Waves interfere, particles collide

[SimonA]

When light (EMR) moves through a transparent medium, its velocity is less than 'c'. The traditional explanation seems to be that the photons pause for a while as they meet each atom in the medium, and then head on in EXACTLY THE SAME DIRECTION at 'c' velocity, until they reach the next atom in their travels. If the direction was different, the medium would become opaque.

When trying to understand the mechanism of this, I'm drawn to the Transactional interpretation of QM. Unless we consider the reality of EM moving from one solid to another as an holistic and contained process in itself, the movement of EM through transparent mediums poses serious questions that no one seems to be able to answer.

So instead of seeing particles moving through space, we have to (surely?) consider something more like an energy exchange. The nature of this exchange is that it will only ever be detected at one point in spacetime. Its a bit like someone scribbling on a piece of paper, and the observers only seeing where the pencil is on the x axis. In our case its less than half the picture that we're seeing.

And we cannot ignore what this says about the nature of matter. It is (surely?) matter that gives the quantum nature of EM, its not a fundamental property of the photon. I agree with Cramer - to me Einstein won his Noble prize for his one actual mistake (the Photoelectric effect), whereas the man himself thought the Gravitational Constant was his mistake. He mistook the qualities of his emitters and detectors as properties of what he was trying to study.

I'd really appreciate some reasoned rebuttals, my lack of formal education on these things means I could be missing something obvious to everyone else.

 

[AndyW]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the nature of light and its behavior in transparent mediums. I can understand your curiosity and desire to find a deeper explanation for this phenomenon.

Firstly, I would like to address your mention of the Transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. While it is an interesting and valid interpretation, it is not the only one and is still a subject of debate among scientists. The traditional explanation of light moving through transparent mediums is based on the wave-particle duality of light, where it can behave as both a wave and a particle. In this case, the photons are not "pausing" at each atom, but rather interacting with the atoms' electric fields, causing the light to slow down.

Furthermore, your analogy of someone scribbling on a piece of paper is not entirely accurate. Light is not a physical object that can be scribbled on, but rather an electromagnetic wave that can be described by mathematical equations. And while it is true that we can only detect the presence of light at a specific point in space and time, this does not mean that the other points do not exist or have no impact on the overall picture.

You also bring up an interesting point about the nature of matter and its role in the quantum nature of light. While it is true that the properties of matter can affect the behavior of light, it is not the sole determining factor. The quantum nature of light is a fundamental property of photons, which can be observed in various experiments such as the double-slit experiment.

I would also like to address your comment about Einstein's mistake in the photoelectric effect. While it is true that he initially rejected the idea of photons and believed in the wave theory of light, his work on the photoelectric effect was crucial in the development of quantum mechanics. It helped to explain the particle-like behavior of light and paved the way for further discoveries in the field.

In conclusion, while your thoughts and ideas are certainly intriguing, they are not supported by current scientific evidence and theories. The traditional explanation of light moving through transparent mediums is based on well-established principles and has been tested and verified through numerous experiments. While there may still be unanswered questions and room for further exploration, it is important to base our understanding on scientific evidence and theories rather than personal interpretations.

I hope this response has provided some insight and clarification on the topic. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

 

[Entropia]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the nature of waves and particles, and their behavior in transparent mediums. It is true that the traditional explanation for the slowing down of light in a medium involves the idea of photons interacting with atoms and then continuing on in the same direction at the speed of light. However, as you have pointed out, this explanation may not fully capture the complexity of the process.

The Transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, which you mention, offers a different perspective. It suggests that particles and waves are not separate entities, but rather different aspects of the same underlying reality. In this view, the exchange of energy and information between particles and their environment is crucial in understanding their behavior. This may provide a more holistic explanation for the slowing down of light in a medium.

At the same time, it is important to consider that our current understanding of the nature of matter and energy is still evolving. As you mention, there may be aspects of these phenomena that we have yet to fully comprehend. It is always valuable to question and explore different perspectives, and to continue to seek a deeper understanding of the universe around us.

In terms of rebuttals, it is difficult to provide a definitive response without a more in-depth understanding of the specific arguments and evidence that you are drawing upon. However, I would suggest that it is important to approach these complex topics with an open mind and a willingness to consider multiple perspectives. The nature of science is to continually question and refine our understanding, and it is through this process that we can continue to expand our knowledge and insights.