QED theory was explained in four lectures by Prof. Richard Feynman at Auckland University in New Zealand. QED's “All Path Argument” is in lecture #2 at about 28:00 minutes of the video #2.
“All Path Argument” is also explained very clearly in the following short video.
In order to prove my point that QED’s “All Path Argument” for Mirror Reflection is false, phony, and deceptive, I follow exactly the same steps that it has been demonstrated in this QED presentation, by the end of my presentation, you will see clearly the imbedded flaw in “All Path Argument”, this is like the magician pulled a fast trick on us, and here I am exposing this deception.
When photons (light) hit to the surface of water at normal (here normal means it is perpendicular to the surface of water, and that makes its angle of incident to be zero) only 2% of photons get reflected, and 98% of photons pass through the surface of water and enter into water. The same situation from the surface of glass reflects 4% of the photons, and the rest pass through the surface and enter into glass. This reflection percentage increases when the angle of incident increases.
For reflection of light from the surface of water or a glass Science is totally in dark and absolutely has no clue what makes a photon to get reflected, and another photon to pass through. For many years physicists have tried hard to find a property within the photon that would be the cause of this effect, but they could not identify anything in this regard. Finally to handle this phenomenon in practice physicists have developed QED theory (Quantum Electrodynamics Theory), which is based mainly on the statistics that experiments have produced. QED theory in its arguments purely implements the results of the experiments into its well-designed mathematical structures.
When a photon hits to the surfaces of a glass, the photon gets reflected from both surfaces of the glass. The reflection from both surfaces interacts with each other, and that interaction affects the percentage of the reflection, and it produces strange results. Experiments show that the thickness of the glass plays a major role in the probability of the reflection. QED theory has devised the mathematical tool of amplitude vector to formulate the probability of reflection from both surfaces of the glass.
QED associates an amplitude vector for each possible path that the photon might get reflected. The length of each amplitude vector is defined purely from the result of the experiment, and it is equal to the square root of the probability that it is revealed by the experiment. This amplitude vector rotates 360 degrees when the photon moves a distance equal to its wavelength. Since there are two surfaces of glass that reflect the photon, then the amplitude vector of the glass reflection is defined by summing up the amplitude vectors from both surfaces of the glass. Here, we need to add one more rule; we have to advance the amplitude vector of the front surface by 180 degree. The probability of the glass reflection is defined by the square of its calculated amplitude vector. Based on this mathematical definition the value of the amplitude vector from each surface of the glass is 0.2, and it depends to the thickness of the glass, the angle between the amplitude vectors from the two surfaces of the glass ranges between 0 and 180 degrees, and this makes the value of the summation of the two amplitude vectors to range between 0.0 and 0.4, and that makes the probability of light reflection from both surfaces of the glass to range between 0.00 and 0.16 (0% and 16%), and this is exactly the result that we get from the experiments. As you see this mathematical structure expresses exactly the result of the experiment, and there is nothing new regarding how light interacts between the two surfaces of the glass.
QED theory has used the amplitude vector model, and it has tried to explain the optic law of reflection for mirror reflection. The optic law of reflection states that "the incident ray, the reflected ray, and the normal to the surface of the mirror, they all lie in the same plane. Furthermore, the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence". This optic law is correct for each and every one of the photons in the incoming and the reflected images. The consistency of these reflections causes the reflected image to look exactly like the flipped image of the incoming image.
To explain the mirror reflection with amplitude vector tool, QED has devised "all path argument". QED theory says EVERY photon is reflected from the entire surface of the mirror, and we need to add up all the amplitude vectors from all these paths to get to the final amplitude vector for the photon's reflection. Summing up the amplitude vectors from the entire surface of the mirror shows the amplitude vectors from the edges of the mirror they mostly cancel each other out, only the amplitude vectors from the paths which are close to the path that it is identified by the optic law contribute significant value to the summation of the amplitude vectors. QED's "all path argument" is credited as another evidence in validity and success of the amplitude vector model.
There are many problems with QED "all path argument", that are explained as follows:
As I mentioned before in optic law of reflection the direction, the angle of incident, and the normal to the surface of the mirror are crucial in order to define the direction and the angle of reflection. But in QED "all path argument" all of these specific properties of the incoming photons they all have been ignored, so, it does not matter in which direction, and with what angle of incidence, and at which point the incoming photon hits to the surface of the mirror, the summation of the amplitude vectors produces exactly the same result for any of the incoming photons, regardless of all the differences that exist in the incoming photons. Obviously "all path argument" is not satisfying the requirements for the optic law for mirror reflection at all.
QED's "all path argument" also has no preference for the angle of reflection either! For a SINGLE incoming photon, no matter where you place the receiving photon-multiplier it gets a valid value for the summation of its amplitude vectors. Even if we put multiple photon-multipliers on the receiving side, each one of them does get a valid summation for its related amplitude vectors, and for a SINGLE photon QED's "all path argument" obviously cannot be valid at all. So, QED's "all path argument" generates a summation of amplitude vectors that it does not relate to anything that it is dictated by the optic law for mirror reflection.
In the presentation of “all path argument”, all the reflected paths are directed toward the photon-multiplier that it is CONVENIETLY placed in the location that it matches with the result from the optic law! So, on its own merit “all path argument” cannot identify the direction of the reflection at all.
The optic law for mirror reflection is a peculiar phenomenon; it defies all other probabilistic behavior that we have discovered at Quantum level. This strange phenomenon, that it can be observed from the sceneries over the surfaces of calm water, it is revealing something very basic, deep at the fabric of universe, and we needed to reach to the sophistication level of quantum mechanics, in order to realize the extent of its functions.
“All Path Argument” is also explained very clearly in the following short video.
In order to prove my point that QED’s “All Path Argument” for Mirror Reflection is false, phony, and deceptive, I follow exactly the same steps that it has been demonstrated in this QED presentation, by the end of my presentation, you will see clearly the imbedded flaw in “All Path Argument”, this is like the magician pulled a fast trick on us, and here I am exposing this deception.
When photons (light) hit to the surface of water at normal (here normal means it is perpendicular to the surface of water, and that makes its angle of incident to be zero) only 2% of photons get reflected, and 98% of photons pass through the surface of water and enter into water. The same situation from the surface of glass reflects 4% of the photons, and the rest pass through the surface and enter into glass. This reflection percentage increases when the angle of incident increases.
For reflection of light from the surface of water or a glass Science is totally in dark and absolutely has no clue what makes a photon to get reflected, and another photon to pass through. For many years physicists have tried hard to find a property within the photon that would be the cause of this effect, but they could not identify anything in this regard. Finally to handle this phenomenon in practice physicists have developed QED theory (Quantum Electrodynamics Theory), which is based mainly on the statistics that experiments have produced. QED theory in its arguments purely implements the results of the experiments into its well-designed mathematical structures.
When a photon hits to the surfaces of a glass, the photon gets reflected from both surfaces of the glass. The reflection from both surfaces interacts with each other, and that interaction affects the percentage of the reflection, and it produces strange results. Experiments show that the thickness of the glass plays a major role in the probability of the reflection. QED theory has devised the mathematical tool of amplitude vector to formulate the probability of reflection from both surfaces of the glass.
QED associates an amplitude vector for each possible path that the photon might get reflected. The length of each amplitude vector is defined purely from the result of the experiment, and it is equal to the square root of the probability that it is revealed by the experiment. This amplitude vector rotates 360 degrees when the photon moves a distance equal to its wavelength. Since there are two surfaces of glass that reflect the photon, then the amplitude vector of the glass reflection is defined by summing up the amplitude vectors from both surfaces of the glass. Here, we need to add one more rule; we have to advance the amplitude vector of the front surface by 180 degree. The probability of the glass reflection is defined by the square of its calculated amplitude vector. Based on this mathematical definition the value of the amplitude vector from each surface of the glass is 0.2, and it depends to the thickness of the glass, the angle between the amplitude vectors from the two surfaces of the glass ranges between 0 and 180 degrees, and this makes the value of the summation of the two amplitude vectors to range between 0.0 and 0.4, and that makes the probability of light reflection from both surfaces of the glass to range between 0.00 and 0.16 (0% and 16%), and this is exactly the result that we get from the experiments. As you see this mathematical structure expresses exactly the result of the experiment, and there is nothing new regarding how light interacts between the two surfaces of the glass.
QED theory has used the amplitude vector model, and it has tried to explain the optic law of reflection for mirror reflection. The optic law of reflection states that "the incident ray, the reflected ray, and the normal to the surface of the mirror, they all lie in the same plane. Furthermore, the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence". This optic law is correct for each and every one of the photons in the incoming and the reflected images. The consistency of these reflections causes the reflected image to look exactly like the flipped image of the incoming image.
To explain the mirror reflection with amplitude vector tool, QED has devised "all path argument". QED theory says EVERY photon is reflected from the entire surface of the mirror, and we need to add up all the amplitude vectors from all these paths to get to the final amplitude vector for the photon's reflection. Summing up the amplitude vectors from the entire surface of the mirror shows the amplitude vectors from the edges of the mirror they mostly cancel each other out, only the amplitude vectors from the paths which are close to the path that it is identified by the optic law contribute significant value to the summation of the amplitude vectors. QED's "all path argument" is credited as another evidence in validity and success of the amplitude vector model.
There are many problems with QED "all path argument", that are explained as follows:
As I mentioned before in optic law of reflection the direction, the angle of incident, and the normal to the surface of the mirror are crucial in order to define the direction and the angle of reflection. But in QED "all path argument" all of these specific properties of the incoming photons they all have been ignored, so, it does not matter in which direction, and with what angle of incidence, and at which point the incoming photon hits to the surface of the mirror, the summation of the amplitude vectors produces exactly the same result for any of the incoming photons, regardless of all the differences that exist in the incoming photons. Obviously "all path argument" is not satisfying the requirements for the optic law for mirror reflection at all.
QED's "all path argument" also has no preference for the angle of reflection either! For a SINGLE incoming photon, no matter where you place the receiving photon-multiplier it gets a valid value for the summation of its amplitude vectors. Even if we put multiple photon-multipliers on the receiving side, each one of them does get a valid summation for its related amplitude vectors, and for a SINGLE photon QED's "all path argument" obviously cannot be valid at all. So, QED's "all path argument" generates a summation of amplitude vectors that it does not relate to anything that it is dictated by the optic law for mirror reflection.
In the presentation of “all path argument”, all the reflected paths are directed toward the photon-multiplier that it is CONVENIETLY placed in the location that it matches with the result from the optic law! So, on its own merit “all path argument” cannot identify the direction of the reflection at all.
The optic law for mirror reflection is a peculiar phenomenon; it defies all other probabilistic behavior that we have discovered at Quantum level. This strange phenomenon, that it can be observed from the sceneries over the surfaces of calm water, it is revealing something very basic, deep at the fabric of universe, and we needed to reach to the sophistication level of quantum mechanics, in order to realize the extent of its functions.