Is there a quantum interpretation of reflection, refraction and absorption ?
913177
Yes there are, and the best (imho) explanations in plain, non-technical language are in a book by Richard Feynmann titled  "QED The strange theory of light and matter".\nWhen you first read what actually happens when light bounces off a mirror it's mind blowing. There are equally good explanations of why a simple lens works, etc.
1168536
Quantum mechanics isn't the reason for thermal radiation, but the best way to describe the characteristic intensity distribution over the frequency spectrum of a thermal radiator. Read about 'Black Body Radiation'. For example:\n\nhttp://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html\n\nMaybe the answer to this question helps:\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjpE1vSPJyBC3rq3rKKZVKLsy6IX?qid=1006022704468\n\ngood luck!
463061
In 1957, Hugh Everett III proposed a radical new way of dealing with some of the more perplexing aspects of quantum mechanics. It became known as the Many-Worlds Interpretation.\n\nAccording to this interpretation, whenever numerous viable possibilities exist, the world splits into many worlds, one world for each different possibility (in this context, the term "worlds" refers to what most people call "universes"). In each of these worlds, everything is identical, except for that one different choice; from that point on, they develop independently, and no communication is possible between them, so the people living in those worlds (and splitting along with them) may have no idea that this is going on.\n\nIn this way, the world branches endlessly. What is "the present" to us, lies in the pasts of an uncountably huge number of different futures. Everything that can happen, does, somewhere.\n\nUntil Many-Worlds appeared, the generally accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics was (and perhaps still is) the Copenhagen Interpretation. The Copenhagen Interpretation makes a distinction between the observer and the observed; when no one is watching, a system evolves deterministically according to a wave equation, but when someone is watching, the wavefunction of the system "collapses" to the observed state, which is why the act of observing changes the system. The Copenhagen Interpretation gives the observer special status, not accorded to any other object in quantum theory, and cannot explain the observer itself, while Many-Worlds models the entire observer-observee system.\n\nThe Many-Worlds Interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, and pertains to quantum events. But it also has implications for macroscopic systems like you and me. Although you may think that there are certain alternatives you would never choose, can you really be sure of that? There are a practically infinite number of versions of you, who have all split off at some time in the past from the path you are now following. There may be versions of you that split off five or ten years ago, or perhaps five minutes after you were born, to whom those choices may not seem unthinkable. But in a very real sense, those people are still "you" (but it can be argued that we should not use the word "are", or even "were"; we need to invent a new kind of tense...)\n\nMany people find the Many-Worlds Interpretation, and the consequences that flow from it, deeply disturbing. This includes a great many physicists. It is also apparent that many physicists, including many who teach physics, do not have a good understanding of Many-Worlds.\n\nHowever, polls have been taken among theorists who study such things, and have revealed that most of them believe that the Many-Worlds Interpretation represents, in some sense, an accurate description of the way the world really is. The polls also show that many of them would rather not discuss the subject.\n\nIt's not hard to see why so many people find these ideas disturbing. For if they are correct, they have profound implications for our understanding of the nature of the Soul, because the Soul (if there is such a thing) must branch along with the worlds that contain it. It would appear that the writings on which many contemporary religions are based make no mention of such an idea.\n\nIt is commonly thought that Many-Worlds is an unprovable hypothesis, experimentally indistinguishable from the Copenhagen Interpretation, but this may not be the case. It may be possible to observe experimentally one of the predicted effects of Many-Worlds: quantum interference between adjacent worlds. It has even been suggested that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle derives from this quantum interference; after you make a measurement (which of course splits the world), you can't be sure about the subsequent state of the observed system, because you can't be sur
578910
If we assume that the X-ray scattering of the 'unmodified' type observed by Prof. Compton corresponds to the normal or average state of the atoms and molecules, while the 'modified' scattering of altered wave-length corresponds to their fluctuations from that state, it would follow that we should expect also in the case of ordinary light two types of scattering, one determined by the normal optical properties of the atoms or molecules, and another representing the effect of their fluctuations from their normal state. It accordingly becomes necessary to test whether this is actually the case. The experiments we have made have confirmed this anticipation, and shown that in every case in which light is scattered by the molecules in dust-free liquids or gases, the diffuse radiation of the ordinary kind, having the same wave-length as the incident beam, is accompanied by a modified scattered radiation of degraded frequency. \nThe new type of light scattering discovered by us naturally requires very powerful illumination for its observation. In our experiments, a beam of sunlight was converged successively by a telescope objective of 18 cm. aperture and 230 cm. focal length, and by a second lens was placed the scattering material, which is either a liquid (carefully purified by repeated distillation in vacuo) or its dust-free vapour. To detect the presence of a modified scattered radiation, the method of complementary light-filters was used. A blue-violet filter, when coupled with a yellow-green filter and placed in the incident light, completely extinguished the track of the light through the liquid or vapour. The reappearance of the track when the yellow filter is transferred to a place between it and the observer's eye is proof of the existence of a modified scattered radiation. Spectroscopic confirmation is also available. \n\nSome sixty different common liquids have been examined in this way, and every one of them showed the effect in greater or less degree. That the effect is a true scattering, and secondly by its polarisation, which is in many cases quire strong and comparable with the polarisation of the ordinary scattering. The investigation is naturally much more difficult in the case of gases and vapours, owing to the excessive feebleness of the effect. Nevertheless, when the vapour is of sufficient density, for example with ether or amylene, the modified scattering is readily demonstrable.
359485
absorbed, reflected and used (IE: converted to energy)
453143
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/quantum-computer.htm
578383
There are two types of substances\n1] Transparent.eg.Glass   2] Opaque.eg.iron                    Glass allows light to pass thru it as atoms in glass are in contact with each other.So when 1 atom receives energy,it vibrates with a greater amplitude[atoms are always in a state of vibration].It disturbs the neighbouring atom which accepts the energy liberated by the 1st atom.It transmits the energy to the next atom and so on....\n\nIn case of iron ,atoms areplaced even more closer which results in reflection of the entire light.In case of glass,there is partial reflection and partial refraction
1075466
This phenomenon is call total internal reflection.\nThe theory explaining the phenomenon is detailed in most good physics optics textbooks.
1061308
Quite frankly I find it fascinating.  I haven't had the opportunity to study up as much as I'd like on the new ideas coming forth, but I would like to suggest a movie to you; it's called "What the *bleep* do we know?".  There are many credited scientists and mathematicians and other experts in their fields who discuss quantum mechanics in a way that your everyday Joe can understand.  Although a good chunk of it shows how the ideas relate back to the body/self.  Some of these ideas are portrayed in a "story" about a deaf photographer--which is an excellent idea, considering much of quantum mechanics deals with the idea of an "ultimate observer".   One warning, though; the movie does, at one point, all but mathematically dispel the notion of "God"...\n\nHope you like it!
1125359
I think the author of the article linked to in your referenced web page (it's the link below) explains it well. One of the many  fundamental constants, the Fine Structure Constant, may have changed very slightly -- or it may not have. The data acquired so far is not conclusive, especially as decided by the scientific establishment, which generally demands pretty overwhelming proof of such a radical idea. And as the author says, confirming evidence must be obtained not merely from more iterations of the same experiment, but from totally different kinds of experiment, and he adds that precision in these other experiment types is not yet high enough to be useful as a proof.
379462
Nothwithstanding the fact that this is a koan with no _rational_ answer, answers user Samuel J. Smith makes an error I wish to correct.  He states that the value of a physical observable in a quantum system is not definite until it has been measured.  However, he makes two errors:\n\n-"Measurement" does not mean "measured by a human" it means "the quantum system has interacted with another system in a way such that information is passed between the two system."  If an electron hits my desk a measurement of the quantum state of that system has been made even though I, the human, have no information about that interaction.\n\n-Second, macroscopic objects (trees, people, ponds, fish, very small dust mites) are not quantum objects precisely because there are huge number of smaller quantum systems (i.e. atoms) constantly interacting with eachother.  This constant interaction continuiously collapses their wavefunctions to a definite value which is why macroscopic objects appear to have definite positions, energies, momenta, etc.  To apply quantum principles not a non-quantum system is inappropriate in this case.\n\n-------\n\nQuantum mechanics aside, you might enjoy this article by Cecil Adams (of the Straight Dope, a column that gives information about bizarre topics of interest to readers) on the topic "What is the sound of one hand clapping" another classic koan:\n\nhttp://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_049\n\nHave a nice day~
751077
Yes...\n\nThe refraction indecces\n\nn =c/v, but c = wave lenght * frequency
834583
You can use the Rydberg formula, which relates the reciprocal of the wavelength of the photon absorbed or emitted to the squares of the reciprocals of the principal quantum numbers.\n\n1/wavelength = R(1/n_l^2 - 1/n_u^2)\n\nSo, for the listed values of n, \n\nA.  1/w = R(1/ 2^2 - 1/4^2) = 0.1875R\nB.  1/w = -0.75R\nC.  1/w = 0.21R\nD.  1/w = -0.04861R\n\nSince energy and frequency are proportional to 1/wavelength,\nlooks like the order is D, A, C, B.
1093639
What meant Indeed ?\n\nIt is not a easy question. This question was originally highlighted by Niels Bohr in the Copenhagen interpretation, where a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place. This makes apparent the fact that the nature of measurement, or observation, is not well defined. In other words we can measure position, but not the velocity or we can measure velocity, but not the position. \n\nI did mention Schrödinger's cat did not I? The Schrödinger's cat paradox suggests that by the act of quantum measurement we are destroying the object of measurement and hopefully not before we obtain one particular property. \nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat  \n\nSo by ‘measurement’ in QM we mean “In classical physics the mathematical model talks about the things we observe. In QM the mathematical model by itself never produces observations. We must interpret the wave function in order to relate it to experimental observations.” http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm-2.html   \n\nI hope that tickles you, but I suspect you knew the answer.
251335
It can be "explained" with quantum mechanics. If you can find the movies of the lectures given by Richard Feynmen in New Zealand, there are 4 lectures if I am correct, In the first lecture he explains it very well in Laymans terms.\n\nIt takes a fair bit of explanation so I won't attemp to relate it here.
83
When a mirror is hit by particles of light called photons, it reflects the photons back to us. When photons hit a smooth surface like a mirror, they bounce back off of the mirror at roughly the same angle at which they hit the object, creating a reflection that looks the same.
123405
Do you mean refraction?