Steve Hodges wrote: > > Karl Shah-Jenner wrote: > > Someone can usually provide a sensible explanation > > "Robert G. Earnest" wrote: > > Do photons really wave as they roll by? > > That's a very deep question Robert. Well? > > Since it has long been shown that photons can exhibit both wave and > particle behaviour, you question is, in essence, "can they exhibit both > at once?". Actually, I was just wondering if they noticed us at all. All this talk of them interfering with themselves all day long (well, all their life anyway and isn't that worse, really?) I just wondered if they had interest enough to acknowledge us whatsoever... but carry on. > > The answer to this is yes, and no. And that is quite definite. Phew! Glad we got that straightened out. > > According to Quantum Electrodynamics, the behaviour of photons > (electrons, and other particles) can be totally explained by them being > particles. Particles is as particles does? > > Interestingly enough, it also explains why (not simply that) an oxygen > atom combines with 2 hydrogen atoms to form water (whether solid, > liquid, or gassious). Clothes make the man I guess. > > But of perhaps the most interest to photographers it explains a method > for refraction and diffraction that does not rely on vavelike > behaviour. (Newton's fans may start a mexican wave now.) UhOh! Hey Am! It's margurita time! > > It cannot explain, but does provide a method for calculating partial > reflection from the front and rear surface of (say) a mirror. What is > interesting about partial reflection is that the amount reflected from > the front surface depends on the thickness of the piece of glass. If > you don't think that is weird, then you haven't thought about it long > enough. Either the particle tends to sit on the surface for a moment contemplating the depth of the pool or it bounces off the 2nd surface. But then why not the 3rd of 4th surface. Perhaps some never come out? Like that awful house of mirrors your parents used to send you into when they wanted a few hours to themselves. Particles probably have nightmares about this kind of thing, too. > > Photographers DO take advantage of the way that partial reflection is > affected by thickness with the use of coatings on lens surfaces. Like when you breathe on the lens to make your wifes aunt look younger? Is that a good example? Does it work because it slows down the photons reflecting off auntie to the point that they have a only a vague recollection of what she looked like by the time they get soaked into the film like a drop of tequila into a barmaids sponge? > > So, my answer to you Robert, sadly, has to be NO. I'm afraid that I > cannot be convinced on the evidence and the well tested theoretical > description of the actions of a photon by QED to envisage that a photon > would be a wave (as opposed to exhibiting wave-like behaviour) as it > passes by. Still doesn't answer my question. Are they totally preoccupied with themselves? I think so. Would they be kind enough to wave or say hi as they sent by? I think not. I believe that they live in their own little fantasy world in which they are partying together 24/7. We may know that they are only interfering with themselves but they think they are in orgy world all the time. Why else would they always follow interference patterns even when fired singly through slit patterns? And why are they forever wanting to be fired through slits? We may love our little photons but I believe that they could give a shit about us. They are scared to death to let us know that they are alone. Scaredy cats little wuss's. Or, the sneaky little devils only act the way we expect them to when we are watching. Little criminals. I bet they hate us. > Steve r
