarians have to work together. Consider for example toxicology, the science of adverse effects of chemicals on living things. All these new chemicals we've been using since the last century. How could we surmise if they are safe for us, other animals and the environment? Before unleashing them on ourselves, we tested them on lab animals for developmental and reproductive toxicity, how else? Rodents as well as non-rodents.What's the process for using animals in research? First, let's outline why we use animals in research. Second, a brief summary of the numbers. Third, processes behind the numbers. Fourth, history, and fifth and finally, limitations and conflicts of interest of this vast bureaucracy that illustrate how veterinary science has been co-opted to service modern biomedical research.I. Why do we use animals in research?By gradual societal consensus over the course of the 20th century, we can no longer directly experiment on ourselves. We need to first test on 'lower' animals.To understand basic biology. e.g. mouse, rat, zebra fish, nematode (Caenorhabditis), fruit fly (Drosophila).To develop animal models of human disease. e.g. mouse, rat, zebra fish.To develop drugs and vaccines for human and animal use. e.g. mouse, ferret, rat.To develop novel surgical procedures. e.g. pig, sheep.To develop and test new medical devices. e.g. pig, sheep.To culture pathogenic microorganisms that can't be cultured in vitro. e.g. nine-banded armadillo for Mycobacterium leprae.To assess toxicity of drugs, vaccines, chemicals and other consumer products. e.g. mouse, rat.In education and training. e.g. in schools, colleges, medical and veterinary schools.II. Research animal use by the numbers.Of 103 Nobel prizes in Physiology or Medicine, 83 involved non-human vertebrate animal research (1).No accurate numbers, only extremely rough estimates. Likely huge under-estimate.Data incomplete. Excludes animals used for breeding, surplus animals that are culled, multi-year use of same animal used in long-term experiments such as carcinogenicity or two-generation reproductive toxicity.US is far and away largest user of research animals. Next Japan and Great Britain.Official US numbers are extremely unreliable since they exclude mouse, rat, fish, reptile, amphibians. In short, most animals used in research and toxicity testing!In the US, >90% of research animals are mice and rats.In the EU, ~80% are rodents, ~10% are fish, amphibians and reptiles, and ~6% are birds (2).EU's ultimate goal is full replacement of animal experiments (3).The Humane Society of the US (HSUS) hopes for full replacement by 2050 (4).With all the above caveats, Taylor et al (5, see below) conservatively estimate (very loosely) more than 115 million research animals among 179 countries for the year 2005.From 5III. Research animal use processI'm most familiar with the US process so I'll elaborate on that.USDA-APHISThe mission of USDA (US Department of Agriculture), in particular USDA-Aphis (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) is 'To ensure that animals intended for use in research facilities or for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care and treatment'.However, USDA monitors less than 10% of federally-funded research animal use, namely pigs, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, goats, sheep, cattle, horses, dogs and cats.Public Health Service PolicyOversees all research animal use, especially rodents (mice and rats), which comprise >90%.Entities that receive federal funding for animal research commit to follow the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (The Guide).Such entities need to submit an Assurance statement to the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW).What's the Guide?A 220-page booklet (6).Defines an animal as 'any vertebrate animal used in research, teaching or testing'.Outlines research animal housing requirements, facility operations and veterinary care.Outlines the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) setup and procedure.The IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) processAuthorized by federal law under auspices of USDA and OLAW to oversee research animal use, procedures and facilities.Reviews all research animal use protocols.Research with animals can only proceed with IACUC approval.Inspects research animal facilities at least annually if not more frequently.Should at minimum comprise a veterinarian, scientist and community member (non-scientist).At least one member should be outsider, i.e. not employed/affiliated with the entity.Animal use protocols reviewed annually.Protocol updates and revisions also require IACUC approval.AAALAC(Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, International).AAALAC International, Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International, animal research, accreditation, AAALAC, laboratory animals, animal welfare, biomedical research, animals in science, animal care and useFull accreditation by AAALAC is the goal of every US research animal facility.Why? AAALAC Accreditation is the perceived gold standard for research animal use.So what is AAALAC? A non-profit organization that peer reviews research animal care and use programs.At each accredited site, AAALAC teams perform site inspection and program evaluation every 3 years.IV. Research animal use historyDiscoveries and techniques that enabled increasing research animal useDomesticated rat, Rattus norvegicus, has been used since at least 1828. Half of lab rats used today descend from the Wistar rat, the first standard rat strain developed in 1909 (7, 8).Domesticated mouse, Mus musculus, was famously used by Gregor Mendel in his heredity studies of coat color, only switching to peas when admonished by his local bishop that mouse rearing was inappropriate for a priest (9).Lucien Cuénot pioneered the use of mouse in study of Mendelian genetics.In early 20th century, mouse fanciers like Abbie Lathrop (10) made inbred mouse strains easily available to scientists.Inbred mouse strains proved valuable genetic tools especially in the discovery of histocompatibility genes (Major histocompatibility complex) for which George Davis Snell, Baruj Benacerraf and Jean Dausset were awarded the 1980 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.In 1980 John Gordon and Franck Ruddle developed the first transgenic mouse (11).In 2002, the mouse became the second mammal, after humans, to have its whole genome sequenced.Mario R. Capecchi (born 1937), Martin J. Evans (born 1941), and Oliver Smithies (born 1925) developed the first gene knockout mouse model in 1988, and received the 2007 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine (The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2007).5, 6, 7, 8 plus new technologies exponentially accelerated mouse model gene function studies. Today mouse is the most commonly used animal model (12, 13).How did our current structure of research animal use come to be?In the UK, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare first published its Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals in 1954.The organization’s founder Charles Hume commissioned zoologist and polymath William Russell (1925–2006) and microbiologist Rex Burch (1926–1996) to develop a guide for humane techniques in animal experimentation (14, 15, 16).Russell and Burch developed the tenet of the “Three Rs”—Replacement, Reduction, Refinement (17). They proposed that 'humane science' is the 'best science'.”Replacement: 'any scientific method employing non-sentient material [to] replace methods which use conscious living vertebrates'.Reduction: 'the number of animals used to obtain information of a given amount and precision.Refinement: 'decrease in the incidence or severity of [...] procedures applied to those animals which have to be used'.Russell and Birch also proposed that well-being of laboratory animals is a basic requirement for the quality of science (14).Russell and Burch’s proposal was largely ignored until 1978 when physiologist David Henry Smyth (1908–1979) aligned the 3R concept with the notion of alternatives (18) defined as 'all procedures which can completely replace the need for animal experiments, reduce the numbers of animals required, or diminish the amount of pain or distress suffered by animals in meeting the essential needs of man and other animals' (19).Since Smyth's revision, research animal users have to justify their research animal use with compelling evidence (20).Today, the 3Rs provide the framework for research animal use.Philosophically, research animal use hews to Peter Singer's patriarchal Welfarist/Utilitarian rather than Tom Regan's Abolitionist stance. Thus, while we grant research animals tenuous protection from suffering, we use them as means to our end because we consider our well-being more important than theirs.Unfortunately for animals, the current bureaucratic structure of modern scientific enterprise took shape prior to our improved understanding of cognitive and emotional capabilities of animals (21) while human society itself has undergone a profound shift towards animals from utilitarian expedient to almost or indeed sentient (22).V. Research animal use limitations and conflicts of interestAre research animals effective and predictive for human disease outcomes? A slow and steady drip-drip-drip of evidence now makes us seriously question this (23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32). The >90% failure rate of new drugs during the development process from pre-clinical (mouse) to human shows the current chain of human drug development from mouse to non-human primates to humans is seriously flawed.Inertia and apathy attendant to bureaucracy means we continue to use outmoded tests that cause research animals unrelieved pain and distress which we can only explain away disingenuously. Case in point? Rabies vaccine. Each and every batch of every vaccine has to be tested for its effectiveness and safety before it can be released for use. This is the potency test. For rabies vaccine, we continue to use a 60-year old animal potency test called the NIH test. Flawed at many levels: highly variable (up to 400%!); infected animals suffer severe pain and distress; safety risk to lab staff; lengthier than newer alternatives. There are at least two newer alternatives that greatly minimize animal pain and distress and are much more reliable. Yet the NIH test for rabies vaccine potency remains the required regulatory gold standard (33). Why?a) The current generation of regulators was trained 20 to 30 years back when the motto was 'in vivo veritas' (truth in living things). This mindset engenders discomfort with alternatives to animal models.b) a 3R model is not merely a technology change but also change in regulations, infrastructure and end-user practices.c) The 'validation challenge', i.e. the regulatory mindset that the newer 3R model be compared to conventional animal model. In most cases, the two are incomparable.d) Not science-driven. Rather fear of litigation drives risk avoidance behavior among regulators. Result? When in doubt fall back on custom and practice.Botany + Medicine = Transgenic plants for new generation of edible biopharmaceuticals and vaccines. What's the process?See figure 1 in reference 34.On May 1, 2012, the US FDA approved carrot-cell produced glucocerebrosidase (GCD), commercially called ELEYSOTMfor treating Gaucher's disease (35).From 36BibliographyFranco, Nuno Henrique. "Animal experiments in biomedical research: a historical perspective." Animals 3.1 (2013): 238-273. Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research: A Historical PerspectivePage on eur-lex.europa.euLouhimies, S. Eu Directive 2010/63/EU: “Implementing the three Rs through policy”. ALTEX Proc. 2012, 1, 27–33.Stephens, M.L. Pursuing Medawar’s challenge for full replacement. ALTEX Proc. 2012, 1, 23–26.Taylor, Katy, et al. "Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005." (2008). Page on animalstudiesrepository.orgPage on nih.govLindsey, J.R.; Baker, H.J. Historical foundations. In The Laboratory Rat. Suckow, M.A., Weisbroth, S.H., Franklin, C.L., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006. The Laboratory RatHedrich, H.J. The history and development of the rat as a laboratory animal model. In The Laboratory Rat; Krinke, G., Ed.; Academic: Waltham, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 3–16. The Laboratory RatThe Monk in the GardenPage on nih.govGordon, Jon W., and Frank H. Ruddle. "Integration and stable germ line transmission of genes injected into mouse pronuclei." Science 214.4526 (1981): 1244-1246.Morse, H.C. Building a better mouse: One hundred years of genetics and biology. In The Mouse in Biomedical Research: History, Wild Mice, and Genetics; Fox, J.G., Ed.; Academic Press: Waltham, MA, USA, 2007. The Mouse in Biomedical ResearchDavisson, M.T.; Linder, C.C. History of mouse genetics and research with the laboratory mouse. In The Laboratory Mouse; Hedrich, H.J.; Bullock, G.R., Eds.; Elsevier Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2004; pp. 16–20. The Laboratory MouseRussell, W.M. The three Rs: Past, present and future. Anim. Welf. 2005, 14, 279–286.Balls, M. Professor W.M.S. Russell (1925–2006): Doyen of the three Rs. In Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Alternatives & Animal Use in the Life Sciences, Tokyo, Japan, 21–25 August 2007; pp. 1–7.Stephens, M.L.; Goldberg, A.M.; Rowan, A.N. The first forty years of the alternatives approach: Refining, reducing, and replacing the use of laboratory animals. In The State of the Animals: 2001; Salem, D.J., Rowan, A.N., Eds.; Humane Society Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; pp. 121–135.Russell, W.M.S.; Burch, R.L. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique; Methuen & Co. Ltd.: London, UK, 1959.Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The context of animal research: Past and present. In The Ethics of Research Involving Animals; Nuffield Council on Bioethics: London, UK, 2005; Balls, M. Alternatives to animal experiments: Serving in the middle ground. AATEX 2005, 11, 4–14.Smyth, D.H. Alternatives to Animal Experiments; Scolar Press [for] the Research Defence Society: London, UK,1978.Balls, M. Alternatives to animal experiments: Serving in the middle ground. AATEX 2005, 11, 4–14.Ibrahim DM (2006) Reduce, refine, replace: the failure of the three R’s and the future of animal experimentation. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2006; Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 06-17.Rusche B (2003) The 3 Rs and animal welfare: conflict or way forward? ALTEX 20: 63–76.Hackam, Daniel G., and Donald A. Redelmeier. "Translation of research evidence from animals to humans." Jama 296.14 (2006): 1727-1732.Horrobin, David F. "Modern biomedical research: an internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality?." Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2.2 (2003): 151-154.Perel, Pablo, et al. "Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review." Bmj 334.7586 (2007): 197. Page on nih.govIoannidis, John PA. "Evolution and translation of research findings: from bench to where." PLoS clinical trials 1.7 (2006): e36. Evolution and Translation of Research Findings: From Bench to WherePound, Pandora, et al. "Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?." Bmj 328.7438 (2004): 514-517. Page on nih.govMacleod, M. "What can systematic review and meta-analysis tell us about the experimental data supporting stroke drug development." Int J Neuroprot Neuroregener 1 (2005): 201.Garber, Ken. "Realistic rodents? Debate grows over new mouse models of cancer." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 98.17 (2006): 1176-1178. Realistic Rodents? Debate Grows Over New Mouse Models of CancerMatthews, Robert AJ. "Medical progress depends on animal models-doesn't it?." Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 101.2 (2008): 95-98. Medical progress depends on animal models - doesn't it?Grass, George M., and Patrick J. Sinko. "Effect of diverse datasets on the predictive capability of ADME models in drug discovery." Drug discovery today 6 (2001): 54-61.Shanks, Niall, Ray Greek, and Jean Greek. "Are animal models predictive for humans?." Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 4.1 (2009): 2. Page on peh-med.comSchiffelers, Marie-Jeanne WA, et al. "Regulatory acceptance and use of 3R models: a multilevel perspective." ALTEX-Alternatives to Animal Experimentation 29.3 (2012): 287. Page on jhsph.eduDaniell, Henry, et al. "Plant-made vaccine antigens and biopharmaceuticals." Trends in plant science 14.12 (2009): 669-679. Plant-made vaccine antigens and biopharmaceuticalsFDA. FDA approves new orphan drug to treat a form of Gaucher disease. FDA approves new orphan drug to treat a form of Gaucher diseaseChen, Qiang, and Huafang Lai. "Plant-derived virus-like particles as vaccines." Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics 9.1 (2013): 26-49. Plant-derived virus-like particles as vaccinesThanks for the A2A, Luiz Felipe. Maybe not the optimism you sought but better to know what we have so we understand clearly why it needs to change.

Re your query: What were the beliefs or practices of the early Hebrews?Quote from WRITTEN BY - Haim Zalman Dimitrovsky See All ContributorsProfessor of Talmud, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Editor and translator of Bava metziaJudaism, monotheistic religion developed among the ancient Hebrews. Judaism is characterized by a belief in one transcendent God who revealed himself to Abraham, Moses, and the Hebrew prophets and by a religious life in accordance with Scriptures and rabbinic traditions. Judaism is the complex phenomenon of a total way of life for the Jewish people, comprising theology, law, and innumerable cultural traditions.___________________________________________________________________________________The following informationassisted by the following information which is taken from the Bible Encyclopaedia Insight on the Scriptureshttps://wol.jw.org/en/wol/library/r1/lp-e/all-publications/insightHebrew. A designation first used for Abram (Abraham), distinguishing him from his Amorite neighbors. It was used thereafter to refer to Abraham’s descendants through his grandson Jacob as well as to their language. By the time of Jesus, the Hebrew language had come to include many Aramaic expressions and was the language spoken by Christ and his disciples.—Ge 14:13; Ex 5:3; Ac 26:14.HEBREW,The designation “Hebrew” is first used for Abram, distinguishing him thereby from his Amorite neighbors. (Ge 14:13) Thereafter, in virtually every case of its use, the term “Hebrew(s)” continues to be employed as a contrasting or distinguishing designation—the one speaking is of a non-Israelite nation (Ge 39:13, 14, 17; 41:12; Ex 1:16; 1Sa 4:6, 9), or is an Israelite addressing a foreigner (Ge 40:15; Ex 1:19; 2:7; Jon 1:9), or foreigners are mentioned (Ge 43:32; Ex 1:15; 2:11-13; 1Sa 13:3-7).As the above texts show, the designation “Hebrew” was already familiar to the Egyptians in the 18th century B.C.E. This would seem to indicate that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had become quite well known over a wide area, thus making the appellative “Hebrew” a recognizable one. When Joseph spoke of “the land of the Hebrews” (Ge 40:15) to two of Pharaoh’s servants, he doubtless referred to the region around Hebron that his father and forefathers had long made a sort of base of operations. Some six centuries later the Philistines still spoke of the Israelites as “Hebrews.” During the time of King Saul “Hebrews” and “Israel” were equivalent terms. (1Sa 13:3-7; 14:11; 29:3) In the ninth century B.C.E. the prophet Jonah identified himself as a Hebrew to sailors (possibly Phoenicians) on a boat out of the seaport of Joppa. (Jon 1:9) The Law also distinguished “Hebrew” slaves from those of other races or nationalities (Ex 21:2; De 15:12), and in referring to this, the book of Jeremiah (in the seventh century B.C.E.) shows the term “Hebrew” to be then the equivalent of “Jew.”—Jer 34:8, 9, 13, 14.In later periods Greek and Roman writers regularly called the Israelites either “Hebrews” or “Jews,” not “Israelites.”Origin and Significance of the Term. The views as to the origin and significance of the term “Hebrew” generally can be resolved into the following:One view holds that the name comes from the root word ʽa·varʹ, meaning “pass; pass by; pass over; cross.” The term would then apply to Abraham as the one whom God took “from the other side of the River [Euphrates].” (Jos 24:3) The translators of the Greek Septuagint so understood the term and thus at Genesis 14:13 referred to Abraham as “the passer” rather than “the Hebrew.” This theory is quite popular, yet not without problems. The ending for the term ʽIv·riʹ (Hebrew) is the same as that used in other terms that are definitely patronymics, that is, names formed by the addition of a prefix or suffix indicating relationship to the name of one’s father or parental ancestor. Thus, Moh·ʼa·viʹ (Moabite) denotes primarily one descended from Moab (Moh·ʼavʹ) rather than one from a geographic region; so too with ʽAm·moh·niʹ (Ammonite), Da·niʹ (Danite), and many others.Additionally, if “Hebrew” were to apply to Abraham solely on the basis of his having ‘crossed over’ the Euphrates, the term might seem to be a very general one, applicable to any person who did the same—and likely there were many such emigrants in the course of the centuries. With such an origin, the term could be distinctive only if Abraham’s crossing of the Euphrates was recognized as being by divine call. That this fact should be acknowledged by pagans using the term is a matter for question, but it cannot be deemed impossible.A second view, endorsed by some scholars, is that the name denotes those who are sojourners, that is, ‘passing through,’ as distinguished from those who are residents or settlers. (Compare the use of ʽa·varʹ at Ge 18:5; Ex 32:27; 2Ch 30:10.) While the Israelites did lead a nomadic life for a time, this was not the case after the conquest of Canaan. Yet, the name Hebrew continued to apply to them. Another objection to this concept may be that it is so broad that it would include all nomadic groups. Since Jehovah is Biblically identified as “the God of the Hebrews,” it is evident that this does not mean ‘all the nomads,’ inasmuch as many nomadic peoples were worshipers of false gods.—Ex 3:18; 5:3; 7:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3.A third view that accords well with the Biblical evidence is that “Hebrew” (ʽIv·riʹ) comes from the name Eber (ʽEʹver), that of the great-grandson of Shem and an ancestor of Abraham. (Ge 11:10-26) It is true that nothing is known about Eber aside from his family relationship as a link in the chain of descent from Shem to Abraham. There is no outstanding act or other personal feature recorded that might form the basis for Eber’s name being used so prominently by his descendants. Nevertheless, it is to be noted that Eber is specifically singled out at Genesis 10:21, Shem there being spoken of as “the forefather of all the sons of Eber.” That the name Eber was applied centuries after his death to a certain people or region is evident from Balaam’s prophecy in the 15th century B.C.E. (Nu 24:24) The use of the name as a patronymic would also link the Israelites with a particular one of the “family descents” from Noah, as recorded at Genesis 10:1-32.As with the other views already discussed, the question arises as to why “Hebrew,” if derived from the name Eber, should be applied so specifically and distinctively to the Israelites. Eber had other descendants, through his son Joktan, who were not in the line of descent to Abraham (and Israel). (Ge 10:25-30; 11:16-26) It would seem that the term ʽIv·riʹ (Hebrew) would apply to all such descendants who could lay rightful claim to Eber as their ancestor. Some scholars suggest that originally this may have been the case, but that, in course of time, the name came to be restricted to the Israelites as the most prominent of the Eberites, or Hebrews. This would not be without some parallel in the Bible record. Although there were many non-Israelite descendants of Abraham, including the Edomites, the Ishmaelites, and the descendants of Abraham through his wife Keturah, it is the Israelites who are distinctively called the “seed of Abraham.” (Ps 105:6; Isa 41:8; compare Mt 3:9; 2Co 11:22.) Of course, this was because of God’s action toward them in connection with the Abrahamic covenant. But the very fact that God made them a nation and gave them the land of Canaan as an inheritance, as well as victories over many powerful enemies, would certainly distinguish the Israelites not only from other descendants of Abraham but also from all other descendants of Eber. There is the possibility, too, that many of such other descendants also lost their “Eberite” identity by intermarriage with other peoples.ISRAELThe name God gave to Jacob when he was about 97 years old. It was during the night that Jacob crossed the torrent valley of Jabbok on his way to meet his brother Esau that he began struggling with what turned out to be an angel. Because of Jacob’s perseverance in the struggle, his name was changed to Israel as a token of God’s blessing. In commemoration of these events, Jacob named the place Peniel or Penuel. (Ge 32:22-31; see JACOB No. 1.) Later, at Bethel the change in name was confirmed by God, and from then on to the end of his life Jacob was frequently called Israel. (Ge 35:10, 15; 50:2; 1Ch 1:34) Many of the more than 2,500 occurrences of the name Israel, however, are in reference to Jacob’s descendants as a nation.—Ex 5:1, 2.All the descendants of Jacob, collectively, at any one time. (Ex 9:4; Jos 3:7; Ezr 2:2b; Mt 8:10) As the offspring and descendants of Jacob’s 12 sons, they were quite often called “the sons of Israel”; less often, “the house of Israel,” “the people of Israel,” the “men of Israel,” “the state of Israel,” or the “Israelites.”—Ge 32:32; Mt 10:6; Ac 4:10; 5:35; Eph 2:12; Ro 9:4ISRAELITE(Isʹra·el·ite) [Of (Belonging to) Israel].A descendant of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. (2Sa 17:25; Joh 1:47; Ro 11:1; see ISRAEL No. 1.) As determined by the context, in the plural the term refers to the following: (1) Members of all the 12 tribes before the split in the kingdom (1Sa 2:14; 13:20; 29:1); (2) those of the 10-tribe northern kingdom (1Ki 12:19; 2Ki 3:24); (3) non-Levitical Jews returning from Babylonian exile (1Ch 9:1, 2); (4) Jews of the first century C.E.—Ac 13:16; Ro 9:3, 4; 2Co 11:22.______________________________________________________________________________Family Origin and Early History. Abraham was the tenth generation from Noah through Shem and was born 352 years after the Deluge, in 2018 B.C.E.Although listed first among the three sons of Terah, at Genesis 11:26, Abraham was not the firstborn. The Scriptures show that Terah was 70 years old when his first son was born, and that Abraham was born 60 years later when his father Terah was 130 years old. (Ge 11:32; 12:4) Evidently Abraham is listed first among his father’s sons because of his outstanding faithfulness and prominence in the Scriptures, a practice that is followed in the case of several other outstanding men of faith such as Shem and Isaac.—Ge 5:32; 11:10; 1Ch 1:28.Abraham was a native of the Chaldean city of Ur, a thriving metropolis located in the land of Shinar, near the present junction of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. It was about 240 km (150 mi) SE of Nimrod’s onetime royal city of Babel, or Babylon, so notorious for its unfinished Tower of Babel.In Abraham’s time, the city of Ur was steeped in Babylonish idolatry and the worship of its patron moon-god Sin. (Jos 24:2, 14, 15) Nevertheless, Abraham proved to be a man of faith in Jehovah God, even as his forefathers Shem and Noah; and as a consequence, he earned the reputation “the father of all those having faith while in uncircumcision.” (Ro 4:11) Since true faith is based on accurate knowledge, Abraham may have received his understanding by personal association with Shem (their lives overlapped by 150 years). Abraham knew and used the name of Jehovah; to quote him: “Jehovah the Most High God, Producer of heaven and earth,” “Jehovah, the God of the heavens and the God of the earth.”—Ge 14:22; 24:3.While Abraham was still living in Ur, “before he took up residence in Haran,” Jehovah commanded him to move out to a strange land, leaving behind friends and relatives. (Ac 7:2-4; Ge 15:7; Ne 9:7) There in that country that He would show Abraham, God said he would make out of him a great nation. At the time, Abraham was married to his half sister Sarah, but they were childless and both were old. So it would take great faith to obey, but obey he did.Terah, now around 200 years old and still the family’s patriarchal head, agreed to accompany Abraham and Sarah on this long journey, and it is for this reason that Terah as father is credited with making the move toward Canaan. (Ge 11:31) It appears that fatherless Lot, Abraham’s nephew, was adopted by his childless uncle and aunt and so accompanied them. Northwestward the caravan moved, some 960 km (600 mi), until they reached Haran, which was an important junction on the E-W trade routes. Haran is located where two wadis join to form a stream that reaches the Balikh River in the winter, about 110 km (68 mi) above where the Balikh empties into the Euphrates River. Here Abraham remained until the death of his father Terah.—MAP, Vol. 1, p. 330.Sojourn in Canaan. Now 75 years old, Abraham began to move his household out of Haran to the land of Canaan, where he lived out the remaining hundred years of his life in tents as an alien and migratory resident. (Ge 12:4) It was following the death of his father Terah that Abraham went out from Haran in 1943 B.C.E. and crossed the Euphrates River, evidently on the 14th day of the month that later became known as Nisan. (Ge 11:32; Ex 12:40-43, LXX) It was at that time that the covenant between Jehovah and Abraham went into effect, and the 430-year period of temporary residence until the making of the Law covenant with Israel began.—Ex 12:40-42; Ga 3:17.Evidently Abraham, with his flocks and herds, traveled down through Damascus and on to Shechem (located 48 km [30 mi] N of Jerusalem), near the big trees of Moreh. (Ge 12:6) Here Jehovah appeared again to Abraham, confirming and enlarging His covenant promise by declaring: “To your seed I am going to give this land.” (Ge 12:7) Abraham not only built an altar to Jehovah there but, as he moved southward through the land, he built other altars along the way; and he called on the name of Jehovah. (Ge 12:8, 9) In time a severe famine compelled Abraham to move temporarily to Egypt, and to protect his life, he represented Sarah as his sister. This resulted in Pharaoh’s taking beautiful Sarah into his household to be his wife, but before he could violate her, Jehovah had Pharaoh give her back. Abraham then returned to Canaan to the campsite between Bethel and Ai and again called “on the name of Jehovah.”—Ge 12:10–13:4.It now became necessary, because of the increasing size of their flocks and herds, for Abraham and Lot to separate. Lot selected the basin of the lower Jordan, a well-watered region “like the garden of Jehovah,” and later established his camp near Sodom. (Ge 13:5-13) Abraham, for his part, after being told to travel about through the length and breadth of the land, came to dwell among the big trees of Mamre in Hebron, 30 km (19 mi) SSW of Jerusalem.—Ge 13:14-18.When four allied kings, headed by the Elamite king Chedorlaomer, were successful in crushing a revolt of five Canaanite kings, Sodom and Gomorrah were sacked, and Lot was taken captive together with all of his property. Abraham, upon learning of this, quickly mustered 318 of his trained household servants. With his confederates Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, he made a forced march in hot pursuit perhaps as much as 300 km (190 mi) northward to beyond Damascus and, with Jehovah’s help, defeated a far superior force. Lot was thus rescued, and the stolen property was recovered. (Ge 14:1-16, 23, 24) As Abraham was returning from this great victory a “priest of the Most High God,” Melchizedek, who was also the king of Salem, came out and blessed him, and Abraham, in turn, “gave him a tenth of everything.”—Ge 14:17-20.Patriarchal Head and Prophet.Abraham was a very wealthy man with great flocks and herds, much silver and gold, and a very large household numbering many hundreds of servants. (Ge 12:5, 16; 13:2, 6, 7; 17:23, 27; 20:14; 24:35) For this reason the kings of Canaan considered him a powerful “chieftain” and one with whom covenants of peace should be made. (Ge 23:6; 14:13; 21:22, 23) Yet at no time did Abraham allow materialism to blind his vision of Jehovah and His promises or cause him to become proud, high-minded, or selfish.—Ge 13:9; 14:21-23.The first occurrence of the word “prophet” in the Hebrew Scriptures refers to Abraham, though others like Enoch prophesied before him. (Ge 20:7; Jude 14) The first identified in the Scriptures as a “Hebrew” is Abraham. (Ge 14:13) Abraham, like Abel, Enoch, and Noah, was a man of faith. (Heb 11:4-9) But the first occurrence of the expression “put faith in Jehovah” is in reference to Abraham.—Ge 15:6.Indeed, this man of unusual faith walked with God, received communications from him by means of visions and dreams, and entertained his angelic messengers. (Ge 12:1-3, 7; 15:1-8, 12-21; 18:1-15; 22:11, 12, 15-18) He was well acquainted with the name of God even though Jehovah had not at that time revealed the full significance of His name. (Ex 6:2, 3) Time after time Abraham built altars and offered up sacrifices in the name of and to the praise and glory of his God Jehovah.—Ge 12:8; 13:4, 18; 21:33; 24:40; 48:15.As patriarchal head, Abraham allowed no idolatry or ungodliness in his household but constantly taught all his sons and servants to “keep Jehovah’s way to do righteousness and judgment.” (Ge 18:19) Every male member of Abraham’s household was bound by Jehovah’s law to submit to circumcision. The Egyptian slave girl Hagar called on Jehovah’s name in prayer. And Abraham’s oldest servant in a very heart-touching prayer to Jehovah demonstrated his own faith in Abraham’s God. Isaac too, in his early manhood, proved his faith and his obedience to Jehovah by allowing himself to be bound hand and foot and placed atop the altar for sacrifice.—Ge 17:10-14, 23-27; 16:13; 24:2-56.Historicity.Jesus and his disciples referred to Abraham more than 70 times in their conversations and writings. In his illustration of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus referred to Abraham in a symbolic sense. (Lu 16:19-31) When his opponents boasted that they were the offspring of Abraham, Jesus was quick to point out their hypocrisy, saying: “If you are Abraham’s children, do the works of Abraham.” (Joh 8:31-58; Mt 3:9, 10) No, as the apostle Paul said, it is not fleshly descent that counts, but, rather, faith like that of Abraham that enables one to be declared righteous. (Ro 9:6-8; 4:1-12) Paul also identified the true seed of Abraham as Christ, along with those who belong to Christ as “heirs with reference to a promise.” (Ga 3:16, 29) He also speaks of Abraham’s kindness and hospitality to strangers, and in his long list in Hebrews chapter 11 of illustrious witnesses of Jehovah, Paul does not overlook Abraham. It is Paul who points out that Abraham’s two women, Sarah and Hagar, figured in a symbolic drama that involved Jehovah’s two covenants. (Ga 4:22-31; Heb 11:8) The Bible writer James adds that Abraham backed up his faith by righteous works and, therefore, was known as “Jehovah’s friend.”—Jas 2:21-23.