Let us briefly summarize our findings. The behavior of photons is best characterized by arrows. These arrows are probability amplitudes that represent possible events. When all the arrows associated with a particular photon are added up and then squared, the result is the probability of photon’s behavior. These arrows are employed to determine the behavior of groups of photons. They reveal nothing about the innate nature of the photon. Yet the arrows are able to predict the precise behavior of large groups of photons to a high level of accuracy. But they are all we have. We suggest that the arrows represent info packets.
We’ve considered how the direction of the photon’s arrow (its probability amplitude) is determined – the spinning arrow technique. We saw that no physical attribute provides the photon with direction. Direction is instead determined by how many times the probability vector spins before ‘colliding’ with another surface. Further the directions of the probability vectors interact to create interference patterns that accurately reflect empirical results. Further, we can’t predict the behavior of an individual photon. In other words, all we have is information packets that turn into groups of photons upon request.
Richard Feynman notes the photon’s absence from the procedure when he states: “It is to be emphasized that no mater how may arrows we draw, add, or multiply, our objective is to calculate a single final arrow for the event. [his italics] Mistakes are often made by physics students at first because they do not keep this important point in mind. They work for so long analyzing events involving a single photon that they begin to think that the arrow is somehow associated with the photon. But these arrows are probability amplitudes, that give, when squared, the probability of a complete event.” (QED pp. 75-6)
When Feynman says ‘complete event’, he is referring to the fact that the behavior of an individual photon is the vector sum of all possibilities. As a probability vector, individual behavior is unpredictable. The arrows only reveal accurate information about group events – the behavior of large numbers of photons. Similarly we can predict the average behavior of large numbers of coin tosses, but are helpless before an individual coin toss. Reiterating for emphasis: the arrows are all we have mathematically. There are no photons. Further, the mathematics fits the empirical results, not the photon. The photon is just a convenient word to apply to the results. In other words, the photon is secondary to the probability arrow.
Feynman again: “In order to save ourselves from inventing new words such as ‘wavicles’, we have chosen to call these objects ‘particles’, but we all know that they obey these rules for drawing and combining arrows that I have been explaining. It appears that all the ‘particles’ in Nature – quarks, gluons, neutrinos, and so forth … behave in this quantum mechanical way.”(QED, p. 85)
Instead of attempting to understand the innate nature of subatomic ‘particles’, such as photons and electrons, Feynman and his community of physicists have instead focused upon the arrows, which reveal the probability of behavior. As such, these arrows are only able to predict what groups of subatomic ‘particles’ might do, not the behavior of individual subatomics. Further, these arrows seem to apply to all the subatomic objects, not just electrons and photons. The arrows reveal the reality. Photons and electrons are just words we attach to the interactions.
So far we have only considered the arrow’s direction, let us now consider the arrow’s magnitude. This investigation will reveal some more startling features about Nature, as viewed through the photon lens.
First, the definitions ala Feynman: “Now is a good time for me to stop regarding the fact that light spreads out as it goes along. I now present you with the complete rule for monochromatic light traveling from one point to another through space – there is nothing approximate here, and no simplification. This is all there is to know about monochromatic light going through space (disregarding polarization): the angle of the arrow depends on the imaginary stopwatch hand, which rotates a certain number of times per inch (depending on the color of the photon); the length of the arrow is inversely proportional to the distance the light goes – in other words the arrow shrinks as the light goes along.” (QED, pp 73-4)
In the partial reflection examples we have explored so far, we were able to disregard the fact that light spreads out as it moves through time because the distances were so short, as to contribute negligibly to the results. However, to accurately reflect the rules concerning light, we must take this spreading into account. For instance light transmission: “Footnote 6: This rule checks out with what they teach in school – the amount of light transmitted over a distance varies as the square of the distance.” (QED, pp 73-4)
This spreading is yet one more way in which light and photons are disobedient to their nature as particles. Particles in our atom-based world do not spread out over time. Atoms, the building blocks of our world, are relatively indestructible and only change size if electrons change orbits. But this change is miniscule and temporary. Atoms don’t spread out as they move through time. Neither does a baseball, a flower vase or any other type of atom-based matter.
To better understand light spreading, let us first review how we compute the probability of throwing a 7 with 2 dice. We first determine how many different possibilities there are. In this case there are 36 different ways that 2 dice can come up – 1/1 -> 6/6. Then we determine how many ways that a 7 could come up. There 6 different combinations that yield a 7 – 1/6, 2/5 -> 6/1. We then divide these 2 numbers to determine the probability of the event. Throwing a 7 should occur 6/36, or 1 out of 6 times, 17% of the time.
However, this information doesn’t provide any predictive power for an individual throw of the dice. Every time the dice are rolled, there is an equal probability that any of the 36 combinations could be rolled. The predictive power of probability only applies to large numbers of events. Further, it tells us nothing at all about any other feature of the dice – how big they are, whether they have edges, or how the numbers are determined. The same algorithm applies equally to a computer’s random number generator. The identical process can be applied to light, but in a strange fashion. Let’s see how.
Initially, it was believed that light always moves in a straight line. We look directly into a mirror and our face is reflected straight back. On our Earthly plane with relatively short distances, this pragmatic understanding of light is certainly true. However, when larger distances and microscopic events are considered, this understanding is not able to account for all the empirical facts.
To accurately characterize these ‘extreme’ events, at least extreme from our earth-bound human perspective, it is necessary to consider that light spreads out over time. If we view light as a wave, then it tends to spread out. However, as previously illustrated, experimental evidence indicates that light behaves as a particle, rather than a wave, at the level of the photon. To apply the particulate nature to the light-spreading phenomenon, it is necessary consider that light has the possibility of moving in all possible directions, not just straight ahead. To compute the probability of light moving straight ahead, we must first consider all the possible ways that light can move.
In this case, an individual photon has the possibility of striking any part of the surface of the mirror – from the edges to the center. If we add the arrows, the probability amplitudes, of each possible event, this vector sum determines the overall arrow for the event. Squaring this arrow yields the probability of the overall event, not the individual possibilities. Inevitably, the probabilities of the extreme directions cancel out leaving us with our everyday notion that light moves straight ahead. Although this bizarre concept of photons having the possibility of going in all directions is difficult to conceive and compute, it accounts for all the empirical facts about light. The wave theory of light works on pragmatic levels, but not at the edges. Hence it has a lower truth quotient.
Let us look more deeply at this phenomenon. All particles in our atom-based move in one direction only. This fact is due to inertia, a principle developed by Galileo, Descartes, and Newton. Inertia is the notion that matter moves in a straight line with a consistent velocity unless acted upon by an outside force. This notion is one of the foundations of Newtonian dynamics. Thus a photon’s potential to move in multiple directional possibilities is not particle-like behavior, unless we expand our notion of particle.
The mathematical implications of this analysis seem ‘absurd’ especially if we hold onto the notion that the photon is a particle or a wave. Considering light as a wave does not account for all the facts. Considering light as a traditional particle does not account for the bizarre behavior of a photon. Let us, instead, consider that the photon is an information packet or probability wave.
We can think of the information packet as un-actualized/unrealized potential. The information packet issues forth from whatever source looking for something to give it meaning. Depending on the environmental context, which could be an experiment, this information packet might turn into a wave or a particle. It might reveal the position or trajectory of an electron or photon. Due to Plank’s quantum constant, the information can never reveal both. So the arrow, the information packet, can only reveal event probabilities.
As such, the information packets are virtual. They only become real when they arrive at a destination, when they are perceived. When they become real, they are not information packets any longer. Virtual information packets are transformed into a concrete form only when there is an environmental interaction. The information packets only become real when they realize their potentials.
Yearning for self-actualization, the information packet reaches out in all directions, not just one, to somehow fulfill potentials. This strategy maximizes possibilities. When some directions are blocked, the information packet attempts to find another receptive surface, wherever that might be – to become a wave, particle, position, or a trajectory – anything.
How do we understand this unusual phenomenon? According to cognitive science, humans understand experience via unconscious cognition. To facilitate understanding, unconscious cognition (subconscious processes) recognizes/establishes a metaphorical relationship between the inferential structures of our sensory/motor networks and our experience. In other words, if we could link the notion of info packets to one of our sensory networks, it would be a way of ‘understanding’ what is going on. We suggest that we can ‘understand’ info packets via a metaphorical relationship with our auditory sensory network.
Our auditory network somehow assigns meaning to sound. This meaning has a distinct mental component, even though the sound is perceived physically via the mechanism of our eardrums. This mental component is due to the interaction of between the auditory information and our neural networks. The meaning of auditory information frequently has an emotional component, especially when talking about the sequential info packets of music.
With these concepts in mind, we can better understand the virtual nature of our subatomic info packets. Subatomic info packets are virtual until their potentials are realized in some kind of environmental interaction. Similarly, the emotional content of music, its meaning, is virtual until perceived by a human. Further, this human must have the proper reflective surface to receive the information. Likewise with speech. If there is no one to hear a speech, there is no meaning. If the Listener doesn’t understand the language (improper reflective surface), the communication is unintelligible. It is only when words reach a receptive ear that the information packets, the words and sentences, acquire meaning. Otherwise they are just meaningless sound waves. While other creatures might perceive the sound, the human meaning is lost unless perceived by a human. This is yet another example of how conceiving the subatomics as information packets clarifies understanding.
One last example of how photons are better understood as information packets rather than as ‘objects’ or ‘particles’. Scientists have run a slew of experiments on both electrons and photons that produced seemingly unintelligible, even impossible, results. In each of these experiments, the seemingly impossible or contradictory results are due to the effect of the measuring devices. The traditional explanation for these anomalies is that photons or electrons from the measuring device interfere with the measurement process. Feynman’s explanation is based upon his ‘bean counting technique, his mathematical algorithm. Neither explanation provides any information about the nature of these disobedient subatomics. We suggest that the results are only strange if we think about the photon or electron as an object or particle. If we view the photon or electron as an information packet, the results make perfect sense.
Let’s look at a specific example. Photons are beamed at a tiny hole in an otherwise unbroken surface. A measurement device, a photomultiplier, picks up how many photons make it through this opening. Initially, the hole is directly in front of the photomultiplier. In the next set of experiments, the hole is moved at an increasingly larger angle from the measurement device. The results are the same for the direct transmission and the oblique transmission – 1% of the photons strike the photomultiplier to register a click. These results validate the spreading nature of light, our prior focus. Atom-based particles don’t spread. As a virtual info packet, the photon spreads out to maximize the chances of realizing potentials.
In the next set of experiments, both holes are open. We would expect that if a photon is simply a particle or a wave that twice as many photons (2%) would make a click. Instead, the results are similar to the partial reflection experiments with 2 panes of glass. Depending upon the distance between the two holes, the number of photons making it through the wall ranges from 0% to 4% – the classic interference pattern. The info packets interact with each other, interfering or augmenting the information.
In the final set of experiments, a measuring device is placed at each opening to determine which hole the photon goes through. There are no partial clicks. The devices clearly indicate whether the photon goes through one hole or the other. However, now there is no more interference pattern. The result is as previously expected – 2% of the photons make it through the wall to register as a click on the far side – no variation.
Feynman reports: “Nature has got it cooked up so we’ll never be able to figure out how She does it: if we put instruments in to find out which way the light goes, we can find out, all right, but the wonderful interference effects disappear. But it we don’t have instruments that can tell which way the light goes. The interference effects come back! Very strange, indeed! … I have pointed out these things because the more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena works. So theoretical physics has given up on that.” (QED, pp. 81-2)
Of course, theoretical physics is still attempting to conceptualize these events in terms of traditional categories – wave or particle. Requoting Feynman: “In order to save ourselves from inventing new words (read category) such as ‘wavicles’, we have chosen to call these objects ‘particles’.” (QED, p. 85) This materialist mindset blocks understanding.
The ocular centrism of the scientific community holds onto the visual metaphor as the only way of comprehending our universe. If we instead take an omni-centric perspective that includes our auditory network, we can better understand these phenomena in an everyday way.
Remember that the probability arrows are all we have to describe the behavior of photons. We’ve argued elsewhere that the photons aren’t just described by these arrows, these information packets. The photons are info packets. As an info packet, the photon would have to give up some of this information each time it was measured. From this perspective, the instruments would, of course, have an influence upon the results.
Similarly, each surface absorbs the information of sound, some more than others. In a busy restaurant, the info packets of sound interact with each other to create interference patterns that inhibit communication. Curtains damp the volume of sound. This damping absorbs some of the auditory information. The sound absorption inhibits the interference patterns, which purifies the flow of information. Instead of getting an ambiguous range of transmission from too soft to too loud (0% to 4%), we instead take in a comprehensible and stable (2%) range of auditory information.
For more, check out the next article in the stream Subatomics & Thought.