1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

QED’s “All Path Argument” for Mirror Reflection is false, phony, and deceptive.

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Unes, Jun 16, 2017.

  1. Unes

    Unes Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    300
    Ratings:
    +23
    This is not true, you are just making a false claim! All of a sudden you have forgotten about the randomness of QED’s paths! The energized electron, at the mirror surface, emits its photon in vast different directions, with varying possibilities. QED’s paths cover vast area, how does QED conveniently ignore all other paths, and just sticks with the optic path!? Isn’t that convenient!?

    In our experiment for detector at Y1 location,
    the produced path by QED all-path calculation it is an optic path, and it has the shortest path from the source to Y1 location. Although this optic path has different direction and different angle of incident, but QED all-path does not consider this information any way. This optic path from source to Y1 location is different from the other optic path that it is resulted by considering the direction and the angle of incident of the incoming photon. Since you are confused, then you keep making false statements, and false claims!

    It seems Donald Trump approach it also has infected our scientists.
     
  2. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    7,502
    Ratings:
    +6,865
    Religion:
    Non-theist


    Because the other paths cancel out.


    In our experiment for detector at Y1 location,
    the produced path by QED all-path calculation it is an optic path, and it has the shortest path from the source to Y1 location. Although this optic path has different direction and different angle of incident, but QED all-path does not consider this information any way. This optic path from source to Y1 location is different from the other optic path that it is resulted by considering the direction and the angle of incident of the incoming photon. Since you are confused, then you keep making false statements, and false claims![/QUOTE]

    The optic path to Y1 is eliminated because of the shielding that directs the photons to a different path.


    OK, we are done. You clearly are not interested in the facts of the situation. It is *you* that is making up alternative 'facts' here.
     
  3. Unes

    Unes Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    300
    Ratings:
    +23
    Such a vague statement, without offering any reason how the other paths are cancelled out!
    I do not see this mysterious shielding! QED all-path also does NOT observe any shielding either!

     
  4. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    7,502
    Ratings:
    +6,865
    Religion:
    Non-theist


    Once again, if it isn't the shotest path, there are paths even shorter than cancel it out.

    If there is no shielding, why is the photon limited to one direction?
     
  5. Unes

    Unes Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    300
    Ratings:
    +23
    In regards that there are many random QED paths, I cannot make any sense out of your statement. The question is: How all other QED’s paths are ignored, in favor of the optic path?
    As I explained in my experiment, the source sends its photon in specific direction toward the mirror. The angle of incident is measured very accurately. Then the reflected photon is emitted by the optic law instruction.

    Now, your question is the heart of my puzzle; “why does optic law exist for mirror reflection?” And also some people have indicated of the smart light, that light must be smart to find the shortest path.

    Science in order to have an answer for these questions, it has offered the QED all-path method. If QED all-path can be verified successfully, then, all those questions have been answered naturally, and with complete satisfaction. So far QED all-path method has been accepted by all physicists that I have encountered with.

    When I watched Prof. Richard Feynman lectures, I detected immediately the flaws in that argument, I started by asking, since all paths are allowed, then what stops us from having multiple detectors, this question exposes QED all-path flaw. Since then I have dissected QED all-path thoroughly. Thanks to you this thread has helped me a lot to streamline my objection. So, my conclusion is QED all-path method is false, phony, and deceptive! After discrediting QED all-path, then we can delve in investigating thoroughly; “why does optic law exist for mirror reflection?”
    or , “why is the photon limited to one direction?”
     
    #65 Unes, Jul 13, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2017
  6. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    7,502
    Ratings:
    +6,865
    Religion:
    Non-theist


    They are not 'ignored'. They cancel out in the calculation.



    The only way to get the source to emit in a psecific direction is through shielding.

    yes, it does.


    To get the source to emit in only one direction requires shielding. Without the shielding, the source would emit in all directions with equal probability and then all detectors at equivalent distances *would* be equivalent.

    With shielding, the paths that go into the shielding are absorbed and so do not count in the calculation.

    I have explained this to you tiple times. I have a feeling others have explained this to you multiple times. It is clear that you are not interested in the specifics of how the formalism works, but only in attempting to get someone to take you criticism seriously. But clearly you are not interested in learning enough to see why the calculations actually work, only in giving your criticism.
     
  7. Unes

    Unes Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    300
    Ratings:
    +23
    Wow! Such an unkind remark! Now, you had to repeat the shielding subject triple times, in order to force me to comprehend it!? I wonder what triggered this raw emotion!? How could a polite scientific discussion be the cause of such resentment and animosity!? Is this maybe, because the frustration has set in, for being unable to poke a single hole in my solid argument? It takes a highly intelligent person to accept failure with grace and humility. I did not say anything regarding the shielding technique. Why do you think that I would dispute it!? Now, you can read my mind!? You are such an extraordinary talent. But I have a bad news for you, whatever you read, it was just in your mind, because, I have no problem with shielding techniques, shielding techniques are fine.

    Now, you like to discuss the shielding technique, right!? I guess the shielding technique would suit fine for a diversionary tactic! I wonder what you studied, and which school taught you that technique for debates.
    I wonder whether you have the temperament to debate any scientific subject. The first rule in any discussion is to have the discipline to focus on the subject, instead of wondering around and discussing unrelated issues, and in this case shielding techniques for sure it is not related to the optic law for mirror reflection. WE DO OBSERVE THE MIRROR REFLECTION ALL THE TIME, AND THERE IS NO SHIELDING INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. And regard to the emission of the photon by the energized electron at the surface of the mirror, I do not see any shielding device that you are insisting we need to have in order the photon to be directed toward a specific direction. But you are saying in the case of the mirror reflection this is done by some imaginary QED functions. And you have not elaborated how these imaginary functions are operating. And how do they influence the direction of the reflected photon, despite of the fact that QED is based on randomness in all natural phenomena. BESIDES, THERE IS NO MENTION OF THESE QED IMAGINERY FUNCTIONS IN QED ALL-PATH METHOD at all.

    When we are interested to learn something without any prejudice, then both parties genuinely are supposed to stay on the subject to finalize their differences. Unfortunately this thread is turning toward an endless dialogue without aiming toward any specific conclusion, a form of an entertainment without achieving any specific goal. When we want to examine the optic law for mirror reflection, IT IS NATURAL AND IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A SOURCE THAT IT SENDS ITS PHOTONS IN A SPECIFIC DIRECTION, this is an equipment issue, and we let a technician to deal with it. How the technician builds this kind of equipment, that is NOT our concern, and whether he has to use shielding, or any other techniques that is the job of the technician, and it is NOT the subject of this discussion. We ask the technician to provide us with an equipment that it can send ONE photon at a time, and at the specific direction that we choose. Is this point that hard to comprehend, that we were needed to discuss it in these trivial details!? In Prof Richard Feynman lectures in Auckland University the issue of the source was so trivial, that he did not even bother to give any explanation about it. But, for sure, these details are very effective for the diversionary tactic!

    It seems when you were cornered to admit the falsehood of QED all-path method, all of sudden you got interested in shielding issue and you needed to emphasize it triple times! Here, I have provided a dynamic and very important subject which it is irrefutable, and a curious scientist would be excited to take advantage of it, instead you have resorted to diversionary tactics avoiding to focus on the subject!
     
    #67 Unes, Jul 15, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2017
  8. Unes

    Unes Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    300
    Ratings:
    +23
    Here, I like to present the refined version of my argument.

    QED All-Path is Challenged

    QED all-path method for mirror reflection claims by adding all the amplitude vectors for all the probable paths, it finds the Optic Path naturally, and independently. This is absolutely a false claim!

    In order QED all-path method claim to be valid, QED all-path is supposed to reach to the Optic Path conclusion by its own method independently, and
    absolutely without any lead from the Optic Path. In the following short passage I am going to expose the flaw within QED’s deceptive argument.

    The photon source at point S sends a single photon to the surface of the mirror. This photon has specific direction and specific angle of incident, and the Optic Path defines the path of the reflected photon. Let us assume the reflected photon gets detected by a detector at the target point T1. Since QED all-path method includes all the incoming paths into its configurations, then it ignores the specificity of the direction of the incoming photon. QED all-path does not identify the receiving detector at the target point T1 by its own natural and random method. If I move the receiving detector one inch from the target point T1, side way, to the target point T2, QED all-path method still produces an optic path for the target point T2. In fact if I move the detector to different target points of T3, T4, T5, . . . , T10,000, each of these target points produces its own VALID optic path, and QED all-path can NOT differentiate between any of these target points. QED all-path is incapable to identify which of these 10,000 target points actually receives the reflected photon. This is where QED all-path cheats, QED conveniently implements the correct detector at the target point T1 into its methods, and because of this cheating, it naturally ends up with the correct result! QED all-path is supposed to figure out the reflected path by its own method independently, and not by cheating.

    The ramification of this cheating is huge, the energized electron at the surface of the mirror emits its photon at the specific direction that it is defined by the Optic Path, this emission with specified direction rejects QED’s randomness to its core.
     
Loading...