Does Quantum Electrodynamics theory (QED) provide an answer for the optic law of reflection?
NO, it does NOT!


Quantum Electrodynamics Theory's "all path argument" uses the result from the optic law of reflection and it sums up the amplitude vectors for the entire surface of the mirror, and it shows only small section of the mirror which is at vicinity of the path which it is defined by the optic law is contributing to the magnitude of the summed up amplitude vectors, and it concludes that "all path argument" reveals the optic law of reflection naturally! This is a deceptive argument, we would be fooling ourselves if we think that this argument has given us an answer for the optic law of reflection.

The fact is that QED's "all path argument" on its own merit cannot identify the path of the reflection at all! To prove this point, I place few photo-multipliers at vicinity of the first photo-multiplier. Now, I send ONE photon to the surface of the mirror and I use "all path argument" for each of these photo-multipliers. The magnitude of the summed up amplitude vectors for each of these photo-multipliers gives a valid value, even though these values differ from each other. Now, "all path argument" cannot identify which one of these photo-multipliers will receive the photon. This exercise reveals the embedded flaw within the "all pass argument".

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

You can view this argument in Prof. Richard Feynman in his lecture (# 2 of 4) at Auckland University in New Zealand. (This argument is at about 28:00 minutes of the video.)
Dr. Richard Feynman lecture (# 2 of 4) at Auckland University.

Furthermore, to debunk the phony nature of "all path argument" I preformed the following experiment. I used a laser pointer beam, a 5" X 6" regular mirror, and a 1" X 1" diffraction grating mirror. I placed the regular mirror on the floor, and I pointed the laser beam to the center of the regular mirror, with an incident angle of about 30 degree. I observed the reflected beam on the wall. Then, I placed my diffraction grating mirror on the surface of the regular mirror, away from its center, where the incoming laser beam did not hit its surface. No reflection from the diffraction grating mirror could be observed in any direction! It does not matter whether you consider those imaginary paths just present the probability of photon being there, or those paths are the real photons examining those paths, no reflection was observed, and this proves the probability of any photon being at that vicinity was zero.

This observation debunked the idea that light gets reflected from all part of the mirror! There isn't any merit to the phony paths that it is discussed in "all paths arguments", these paths fail to produce any reflection from the surface of the diffraction grating mirror. The diffraction grating mirror only reflects the real photons that are actually hitting its surface, and of course it reflects them in different patterns, something similar to the double-slits experiment. So, when Prof. Richard Feynman in his lectures at Auckland University claimed the reflection from the diffraction grating mirror was an evidence for the validity of the "all paths argument", I should say that was highly deceptive evidence!!

Also, Prof. Richard Feynman in his lecture mentioned; the actual reflection happens from the material inside the water, and we need to add the amplitude vectors for all those little particles inside the water. (This is in Q&A section of the lecture (# 1 of 4), at about 1:11:00 of the video.)
Dr. Richard Feynman lecture (# 1 of 4) at Auckland University.

Let us make an observation that rejects this assumption, let us look at the reflection of light from the surface of a patch of water on the ground, it does not matter whether the water is clear or the water is muddy, the reflection from the water surface looks the same. I observed similar reflection from the surface of black liquid ink. In an aquarium tank in a science museum I saw vivid image reflection of a fish from the water surface. This proves the particles at surface of the water along with the smoothness of the water's surface are producing the reflection and not the particles inside of the water.

Experiment shows as the angle of incident increases from zero to ninety degree the reflection probability of the smooth surface increases. Also, the reflection probability increases in the following material accordingly: water, glass (crown), glass (flint), sapphire, zircon, and diamond.

Regarding the mechanic of reflection, QED theory claims the incoming photons get absorbed by the electrons and then these energized electrons emit the reflected photons. This assumption cannot be right either! Because, the uncertainty law tells us that each energized electron emits its photon randomly in ALL directions, and not necessarily in the direction that matches with the optic law of reflection, and with a probabilistic time of emission. If EACH photon in incoming image faces this kind of chaotic distortions, then the reflected image could hardly resemble to the incoming image, but as we do know this is not the case, the reflected image is very similar to the incoming image! So, we have to conclude that QED's assumption of absorption of photons by the electron and then emission of photons by these energized electrons cannot be right.

To explore the mechanic of the mirror reflection further, I send ONE photon to the surface of a mirror, QED's summation of amplitude vectors for the entire surface cannot be a plausible assumption, since that requires the electrons at the entire surface absorb and then emit part of this SINGLE photon. Even though, we do not know the correct mechanic of smooth surface reflection, but we can recognize the flaws of a deceptive argument!

Our celebrated and extremely successful QED theory has failed to give us a plausible picture for the mechanic of mirror reflection! Reflection from a smooth surface is a common phenomenon that each day we are observing it numerous times, it is extremely unsettling to realize that our glorious science still has not figured out the accurate mechanic of this phenomenon! Maybe that failure is pointing to the rigid scope of our scientific domain! Or perhaps this failure is exposing the level of our cognitive abilities!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I posted this article in Physics forum .

I had few exchanges with few members, all postings were courteous and logical. Even though the members were well informed, but they could not discredit my outrageous claim. At the third day I was banned from the forum for "Rules Violations". This reaction was too peculiar and weird, they could have ignored me altogether, simply I could have not forced them to respond to my question. All my exchanges with members were voluntarily and respectful. I am baffled the way they cut me off. The only logical reason that I can think of is; maybe they were embarrassed to admit that they could not refute my puzzle logically. Here, I give you all my posts, you decide on your own, whether the Physics Forum was justified to Ban me.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[QUOTE=Sterlanc] You did do the math, right? Otherwise it's very clear where the problem is: you used fuzzy reasoning and intuition to get a wrong answer for what the path integral formulation predicts. For example, maybe you didn't take into account (or refused to take into account) that destructive interference means adding more paths can decrease the probability of the detector going off. Taking interference into account is important (extremely important) if you want to get the model's actual prediction. [/QUOTE]

No, I did not do the math.

I was clear from the beginning that I did not understand QED, and I hoped and welcomed to see the flaws within my argument. As I mentioned before my reasoning is purely based on Prof. Feynman's lecture. As I watched that video I noticed in order to qualify "all path argument", the KNOWN RESULT FROM OPTIC LAW was used in that argument. I figured out the same argument does hold if I move the photo-multiplier to a different location, granted in this case the mid-point would be in a different location, but since I am allowed to examine ALL PATHS still I would get a VALID magnitude for the summed up amplitude vectors for this new location.

Instead of arguing that I do not know anything about QED, I wish that you point out the flaws of my argument for the second location. Please explain why doing the math for summing up the amplitude vectors for the second location should produce a wrong result?

[QUOTE=Sterlanc]They've used it to make predictions. The predictions are so good they agree with experiment to one part in a billion. A frickin billion. [/QUOTE]

The success of QED theory is WELL KNOWN BY EVERYBODY, so, we do not need to use that angle for validating our argument!

3/24/2016

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[QUOTE=Unes] Please explain why doing the math for summing up the amplitude vectors for the second location should produce a wrong result?

[QUOTE=mfb] It does not. You did not actually sum the vectors, so why do you think you would get a wrong result if you would do that? [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

I agree with you, it does not! This is exactly what I said from the beginning! According to "all path argument" the added photo-multipliers have the same chance to receive that SINGLE photon! And that is a wrong answer, we cannot accept that outcome!

[QUOTE=mfb] You misunderstood Feynman somehow, but it is hard to figure out where exactly. [/QUOTE]

I am hoping that you can tell me the flaw of my argument. But, if you cannot, then, my argument holds to be valid, and that exposes the flaw within "all path argument"; that "all path argument" on its own merit cannot identify the path of reflection.

3/24/2016

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[QUOTE=Jilang] Here something you can try: cover the mirror with a dark strip where the laser hits it to eliminate the reflection. Then start adding other dark strips to the mirror to cancel out the destructive interferences. The theory says reflection can be restored. [/QUOTE]

Actually, in the second lecture Prof. Feynman explains this concept very well. He uses your technic by blacking out some strips on the mirror, these black strips eliminate the canceling amplitude vectors, as a result the summed up amplitude vectors gets a significant value that can be seen in a new direction. He asserts this phenomenon as a validation for "all path argument", and he mentions diffracting grating mirror is an example of this re-direction phenomenon.

But, as I explained in my original post, that is a deceptive argument, the diffracting grating mirror do re-direct the actual photons that hit its surface, and it DOES NOT re-direct the phony photons that are explained in "all path argument".

3/25/2016

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[QUOTE=Unes] Please explain why doing the math for summing up the amplitude vectors for the second location should produce a wrong result? [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=mfb]It does not. You did not actually sum the vectors, so why do you think you would get a wrong result if you would do that?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Unes] I agree with you, it does not! This is exactly what I said from the beginning! According to "all path argument" the added photo-multipliers have the same chance to receive that SINGLE photon! And that is a wrong answer, we cannot accept that outcome! [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=mfb] No, you misunderstood me here. You said that summing up would produce a wrong result. This is wrong - it does not produce a wrong result. It produces the right result. If you would have said that from the beginning this thread would not exist. [/QUOTE]

Mfb, this is in my original post: "I place few photo-multipliers at vicinity of the first photo-multiplier. . . The magnitude of the summed up amplitude vectors for each of these photo-multipliers is the same,". And here we agreed that doing the math for summing up the amplitude vectors for the second location should produce a RIGHT result.. (I agreed with you that it would not produce the WRONG result, that means it produces the RIGHT result.)
So, where is the confusion!?

[QUOTE=mfb]I do not understand your argument. "I did not calculate it but I am sure if I would calculate it it would give a wrong result"?[/QUOTE]

Here, you are reversing yourself!? In your previous post you agreed that "doing the math for summing up the amplitude vectors for the second location should produce a wrong result?" it does not produce the wrong result. Aren't you confused here!?

[QUOTE=mfb] That is not how the universe works. Arguments don't get valid just because others don't understand them. [/QUOTE]

You agreed that if I move the photo-multiplier to the second location, summing up the amplitude vectors for the second location does produce right result. Now imagine we have two photo-multipliers at two locations at the same time, we sum up the amplitude vectors for each of these photo-multipliers independently, you just agreed each summation does produce the right result for each of these photo-multipliers. I am saying if "all path argument" CANNOT identify which photo-multiplier should receive that SINGLE photon, then, that is the flaw in "all path argument". And this proves QED theory does not provide an answer for the reflection law. This is my statement and my argument.

You either agree with my statement or you point out the mistake in my reasoning. If you agree with my statement then we are at the same page, if you disagree with my statement then let me know in what point we disagree with each other.

3/25/2016

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[QUOTE=Strilanc] You need to be a lot clearer about the reasoning you're using to get the wrong answer from the model. It's not enough to say "apply the all paths argument". How are you applying it? [/QUOTE]

I provided you the link to Prof. Feynman's lecture on QED. I follow exactly the same method and the summation technic that Prof. Feynman showed in his lecture. We should not bother questioning each other on the established method of the summation, or how to calculate each amplitude vector, we should examine whether adding the new photo-multipliers is a plausible concept, and how that scenario produces a new puzzle regarding the direction of the reflected photon.

3/25/2016

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[QUOTE=mfb]If you sum up all amplitudes correctly, you get the right result. The magnitude is different for different locations. [/QUOTE]

You are correct stating different amplitude magnitude for different location. The calculation of amplitude for each photo-multiplier at their location generates a significant amplitude, even though their magnitudes differ from each other, but according to these amplitudes each one of these photo-multipliers are well qualified to receive that SINGLE photon. And actually one of these photo-multipliers will receive that photon, it all depends which photo-multiplier is in the path that matches with the optic law of reflection. But "all path argument" fails to distinguish which photo-multiplier should receive that SINGLE photon based on its own reasoning. And this exposes the flaw of the "all path argument".

3/25/2016

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

You have been banned for the following reason: "Rules violations"

3/26/2016

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The material of this site may be reproduced in any medium, without applying for permission. (Provided they are unedited, and retain the original author/ copyright information.)

Return to Home Page