[McQueen (OP)]

According to the Zeiss group web-site? "We perceive up to 80 per cent of all impressions by means of our sight."  Yet, if one tries to find the exact process by which light propagates from Point A To B, there is very little information. Can anyone at the Naked scientists forum help out with this?

[Origin]

Yet, if one tries to find the exact process by which light propagates from Point A To B, there is very little information.

There is a wealth of information on the process of light propagation.  Essentially light is a wave that is an oscillating electric and magnetic field and the speed of the wave is dictated by the permittivity and permeability of free space.

[McQueen (OP)]

            Thank you, Origin, you have given a concise and accurate description of Maxwell′s ″A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field″ and of how electromagnetic radiation propagates. This is where the problem begins, Because, Maxwell's theory is a purely wave theory while quantum mechanics wanted a particle theory or at least a wave-particle duality theory. If a layman were to look at what quantum mechanics eventually came up with, this is probably how he would describe it.

           ″Light as it travels from Point A to Point B, ceases to be ″real″ instead it travels as an abstract mathematical wave form, that undergoes disambiguation, (i.e., it exists everywhere and nowhere). During the time in which light is travelling from Point A to Point B, it travels through multiple dimensions, that have no existence, in our world, the solar system or the Universe. When the light is finally detected at point B, it once again becomes real this is accompanied by the collapse of the abstract wave function. The collapse of the wave function results in the formation of multiple Universes.″

             It should be noted that this is not something that I have made up, it is an accurate description of how Standard Theory describes the propagation of light. In point of fact, it gets worse than this. Perhaps a poll could be conducted to see if any of this makes sense?

 

[Petrochemicals]

 ″Light as it travels from Point A to Point B, ceases to be ″real″ instead it travels as an abstract mathematical wave form, that undergoes disambiguation, (i.e., it exists everywhere and nowhere). During the time in which light is travelling from Point A to Point B, it travels through multiple dimensions, that have no existence, in our world, the solar system or the Universe. When the light is finally detected at point B, it once again becomes real this is accompanied by the collapse of the abstract wave function. The collapse of the wave function results in the formation of multiple Universes.″

It could travel as a wave until it is interupted by matter forcing a particle.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

Perhaps a poll could be conducted to see if any of this makes sense?

    You can make a poll   BUT you need to start a new thread.    Choose a forum section and then instead of hitting "new topic",  hit   "new poll"  which is right next to it.

It should be noted that this is not something that I have made up,

    Although you also stated:
 

If a layman were to look at what quantum mechanics eventually came up with, this is probably how he would describe it.

However, it doesn't matter too much.  If you want a poll, you can have a poll.

Best Wishes.

[McQueen (OP)]

It could travel as a wave until it is interupted by matter forcing a particle.

             Thankyou Petrochemicals, it could have happened, light could have started off as a wave and been obstructed by a particle and changed, it could have happened in many ways, let us discuss what did happen. Quantum mechanics as the emergent leader in the discipline of physics, needed to find a way of expressing electromagnetic radiation in terms of Max Planck?s discovery of quanta; namely that EMR was made up of infinitesimal, discrete packets of energy. Instead of trying to find a new expression for EMR, quantum mechanics decided to adopt Maxwell?s equations whole sale and to impose upon his theory, a quantum interpretation. Converting Maxwell's equations to a form suitable for quantum mechanics involves a series of processes beginning with First quantization, followed by second quantisation, followed by normalisation and re-normalisation.  What do all these processes mean and what is the end result?  Here's a brief overview. 

               First Quantisation: refers to the standard approach of quantizing individual particles, in this case photons. In this framework, particles are described by wavefunctions that evolve according to the Schr?dinger equation. First quantization deals with the wave-particle duality and the behaviour of individual quantum systems. (note) Schrodinger?s wave equation works well for single particle situations, however with each additional particle that is needed, three additional dimensions are required. This is a well-documented fact, freely admitted by both Max Born and Heisenberg. Though recent proponents argue that it is not dimensions that are involved it is multiple degrees of freedoms. This is an evasion rather than an attempt to address the problem.  Even a cursory examination of the philosophical implications reveal that it is dimensions that are involved (i.e., actual spatial dimension) and not degrees of freedom. 

                  Second Quantisation: is a different approach used in quantum field theory (QFT) to quantize fields rather than individual particles. Instead of describing particles as discrete entities, second quantization treats particles as excitations of quantum fields that permeate space. This framework allows for the creation and annihilation of particles and provides a more natural description for many-particle systems present in EMR. Quantization of the Electromagnetic Field, involves imposing commutation relations on the creation and annihilation operators to ensure that the resulting quantum field theory is consistent with the principles of quantum mechanics.
             In second quantization, the electric and magnetic fields are represented by creation and annihilation operators. These operators create or destroy particles (quanta) associated with the electromagnetic field. During second quantisation the electromagnetic field is expanded in terms of its Fourier modes, which describe the field in terms of different wavelengths and momenta. (note) Each creation and annihilation process involves 1024 MeV approx., since there are an almost infinite number of photons all; undergoing these processes at the same time, it is a staggering amount of energy.
                 Normalisation: Could be described as a house-cleaning process, used in quantum mechanics to ensure that wavefunctions (or states) are properly normalized. Normalization ensures that the integral of the square of the wavefunction over all space (or some appropriate region) equals 1. This condition guarantees that the probability of finding a particle in any allowed region of space is unity. Normalization is achieved by dividing the wavefunction by a normalization constant, which is determined by integrating the square of the wavefunction and then taking the square root of the result.

                  Re-normalisation: is a technique used in quantum field theory to handle infinities that arise in certain calculations. In quantum field theory, interactions between particles can lead to divergent quantities, such as infinite values for certain physical quantities. Renormalization involves redefining these quantities in terms of experimentally measurable quantities, effectively absorbing the infinities into the parameters of the theory. Renormalization ensures that physical predictions from the theory remain finite and meaningful. It's a crucial aspect of quantum field theory, particularly in dealing with theories like QED where infinities arise in perturbative calculations.

             I wonder if it would be possible to calculate the parameters of a single cell phone call using such a system BUT beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 

You can make a poll   BUT you need to start a new thread.    Choose a forum section and then instead of hitting "new topic",  hit   "new poll"  which is right next to it.

              My apologies for such a long post. To rationalize the situation to some extent, I wanted to hold a poll to see what members think about this theory, but eternal student tells me that the poll will be independent of the post, so I don?t know if it will have any value.



    

[Origin]

″Light as it travels from Point A to Point B, ceases to be ″real″ instead it travels as an abstract mathematical wave form, that undergoes disambiguation, (i.e., it exists everywhere and nowhere).

The first problem I see is that no one, that I am aware of, thinks that light is no longer real when light travels from point A to point B.  I think you are mistaking the mathematics that describe light with the actual photons themselves.  The light does not travel as an abstract mathematical wave form, the wave form is a mathematical description about aspects of a photon.

[Origin]

it gets worse than this.

Your inability to understand a theory does not make the theory wrong.  You do realize how incredibly successful quantum theory is, don't you?  Do you find it odd that this 'absurd' theory makes only the correct predictions?

[McQueen (OP)]

The first problem I see is that no one, that I am aware of, thinks that light is no longer real when light travels from point A to point B.  I think you are mistaking the mathematics that describe light with the actual photons themselves.  The light does not travel as an abstract mathematical wave form, the wave form is a mathematical description about aspects of a photon.

Thank you Origin, I seem to have underestimated the complexity of the issue. So, it is probably better to let things lie.  However, I would just like to point to this quote by Max Born, the father of quantum mechanics:

″We have two possibilities. Either we use waves in space of more than three dimensions,..or we remain in three dimensional space, but give up the simple picture of the wave amplitude as an ordinary physical magnitude , and replace it with a purely mathematical concept into which we cannot enter.?  Yet one has to wonder how something that can be ethically unacceptable in the ′real′ world can be perfectly justifiable in the abstract ′mathematical′ world.  . " Max Born

   That having been said, I have no other option than to abandon, this post and the views quoted in it by myself, since it seems to be a vast subject into which it would be difficult to come to any conclusion.

[alancalverd]

If a layman were to look at what quantum mechanics eventually came up with, this is probably how he would describe it.

...which is why laymen and chatbots are not useful starting points for understanding physics.

Physics is the business of constructing mathematical models of stuff that happens. We have two models that are useful when dealing with high frequency electromagnetic radiation: a wave model describes propagation, and a particle model becomes increasingly useful when describing the interaction of emr with particulate matter above 10¹² Hz.

[Zer0]

Welcome Back @ McQueen.

& Thanks for dropping that " Poll " idea.

ps -
" Fools are in the Majority, and they never lack confidence because a fool Believes that being in the Majority is Proof that one is Right. "
(Rozoff)

[McQueen (OP)]

Physics is the business of constructing mathematical models of stuff that happens. We have two models that are useful when dealing with high frequency electromagnetic radiation: a wave model describes propagation, and a particle model becomes increasingly useful when describing the interaction of emr with particulate matter above 1012 Hz.

There shouldn't be two models.

[hamdani yusuf]

            Thank you, Origin, you have given a concise and accurate description of Maxwell′s ″A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field″ and of how electromagnetic radiation propagates. This is where the problem begins, Because, Maxwell's theory is a purely wave theory while quantum mechanics wanted a particle theory or at least a wave-particle duality theory. If a layman were to look at what quantum mechanics eventually came up with, this is probably how he would describe it.

           ″Light as it travels from Point A to Point B, ceases to be ″real″ instead it travels as an abstract mathematical wave form, that undergoes disambiguation, (i.e., it exists everywhere and nowhere). During the time in which light is travelling from Point A to Point B, it travels through multiple dimensions, that have no existence, in our world, the solar system or the Universe. When the light is finally detected at point B, it once again becomes real this is accompanied by the collapse of the abstract wave function. The collapse of the wave function results in the formation of multiple Universes.″

             It should be noted that this is not something that I have made up, it is an accurate description of how Standard Theory describes the propagation of light. In point of fact, it gets worse than this. Perhaps a poll could be conducted to see if any of this makes sense?

 

The experiments below show that light doesn't cease to be ″real″ during the propagation, even in the case of double slit experiment.

The Real Double Slit Experiment.

This video was edited 30-12-2022. I removed everything but the experimental parts of the original video. The reason for this is that I was no longer behind the way I explained the experiments, especially the quantum aspects.

In the video I show you how you can use a microscope to visualize the EM- wave propagation after light has passed the slits.

[Origin]

There shouldn't be two models.

Interesting opinion, I guess.
Just to let you know, hamdani is probably the most confused person on this site.

[hamdani yusuf]

There shouldn't be two models.

Interesting opinion, I guess.
Just to let you know, hamdani is probably the most confused person on this site.

That's an interesting opinion on its own right. Did you find inconsistencies in my arguments?

[Origin]

That's an interesting opinion on its own right. Did you find inconsistencies in my arguments?

I wasn't responding to you, but I didn't see an argument just a video.

[Origin]

There shouldn't be two models.

Do you realize that 2 different gravity models are taught in all universities?

[alancalverd]

There shouldn't be two models.

Like we shouldn't have boats and cars. But we do, because amphibious vehicles aren't terribly good at doing either job.

[hamdani yusuf]

There shouldn't be two models.

Like we shouldn't have boats and cars. But we do, because amphibious vehicles aren't terribly good at doing either job.

We also have submarines, jetski, trains, bus, bicycles, roller blades, aeroplanes, and helicopter. Seeing this way, 2 looks like a small number.

[McQueen (OP)]

Do you realize that 2 different gravity models are taught in all universities?

I do realise that there are two models of everything in physics, now-days. Two models of gravity, two models of electromagnetic propagation, two models of radio-waves etc., One model is used for performing calculations and the other for philosophical speculation. All I said was why two models?