the proof
For a long time Man intuitively has recognized the existence of God in the heart of his world, and he has reflected this finding in his various sacred books, and now in this short article I have proved with solid evidences the existence of an Active Conductor who Intelligently and Consciously run this Universe at meticulous details. My evidences are: The Evidence in the Mirror Reflection , The Evidence in the Snowflakes' Symmetrical Designs, The Evidence in the Human Consciousness. The Evidence in our special dreams
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Evidence in the
Mirror Reflection
The Evidence in the
Mirror Reflection
From early time Man has noticed the image reflections over the surfaces of still water. This is a natural phenomenon that enriches the beauty of Nature a great deal, and it has played a role in improving our cognition. Man has learnt all smooth flat surfaces reflect images too. After discoveries of gold, silver, and glass Man has made mirrors to look at himself, and he has used mirror for signaling and bringing sunlight inside the dark places. Through numerous observations, science has formed the Optic Law for Mirror Reflection. The Optic Law for Mirror Reflection states that "the incident ray, the reflected ray, and the normal to the surface of the mirror all lie in the same plane. Furthermore, the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence". In daylight each second there are more than ten million billions (10^16) photons per each square inch in the incoming image. This optic law is correct and accurate for each and every one of the reflected photons from the surface of a mirror in every direction.
Man had no clue how mirror reflected the images, or what was the nature of light. In 1801 Thomas Young performed light double-slit experiment, which it proved the wave theory of light was correct. Wave theory of light explains that light is a wave, like the wave that we observe over the surface of water in a pond when we drop a stone on the water. In nineteen century science made many discoveries in the field of electricity and magnetism, and finally James Clark Maxwell concluded that light was made of electromagnetic waves. In 1900 Max Planck’s work on Black Body radiation, and Einstein’s paper on photoelectric proved that light energy was absorbed and it was emitted in quanta of energy, this meant that light was also a particle. All these experiments proved that light had both wave and particle properties which it was called photon.
By the advances that are made in the field of particle physics we have developed the theory of Quantum Electromagnetic (QED), which it is the crowning achievement of our science for all time. Almost all our modern technological achievements are based on QED theory. With the advances that are made in technologies now we are capable to observe the detail functions of a SINGLE photon in various phenomena. QED theory has produced the details of absorption and emission of photon by an electron or any other particles, and it has concluded that these emissions are govern only by statistical models, and the emitted light propagates randomly in many directions, and the direction of the emission of a single photon is totally uncertain and it can NOT be predicted at all, this uncertainty in the direction and the timing of the emission, is the intrinsic property of the material, and it has nothing to do with the accuracy of our measuring devices.
Now, we have the following puzzle on our hand; while QED says the direction and the timing of the emission of a photon is intrinsically uncertain, and it is purely govern by the uncertainty principle, then how is it that the Optic Law defines the direction of the mirror reflection with an absolute certainty? Since these two different scientific discoveries are directly contradicting each other, then one of these two analyses has to be wrong, or there might be another option for resolving this contradiction; we might have missed something very important in these analyses, which could reconcile this contradiction between these two very valid scientific discoveries.
In order to resolve this puzzling contradiction, QED has devised the “all-path method,” and QED wave function method. All physicists unanimously have accepted both of these methods as the QED’s valid answer for the puzzle of the mirror reflection.
I have exposed few flaws within the QED’s all-path method and QED wave function, that these two QED methods regarding the mirror reflection are totally false and phony, and they should be dismissed without any hesitation, and I explain my analyses here. Our modern technologies allow us to work with one photon at a time. Now, we send ONE photon to the surface of the mirror and expose the flaws of these QED’s methods. Since QED all-path examines all the possible paths, then I add few more photo-multipliers (the detectors) to the all-path process, and I configure the summation of the amplitude vectors for each one of these detectors. The process of the summation of the amplitude vectors for each one of these detectors presumably produces a valid figure, and we cannot dismiss any of these calculated results, nor can we privilege any detector over any other detectors, so each one of these detectors presents us a valid summation for their amplitude vectors. Then, in this process each detector presents the detection of a photon, as a result in this process our ONE photon has been multiplied to many photons! The law of conservation of energy totally rejects this conclusion. This argument exposes one of the flaws within the all-path method.
Let us analyze another scenario. Let us assume that the detector which actually detects the reflected photon it is located at point t1, now, we move this detector to point t2, and point t3, and point t4, . . . , and point t1000. At each of these locations the summation of the amplitude vectors produces a valid result, and the “all-path” method is totally unable to distinguish at which location that ONE reflected photon should be detected. This is another flaw. (Every one of these 1000 locations can detect that ONE reflected photon, we only need to adjust the direction and the angle of the incident for the incoming photon accordingly. But since in our scenario the direction and the angle of the incident are fixed, only the detector at point t1 location detects the reflected photon, and the detector at other locations will not detect the reflected photon, and QED all-path method is incapable to recognize that. )
Now, let us examine this reflected photon from a different angle; QED “all-path” method and QED wave function method implement the correct location of the point t1 into their configuration, this is cheating pure and simple, this is like in our exam we steal “the correct answer” from our neighboring class-mate, (the point t1 is the location that it is identified by the Optic Law). After all, we have implemented the correct answer of point t1 into the QED’s configuration, then, are we surprised that we got the correct result!? These two QED methods are supposed to discover the point t1 with their own natural methods, and not to require it in advance for their configurations! Without the information of the point t1, which it is produced by the Optic Law, these two QED methods cannot perform any configuration. This is another flaw.
Now, let us examine these two QED’s methods from the perspective of the QED’s core methodology. Based on the experimental results and the uncertainty principle QED’s methods produce statistical models. These models tell us that QED’s results are ALWAYS in statistical form, then how could these two QED methods for the mirror reflection produce the result which the detection point of t1 is a CERTAINTY!?
I understand that these two QED methods produce a distributed path for the direction of the reflected photon, but this slight distribution for the photon’s path is negligent when it is compared to the absolute randomness that QED has discovered for the emission of photon by an electron. For both of these two QED methods for the mirror reflection the point of detection at t1 is a certainty, and that is unacceptable, because, unlike the Optic Law that defines the reflection path and the detection point at t1 with an absolute certainty, no QED method should produce a result with an absolute certainty, because that violates the uncertainty rule. This is another flaw.
It is continued in the next post.