Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Napa, CA
Posts: 6
| **QED “All-Path integral approach” for Mirror Reflection**
Hi folks!
For mirror reflection I have been puzzled by QED “All-Path integral approach” argument. I appreciate if you examine my article and let me know where I have made my mistakes that my reasoning defies this QED argument.
Let us make an observation; if we turn off the pumps of a fish tank, then we can see the reflection of the content of the fish tank from the calm surface water of the fish tank. This calm surface water reflects the image of the fish which they are swimming in the fish tank. I do not know the percentage of this reflection. This observation shows that the surface water reflects a percentage of the incoming light both from above of the water surface and also from below of the water surface, and these reflections are expressed by the Optic Law for reflection.
The subject of mirror reflection is explained by the Quantum Electrodynamic theory (QED). Prof. Feynman in his lectures at University of Auckland 1979, mentioned that according to QED the reflection of a photon from a reflective surface is the interaction of that photon with an electron that exists in the material that is constructed that image reflecting surface. For the mirror reflection the incoming photon to the surface of a mirror, it gets absorbed by an electron, and then this energized electron emits the reflected photon. Prof. Feynman commented that the reflected photon is not the same photon that hits to the surface of the mirror, but rather it is a new photon, that it is emitted by the energized electron which has absorbed that incoming photon. (These comments are made in lecture #1 at 55:50 minutes and at 1:10:00 minutes of the video, and also in lecture #2 at 1:20:00 minutes of the video, and also in lecture #3 at 1:01:00 minutes of the video.).
QED explains the process of mirror reflection by the “All-Path integral approach”, in this argument it is shown that the reflected photon from the surface of the mirror it is directed toward the detecting photon-multiplier. __The reflected photon gets detected at a specific direction.__ QED’s “All-Path integral approach” is explained in Prof. Feynman’s lecture #2 at 28:30 minutes of the video.
Here I need to mention another QED’s finding regarding the emission of photon by an energized electron. QED expresses the emission of a photon by an energized electron falls in the domain of the uncertainty rule, and the direction of the emitted photon can only be expressed by a statistical method which it is in all directions, __this means that we can never predict the direction that an energized electron emits its photon. __ In the process of the reflection of one photon, for the energized electron at the surface of the mirror, these two statements of QED contradict with each other. If one statement is correct then the other statement must be wrong, and this is not acceptable.
Let us investigate for the source of this contradiction. By examining QED’s “All-Path integral approach” we find that there is a false assumption embedded in that argument. On the surface of the mirror we have directed all __the statistical emissions __toward the detecting photo-multiplier, __this is a false assumption__, these statistical emissions from the energized electrons are supposed to be random and in all directions, and __not specifically__ in the direction of the detecting photo-multiplier. The probabilities of these emissions of the energized electrons on the surface of the mirror to reach to the detecting photo-multiplier are very low and almost negligible. And this false assumption has caused those two QED statements to contradict with each other. So, because of this false assumption that it is embedded inside the QED’s “All-Path integral approach”, that makes this QED argument false and void.
There is another false step in QED’s “All-Path integral approach”. In order that QED’s “All-Path integral approach” and QED’s Wave Function method to perform their configurations they do require that the correct detection point to be provided, in advance. This is so absurd that these QED methods have this requirement! The detection point of the reflected photon is supposed to be produced by these QED methods, and not to be required __in advance__!
Let me show the falsehood of the QED’s “all-path integral approach” in another way. Let us apply QED’s “all-path integral approach” for a source that it is on the left side of a mirror and it sends ONE photon to the surface of the mirror and the reflected photon is detected by a photon detector at Point B on the right side of the mirror. QED’s “all-path integral approach” reports that its technique for this scenario is in harmony with the result from the Optic Law. Now, I add ten more photo-multipliers to the right side of the mirror. Amazingly QED’s “all-path integral approach” produces amplitude vectors for each one of these detectors, and it cannot distinguish which one of these results is a valid result, and which ones are wrong results. This argument re-visited the requirement of the correct detection point is needed to be provided in advance, in order that QED “All-Path approach” to produce a valid result.
Let me show the falsehood of the QED “All-Path approach” in another way. In the previous scenario before adding the other photo-multipliers to the right side of the mirror, let us name the point that the photon hits to the surface of the mirror point A. I cut out a circle from the mirror, centered at point A with a radius of one millimeter. Optic Law predicts no matter how we manipulate the summation of the amplitude vectors for the rest of the mirror, the photon detector no longer detects any photon. Some critiques might question that the little gap in the mirror has eliminated the significant part of the amplitude vectors which were lining up in the same direction. My answer to these critiques is this, still the amplitude vectors from the other strips on the mirror surface which run from the left side to the right side of the mirror, which the gap in the mirror has not affected them, they are still contributing significantly to the summation of the amplitude vectors, and they are lining up at their midpoints, and their contributions are as significance as before. For this case, no matter how we manipulate the value of the summation of the amplitude vectors for the rest of the mirror, still there would be no detection on the right side of the mirror! The value of the summation amplitude vectors in this case is a bogus value, and it represents nothing.
Now, that I have shown the falsehood of these two QED methods for the mirror reflection, then still the mechanics of the Mirror Image Reflection remains unanswered. We need to figure out what causes that the energized electron at the surface of the mirror to emit its photon in __the specific direction__ that produces the Optic Law for reflection. How does this energized electron register the direction that it receives the incoming photon that it can emit its photon in the direction that produces the Optic Law? And the direction of the incoming photon is registered by the absorbing electron not based on the electron’s own internal coordinates, but rather according to the coordinates of the surface of the mirror. __The surface of the mirror plays the paramount role in this reflection.__ This peculiar behavior it gets even more bizarre; the probability of the reflection increases as the angle of the incident increases! (For glass the probability of the reflection at 0 degree angle of incident is 4%, and at 70 degree angle of incident is about 33%, and these probabilities of the reflections are acquired by counting the reflected photons, and the result of this counting fluctuates slightly between different studies. The length of the amplitude vector **is designed** to be the square root of these empirical results. We have implemented all these empirical data into our QED argument; so, it is deceptive to claim that our QED argument has produced the correct result, similar to the result from our experiment.)
As I mentioned the surface of the mirror plays the paramount role in the mirror image reflection, and of course QED all-path integral methods has tried to create a relation between the surface of the mirror and the reflected photon, but as I showed QED all-path integral approach by using a false assumption and a false step, it has tried to fudge its result to reach to the same result as of the Optic Law. We should not deceive ourselves by fudging our argument trying to reach to the desired result. This is totally forbidden in our scientific studies. Deception has no place in our scientific analyses. It seems the mirror reflection is a new phenomenon between the incoming photons and the surface of the mirror, and our current analyses of interaction between photon and electron has not answered this puzzle.
I greatly appreciate your input.
*
Last edited by Unes; Feb 12th 2019 at 02:09 PM.
* |