Re: Photon Duality (Feynman doesn't know why, do you?)

From: PD (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/21/05 

Date: 21 Mar 2005 12:15:32 -0800

Prescott wrote:
> In his book "QED: Strange Theory of Light and Matter".
> Feynman mentions about light passing thru glass in
> chapter one. He described that in ordinary glass,
> there is a reflection of 4% and the rest of the 96%
> passing thru. He asked how does individual photon
> "makes up its mind" whether to go through glass or
> bounce back and still produce consistent results of
> 4% reflections of the total photons. Anyway. The
> following is his own words:
>
> "The situation today is, we haven't got a good model
> to explain partial reflection by two surfaces; we
> just calculate the probability that a particular
> photomultiplier will be hit by a photon reflected
> from a *** of glass. I have chosen this calculation
> as our first example of the method provided by the
> theory of quantum electrodynamics. I am going to
> show you "how to count the beans" - what the physicists
> do to get the right answer. I am not going to explain
> how the photons actually "decide" whether to bounce
> back or go through; that is not known. I will only
> show you how to calculate the correct probability
> that light will be reflected from glass of a given
> thickness, because that's the only thing physicists
> know how to do! What we do to get the answer to this
> problem is analogous to the things we have to do to
> get the answer to every other problem explained by
> quantum electrodynamics" (Feynman)
>
> Ok. Guys So how does each photon know or make up its
> mind and all of them conspiring to produce 4%
> reflection and passing the rest of the 96%?
>
> Don't tell me that its waves behavior. Don't tell
> me that light can behave *like* particles and *like
> waves*. Don't tell me that the wave function
> determines the order. Don't tell me that the
> probability amplitude holds the key to the order.
> Don't tell me that one must not treat them as
> classical objects. Don't tell me that because
> Schroedinger and Born who originated the wave and
> probability thing said so. Don't tell me this because
> I already know them.
>
> Instead what I want to know is the exact mechanism
> by which the photon can have wave-like mechanism.
> Draw or illustrate its dynamics while the photon
> is in mid-air or space before reaching the target.
> My guess now is that somehow the photon has communication
> with the rest of the photons thru some non-local
> connection with the collective waveform, but don't
> know how to visualize further.

OK, it seems to me that what you're asking for is two-fold:
1. Is light fundamentally a wave or fundamentally a particle? Sure,
sometimes it can exhibit one behavior or the other, but at rock bottom,
which is it?
2. What are the underlying deterministic, non-randomness-based laws
that, after whatever else happens, appears as the statistical behavior
we interpret as quantum mechanics?

The answer to both these questions is, "Why do you think it has to be
that way?"

For (1), light is what it is, and our taxonomy is our responsibility.
It is our own conceptual liability if we insist that all things must be
*either* particles *or* waves, but because they are conceptually
incompatible, they can't be both. Consider the platypus, which does not
obey rules for phyla that describe either egg-layers or non-egg-layers.
Is it *fundamentally* a mammal or fundamentally something else? Well,
neither. A platypus is a platypus, and our need to pigeonhole it,
classify it, is strictly ours. Even if we make a choice one way or the
other, that in no way changes what a platypus is.

For (2), it appears that a "hidden variable" theory underlying quantum
mechanics is neither suggested, needed, or in fact supported. Once
again, the need to believe that the fundamental behavior of nature is
deterministic and non-random is purely a bias on our part. Every
evidence is, despite many efforts to the contrary, that nature is
*fundamentally* random.

As another example, we have a strong bias in believing that space and
time are based on the real-number system -- that the continuity and
compactness of the real number line is expressed in each dimension of
spacetime. This, indeed, underlies much of analysis with calculus, the
complex plane, manifolds, and so on. However, as Roger Penrose has been
quietly suggesting, there is no obvious demand that *reality* be based
on the real numbers and perhaps, when the granularity of space and time
are fleshed out, the rational numbers or even the integers might be a
better description of nature than the real numbers.

My point is this: You accuse physicists of being brainwashed and not
open-minded. I'm suggesting to you that your own prejudices about what
seems natural and unnatural are just as likely based on conceptual
prejudices that you have not demonstrated you can escape.

In the end, it comes down to this: Given two different explanations, A
and B, the only way to ultimately decide which one is right (which one
makes "sense" is irrelevant) is to find the place where A says nature
will behave this way and B says nature will behave another way, and
then do the experimental test that determines which way is seen. Until
then, disparaging either A or B as being obviously nonsense, is
pointless and unscientific.

PD

>
> Know what. The photon particle wave mystery is also
> applied to the electron (via deBroglie theory). So
> solving this photon thing can solve the probabilistic
> nature of quantum physics.
>
> So does anyone know the answer.
>
> I only want open minded folks to answer. Because the
> dogma laden physicists will just tell you to believe
> light has behavior of particle and wave and that's it.
> No questions asked. Nothing unusual. It's like Christian
> nuts who tell you not to question whether God exists,
> just believe he exists, no questions asked, nothing
> unusual about God. It's beause these dudes are both
> mind controlled and I'm so tired of them.
>
> If you are one who doesn't belong to the brain washed
> club and can see beyond illusions. Pls. response. Thanks.
>
> Prescott