From: rrllff@yahoo.com   
      
   On Monday, July 21, 2014 5:55:26 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:   
   > Let's say you radiate a pulse of energy from   
   > a dipole antenna at 100 MHz, equal to a single   
   > photon. Sort of tiny, but elctrical engineers   
   > are a clever lot, I'm sure they're up to it.   
   >   
   > Now according to Maxwell, you get a EM wave   
   > which spreads almost uniformly through the   
   > univese, growing thinner and thinner.  And   
   > aliens everwhere can pick up some trace of   
   > it.  (assume very low noise circuitry)   
   >   
   > But according to Planck et al., which we   
   > accept as truer, there's just a single photon,   
   > which a single Klingon, somewhere, observes.   
   > Everyone else sees nada.   
   >   
   > I don't get how to reconcile these pictures.   
   > In particular, how to reconcile a vector field,   
   > with separate E and H components, vs. a package   
   > of energy.  Some people will jabber "classical   
   > theory is an approximation of the flat manifold yada yada".   
   >   
   > Sorry, that cuts no ice.  My idea of approximation   
   > is:  "the rug measures 38.4 sq. ft, +- .2 sq. ft"   
   > The Maxwell model isn't remotely close to the Planck model.   
   >   
   > This isn't a usual question for this board, but there   
   > are people here who know some physics.   
   >   
   > Rich   
      
   The answer is very simple.  We choose models that can be "understood"   
   by our normal senses, leaving us with a warm fuzzy feeling.  Models   
   that make sense to us are based on our everyday observations.   
      
   However, the properties of light do not fall within our normal   
   experience, hence we are unable to construct the perfect model.   
   Neither wave nor particle theory is correct.  What is correct is a   
   mathematical description (which is outside our normal understanding).   
      
   This does not mean that we cannot understand the theory, just that it   
   does not fit a simple life experience model.  It is futile (in almost   
   all subjects) to vociferously support one model over another.  The   
   better model is always the one that best fits the facts and best fits   
   our life experience.   
      
   So, in answer to your question, neither theory is correct.   
      
   Much wasted time could be saved if this simple concept would be explained in   
   schools.   
      
   http://www.richardfisher.com   
      
   P.S.  Philosophical question:  We adapt to the universe, not the other   
   way round.  Or does the universe adapt to us?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)