"The author explains in the article how to understand the behaviour of light." That isn't the argument. What I'm arguing is the (lack of) utility of the expla

"The author explains in the article how to understand the behaviour of light." That isn't the argument. What I'm arguing is the (lack of) utility of the explanation. In what way does it enhance, support, or in any way contribute to the article? His argument is essentially: A. We think of light as traveling in straight lines. B. But because quantum physics, they don't! They travel along infinitely many paths. C. But all of these paths cancel out except the straight line path. D. And that's how beamforming works. Except it's beam-un-forming. So he brings up a quantum phenomenon to complicate the scenario, then immediately reduces it back to the original scenario, without ever explaining how that original scenario works (i.e. how waves add together to create constructive and destructive interference: note that the words "wave" and "phase" never occur in same paragraph), then claims that this is somehow elucidating. So what's the benefit?