2

QED can calculate The probability of partial reflection but does not offer an explanation as to how this happens. Feynman created an algorithm that matched the data. I have searched but cannot find any new studies or or theories offering anything. Can anyone direct me toward any new information? Does anyone have a hypothesis of their own?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Bill Alsept
  • 4,043
  • Possible duplicates: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2041/2451 , http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/10301/2451 , http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/83105/2451 , http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/248726/2451 and links therein. – Qmechanic Nov 23 '16 at 19:55
  • I will look at these more thoroughly in later. The first couple I looked at only address reflection. What I'm interested in is the 0 to 16% of partial reflection. – Bill Alsept Nov 23 '16 at 20:22
  • None of these links or previous questions address The 0 to 16% partial reflection. Why the distance between two surfaces of glass can make this difference. Is there a physical explanation or any theories at all. QED is simply an algorithm that fits the data and is not an explanation. Even Feynman said that. – Bill Alsept Nov 23 '16 at 20:38
  • This distinction that people like to make between understanding and having a correct procedure for predictions is one purely of opinion. I mean, seriously, Feynman is among the premier examples of an intuitive physicist of the twentieth century; I assure you that his procedure that you blithely dismiss as an algorithm was something he developed by understanding the mechanisms of interference and superposition in non-trivial cases. His pop-sci QED book is about understanding the theory in that way. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Nov 23 '16 at 22:20
  • I have read it and understand it. This distinction is not my opinion, Feynman himself said he couldn't come up with a reason why it works just that it matches experiment. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying there is A description of what is happening? That's what I'm looking for. Not spinning stop watches, I know what they represent. – Bill Alsept Nov 23 '16 at 22:37
  • Feynman struggled with individual photons and why they reflect off one surface or the other. Even the rule of which direction an Arrow should point after hitting the first or second surface he said he had no answer for other then it worked mathematically. He or no one else I know of ever came up with a physical description of what was happening. Why would 0 to 16% of the photons reflect? – Bill Alsept Nov 23 '16 at 22:42
  • Page 24 of QED, Feynman says "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 photo multiplier will be hit by a photon reflected from a sheet of glass." That was written a long time ago and i'm still wondering if any theories or new information have developed? – Bill Alsept Nov 23 '16 at 23:24
  • That's a shame that more than a year have passed and on one cared even to point to some links. I do believe that there should have been some new developments in understanding quantum, at least I see some papers which try to explain that unitarity and locality are concepts emerging from the geometry. This is probably at th stage of math, not physics atm, but people do perform scientific work in order to understand WHY exactly quantum world is working in the particular way Feynman explained it works. @BillAlsept, if you have found something new - please share. – Alexander Arendar Jan 04 '18 at 11:25
  • Probably will be interesting for you https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-discover-geometry-underlying-particle-physics-20130917/?utm_content=buffer8a1af&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer – Alexander Arendar Jan 04 '18 at 11:34
  • @AlexanderArendar Yes it is a shame more people are not interested. I have done a lot more research over the last year and still have not found any theories to explain partial reflection. There are only ways to calculate the probability’s which does not answer the question. I believe too many are looking for a wave answer and not taking particles serious enough. Every phenomena with light can be derived through a particle ( photon) solution. – Bill Alsept Jan 04 '18 at 17:26
  • @BillAlsept I used to tell laypeople to read Feynman's "QED". I don't do that anymore. It gets way too many things wrong about modern physics, even if it gets a few things right. – FlatterMann May 30 '23 at 19:18
  • I agree, some of his comments are outdated. I referenced Feynman for two reasons. He is the only one who really talked about this subject plus I am instantly interested when he says "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 photo multiplier will be hit by a photon reflected from a sheet of glass." That is a correct statement, unless you have an answer to this question?? – Bill Alsept May 30 '23 at 21:05
  • Have any updated theories emerged in recent years since this post? I’m very interested in anyone’s opinion on the subject or helpful links. – Antonio Luna May 30 '23 at 18:48

0 Answers0