ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Physics

What is light?

Updated on December 24, 2015

___________________


The Rope Hypothesis - An alternative to waves, particles and wave-packets

(Comments have been disabled in all my hubs. If you wish to leave a comment go to Rational Scientific Method.)

___________________


Is light a wave? Does it consist of particles? What if we assume, instead, that light has the configuration of a rope?

__________________


The nature of light

What is light? Is light a physical object or an abstract concept? Is there something 'there' that comes in contact with your eyes or makes a shadow? Or is the nature of light a philosophical issue?


A Brief History of Light

Many throughout history have pondered the nature of light. Everyone from Euclid and Lucretius, through Alhazen, to Descartes and Newton thought of light as a stream of particles. Then in the 18th Century the Particle Hypothesis encountered its first competitor. Hooke and Huygens discovered and developed the wave nature of light and that's when the debate really started. Yet, the particle kept rolling strong primarily on Newton's authority..

It wouldn't be until the 19th Century that the Particle Hypothesis began to tumble. Thomas Young shattered Newton’s corpuscular proposal with his slit experiment of 1803, and a few years later Fresnel all but buried the languishing particle in the ash heap of history when he explained polarization with transverse waves. Maxwell would hammer the final nail on the ‘corpuscular’ coffin when he described light with four wave equations.

But the resilient corpuscle came back to life with a vengeance at the turn of the century. The new generation of theorists proposed that light comes in discrete packets of a substance known in mathematical circles as 'energy'. They named this mathematical unit a 'quantum' or quantity of energy and, thus, was the seed of Quantum Mechanics sowed. Once again, light recovered its particulate nature, shedding behind its wave-like cocoon. What saved the wave from sudden death was De Broglie's proposal that matter also exhibits wave-like behavior.

Having had enough of Mother Nature's teasing, the world-class mathematicians finally held a pow-wow in Belgium in 1926 to resolve the issue once and for all. They raised their hands and decided by consensus that Mother Nature did not know her own world. The mathematicians decreed that light was neither a particle nor a wave. Light was BOTH. The scholars merged the two irreconcilable hypotheses into an unfathomable ‘entity’ known as a wave-packet. All sides signed the contract and returned home having solved the 3000 year old puzzle.

Of course, the mathematicians couldn't illustrate the unimaginable Frankenstein they had created and which now acquired life of its own. They didn't have to. They simply got rid of the wave and used the particle as they always had. The only time a mathematician invokes the wave model is for those few exceptions where he absolutely cannot explain the behavior of light with particles. Then, he continues to talk about particles as if nothing. Ask an expert such as Roger Penrose to illustrate the wave packet and he draws a corkscrew with a shaft running down its center.

Is this the actual wave-packet that comes from your lamp and strikes you in the eyes?

Of course not! What the authentic wave-packet looks like, the mathematicians argue, is immaterial. It’s at best a philosophical issue: your opinion. Just don’t be such a radical devil’s advocate and suggest that light looks like a cube!



Indeed, even Newton’s archaic corpuscle has suffered major plastic surgery. The alleged ‘particle’ of contemporary ‘physics’ is not what you think it is. To put it simply, the particles of the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics have no length, width, or height like your golf ball does. They are zero-dimensional (0D). And, in addition, the particle of light – the photon – doesn’t even have mass.

The mathematicians don’t lose any sleep working in the lab with non-entities. They’ve grown accustomed to dualities and paradoxes and regard common sense to be a handicap. The important thing for the mathematical establishment is the equation: a description of how light behaves. Theoreticians never again pondered what the invisible configuration of light might look like. They have now delegated those types of questions to the philosophers on the other side of campus, who, as it turns out, aren't pondering them either.


Status of light and particles

So where do we stand today? Are we done with Physics? Have we settled whether light consists of a flow of 0D particles which travel as a wave?

Well, what experiment are prominent research centers such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) or the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) running to falsify the particle hypothesis?

Yes, we are stuck forevermore with particles. If the mathematician runs into trouble here or there, he can always invoke the wave and then continue talking about particles and inventing cute names for them to keep plugging holes in their Standard Model Chart. The experiments of today at places like LHC and SLAC are much more challenging than the petty stuff run by Young and Fresnel. The researchers are no longer interested in elucidating the architecture of light. In fact, they are taught that light doesn’t have one: “How are we supposed to know the shape of light if we would have to use light to see it?”

Well, does the Moon have shape before the Sun shines it’s light on it? Doesn’t shape precede motion? If light moves, it had better have shape!

No! Today, the mathematicians have moved on to ‘important’ experiments. They spend your tax money attempting to discover an elusive particle of weight known as the Higgs, or to detect the heavy particles which comprise a mysterious substance called dark matter which would enable Einstein’s failed equations to describe why a galaxy revolves like a carousel: with the horsies on the outside as fast as the buggies on the inside.


The rope hypothesis

One equation that most high school students are familiar with is Maxwell’s famous c = ƒ λ (frequency times wavelength gives you a constant known as the speed of light). One macro-world architecture that can model this equation is a two-strand, DNA-like rope. The shorter we make the links (wavelength), the more links we can fit for a given length of rope (frequency). If we further factor Oersted and Faraday’s descriptions (also known as Faraday-Maxwell’s Law), that state that the magnetic ‘field’ runs orthogonally to the electric ‘field’ and one induces the other into being, we realize that the rope proposal is not so off-the-wall.

Let us assume that light has the configuration of a rope. The actual signal is a torsion propagating along this rope from atom to atom. The hypothesis is that every atom in the Universe is connected to all others via an electromagnetic rope.

Right off the bat, heretofore perplexing behaviors of light that we have observed in the lab ‘come to light’.

Q. Why does light travel straight while at the same time undulating like waves?

A. The torsion ‘travels’ along a taut rope.

Q. Why does light travel so fast?

A. Tie a rope between two walls at home and torque the rope. Film the experiment and see if you can detect when the signal reached the clothespin at the other end.

Q. How do we explain mystical EPR?

A. From your end the rope spins CW. From mine, it has no choice but to spin CCW.

And so on.

Once we replace ‘flow of particles’ with a rope model and propose that light consists of torsion signals propagating along these ropes and arriving at the atoms that comprise your eyes, we can suddenly explain the most fundamental behaviors of light. In contrast, we can explain almost none of the fundamental behaviors of light with particles rationally. The only reason we still have the particle around is that the mathematicians found this hypothesis very convenient to ‘explain’ every phenomenon of nature by placing its coordinates in an equation. It is the difference between Science and what the inheritors of Euclid and Pythagoras still do.


.

.

.

ICPST Presentation, Hong Kong, China, December 28 - 30, 2010.

.















































































.

Comments

Submit a Comment

  • profile image

    Lawrence Falzitto 5 years ago

    This EM - presence, is not inert! It is far more then simply electronics, and in any simple cell phone, phone or TV set. What would keep a hydrogen atom from one day saying to itself,"Today I'll be a Helium atom or a Boron atom"? Sound silly?

    Well what then, what 'artificial intelligence' can there be in place of an Almighty Intelligent God, that can 'connect' and be 'connected' to every other atom either directly or indirectly and constantly???

    Is a cell phone, computer, TV set or microwave aware of its existence? Can any atom change its physical identity, mass, color, density all by its self??

    What would keep total chaos from being the rule in the entire Universe, such as the Big Bang nonsense, if there were no Superior Intelligence controlling each and every atom's identity each and every microsecond???

    The Rope Theory of Bill Gaede at last proves not only the existence of God, but an 'Infinitely powerful, all knowing God as well!! He sends His commands to each on a instantaneous moment by moment electromagnetic 'line' of communication!!!

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "are there similarities between the strings in the string theory and the ropes"

    .

    A string (of ST) is a mathematical gimmick. The EM rope is a physical entity. Never the twain shall meet!

    .

    .

    "visible but not observable"

    .

    The string (of ST) is allegedly 1D! How do you see or observe a 1D 'entity'? In fact, I challenge any mathematician from Princeton to Stanford to draw a 1D 'entity' on the board! What will he draw? Width? Height?

    .

    .

    "a black hole... isn't a "hole" at all"

    .

    Space is 'that which has no shape'. Space is vacuum, void, zero, nothing. The religion of Mathematical Physics claims that 'a' black hole is a hole in nothing. Now the astronomers are pointing their telescopes at the night sky hoping to find the first hole in nothing.

    .

    In fact, the should simply use 20/20 and draw a hole -- any hole -- on the blackboard without the surrounding contrast. The challenge is to draw the gofer hole without the earth or the wedding ring hole without the wedding ring or the doughnut hole without the doughnut. That's a mighty difficult feat!

    .

    If you add that the alleged hole is supposed to be 0-dimensional -- the infamous mathematical singularity -- then it would be quite remarkable for a mathematician to even imagine for us what he is talking about.

    .

    .

    "is it possible that black holes are just mathematical errors?"

    .

    It is not a mathematical error. Singularities happen only when the mathematician puts 'infinity' in his equation. They are the result of working at the extremes, of confusing Math for Physics. The mathematician takes a PHYSICAL star (a ball of gas), compresses it until length, width, and height disappear, and tells you that the resulting singularity (a mathematical CONCEPT) has 'infinite mass'. The astronomers of this religion are now pointing their telescopes at the night sky in hopes of being the first to see this abstract concept.

    .

    I propose that they should try something easier first. They should try to see 'intelligence' here on Earth thru a microscope.

  • profile image

    stipa 6 years ago

    are there similarities between the strings in the string theory and the ropes in your theory? your theory explains light "particles", the string theory explains atomic "particles" and both effects are visible but not observable.

    the same happens with a black hole, which annoyingly, isn't a "hole" at all. it's the complete opposite, a black solid. the damn thing is packed full of stuff. apparently.

    the effects of a black hole can be seen but the black hole itself, can't be seen or observed. is it possible that black holes are just mathematical errors? the same happens in video games when a surface, a plain or a polygon stretches to infinity because of a in game bug.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "If the rope is made of a single piece, how do you explain bending without particles to give room for flexibility."

    .

    WGDE, pp. 343-359 -- http://www.lulu.com/content/7436620

    .

    As stated in the vid, light-on-light issues are beyond the scope of the Internet.

  • profile image

    Kirui 6 years ago

    You told aka somwhere to reframe his question in terms of objects instead of legth. Now if i may try, i think he wondered wether the hypothetical em rope is made up of a single piece or made up of even smaller particles just like the ordinary rope. We come to a situation where i think there is a problem with your hypothesis. If the rope is made of a single piece, how do you explain bending without particles to give room for flexibility. If the rope is made of particles, we need another ropes to tie them together and we see that it leads to an infinite regress. So what is the way out?

  • profile image

    Kirui 6 years ago

    When i asked why, i did'nt mean 'for what purpose' rather i was enquiring on the cause.Bill, when i ask; why do toyota cars ran fast and you mistake me as you did, you will answere; because the owners need to make money. But if you understood me, you will reffer me to how the engines of toyota are working.However i am satisfied when you say motion like shape is the hypothesis of the theory. Perhaps that is the way out.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "why is there motion at all in the universe?"

    .

    This is not a WHY question. People have been conditioned to believe that it is, a holdover from traditional religion.

    .

    In the instant context, 'why' implies that there was a purpose, a goal in mind. 'Why' implicitly invokes the notion of God, as if there was a conscious being that set everything in motion for some unknown reason.

    .

    Move, we move BY DEFINITION. Motion is not a THEORY. Motion is part of a HYPOTHESIS.

    motion: two or more locations of an object

    If an object occupies two or more locations, for the purposes of Science, it moved by definition. You don't prove or theorize that an object moved or moves. Whether it moves is neither truth nor explanation nor belief. It moves if it meets the criteria specified in the definition. There is no implicit or explicit provision for observers in the definition of 'motion'. 'Why' inadvertently invokes just such an observer, which again is a holdover, this time from the religion known as Mathematical Physics.

  • profile image

    Kirui 6 years ago

    Given that every atom in the universe is interconnect as in your hypothesis, why is there motion at all in the universe? Why is it not just a dead sculpture like when you link two stones with a rope. It doesn'nt necessarily move. So i am interested with why two magnets move to one another as i still see no reason even if ropes where connecting both of them.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    ¨I get the distinct feeling it will simply be impossible to sway you from your convictions¨

    .

    The purpose of Science is NOT to sway people to your religion. You should join the Jehovah´s Witnesses if you want to convince people, Manna.

    .

    In Science, we ONLY explain. What the guy believes AFTER the prez is his personal business (and extra-scientific at that)!

  • Manna in the wild profile image

    Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

    I can't count how many errors are in your reply, nor contemplate how to possibly address them since I get the distinct feeling it will simply be impossible to sway you from your convictions. So I'll exit here.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "photons, when treated as particles do not travel in a straight line"

    .

    Anything that travels cannot possibly travel in a straight line anywhere in the U. Newton had no idea what he was talking about! But we treat this numskull as a god.

    .

    .

    "many photons trace a path through curved space-time"

    .

    Oh, what's this thing you call 'spacetime', Manna? Please draw a picture for me or point to one on the Internet. Does a chunk of this spacetime cake taste good?

    .

    .

    "following what is the shortest path"

    .

    I thought a 'straight' path was the shortest path? Now you claim that a 'curved' path is the shortest path???

    .

    Do you know the difference between a straight table and a curved table? I mean, we learn this in kindergarten...

    .

    .

    "Whether you call this straight or not depends on your coordinate system."

    .

    NO!!! It depends on the definitions of 'straight' and 'curved'. The idiots of Math never defined these words and say stupid things such as "a curved path is the shortest path". What a bunch of morons, don't you agree?

    .

    In Science, we don't confuse 'curved' with 'straight'. He who doesn't understand the difference, should go back to kindergarten!

    .

    Here's curved: ( Here's straight: |

    .

    How it is that a stupid moron of Math cannot tell the difference is what I never understood.

    .

    .

    "electrons do have mass"

    .

    Oh, what's this 'mass' nonsense that electrons have? Please draw 'it'.

    .

    .

    "they are influenced by a gravitational field"

    .

    'A' field??? What's 'a' field???

    .

    In Science, a field is where the cows poop! Don't know any field other than that. Please draw 'a' field, I mean, the one that you claim affects electrons.

    .

    .

    "the reason why an individual photon must travel at c"

    .

    Huh???

    .

    What's this 'rest mass' bullshit got to do with WHY a photon travels at c? I missed your 'explanation'.

    .

    .

    "It can neither be accelerated nor decelerated"

    .

    WHY not? Why can't you accelerate a photon particle to 305,000 or 310,000 km/sec? What PHYSICALLY prevents you from doing so?

    .

    .

    "If every where was connected already by a 'rope light', then there could be no event horizon around a black hole"

    .

    Black Hole??? What is this idiocy you call a BH? Maybe you meant asshole?

    .

    .

    "the night sky would be blinding"

    .

    Why is that? Please explain with luxury of detail.

    .

    .

    "it takes 8 min for an EM event... to get to Earth"

    .

    In Science, events don't travel. Usually what travel are objects. Concepts don't travel.

    .

    btw - How fast does 'love' travel in your religion?

    .

    .

    "allowing c to be infinite breaks everything we know"

    .

    No doubt! Infinite is an ADJECTIVE! So what sense does it make to say that 300,000 km/sec be 'infinite'?

    .

    So, yes! c=infinite breaks everything we know.

    .

    .

    "Light as a rope is useful over some scales and time frames but not at a quantum mechanical level"

    .

    In what way does the rope fail at the micro level?

    .

    .

    "certainly not as a universal explanation"

    .

    The ropes EXPLAIN gravity. The idiotic religion known as Math Phyz has no RATIONAL explanation for gravity at any scale!

    .

    .

    "I enjoyed it"

    .

    That's the problem today. People are no longer interested in Science. They just want to listen to new ideas for the rush. That's why the morons of Math still talk about warped space, photons, and strings.

  • Manna in the wild profile image

    Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

    This is nice writing and interesting too. But I can't agree with the rope hypothesis since a) photons, when treated as particles do not travel in a straight line. On a macroscopic scale, a collection of many photons trace a path through curved space-time, following what is the shortest path. Whether you call this straight or not depends on your coordinate system. Also electrons do have mass, which is why they are influenced by a gravitational field. However they have no rest-mass which is precisely the reason why an individual photon must travel at c. It can neither be accelerated nor decelerated.

    b) If every where was connected already by a 'rope light', then there could be no event horizon around a black hole, the night sky would be blinding, there would be no 'Hubble volume'.

    On a cosmic scale, I like to think how slow light travels. After all, it takes 8 min for an EM event at the Sun to get to Earth, and billions of years to traverse the galaxy. Allowing signals to travel at a new upper-limit would invoke some new physics, but it would still be rational. However, allowing c to be infinite breaks everything we know.

    Light as a rope is useful over some scales and time frames but not at a quantum mechanical level, and certainly not as a universal explanation.

    Great hub though - I enjoyed it.

  • profile image

    Kirui  6 years ago

    Well done bill you have done it for me that is what i mean by the picture of pain.it exist wether ET See it or not.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "i will surely draw for you the picture of pain"

    .

    That's what I'm waiting for! Unconditionally!

    .

    When someone asks you to draw a dog, you sketch a four legged animal more or less. Or he directs you to a site on the Internet that has a pic of a dog...

    .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:YellowLabradorLo...

    .

    .

    Your turn...

    .

    YOU claim that pain is an object and has shape just like a dog does. Therefore, you have no excuse! Draw 'pain'! Or point to a picture of pain anywhere on the Internet.

    .

    Here's a picture of 'pain' from the same source...

    .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Injured_Bystrov....

    .

    All I see is a human grabbing a leg. That's OBJECTIVELY what an ET would see.

  • profile image

    Kirui 6 years ago

    No more kiding bill let me illustrate once and for all. Picture this scenario i exibit; paper is a mock up of a skin. Hypothetical ropes coming from the paper to your eyes all the way to the brain is a mock up of nerves sending signals back and forth. Pen is a mock up of a whip. So give me the real paper and the real pen and i will surely draw for you the picture of pain.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "we can make a movie of say a process of manufacturing a car"

    .

    And we will see a car on the screen, specifically on the last frame!

    .

    .

    "can i wath a movie of a process called pain?"

    .

    So please illustrate what we would see in ONE frame of the movie! Will you see pain or an arm?

  • profile image

    Kirui 6 years ago

    But you see Bill i don't understand what you mean when you say pain is a process.in processes, we can make a movie of say a process of manufacturing a car. But can i wath a movie of a process called pain? If yes, how will this differ with the case where we simply take a whip, lash and say 'pain?'

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "it does not requre two objects for a thing to be sound"

    .

    Sound is motion of an object: an object at TWO or more LOCATIONS (in this case, the molecule of air).

    .

    .

    "you agreed with me that pain is an object "

    .

    Absolutely NOT! Pain is a VERB! Pain is a PROCESS. If you think otherwise, please draw 'pain'. That's the only 'test' for an object. If you cannot draw it, 'it' ain't an object!

    .

    .

    "pain has a form regardless of an observer"

    .

    Good! Don't talk about 'it'. Don't explain 'it'. DRAW 'it'!

    .

    .

    "Concepts have a form"

    .

    Draw 'love'! Draw 'justice'! Show the crowd what 'forms' these concepts take.

    .

    .

    "Form is to concepts as shape is to objects"

    .

    Oh, what is the diff b/w form and shape? I thought they were synonyms...

    .

    .

    "i confused today a lion i was trying to make with a clay with the real king of the jungle!"

    .

    Irrelevant!

  • profile image

    Kirui 6 years ago

    Now just as an object have a shape whether or not an observer is present, an object also moves whether or not an observer is there to conceive motion. Today i will use your definion of an object for the purpose of my disertation.but for the concepts forget about. Now you said a sound needs two objects. It does require two objects to produse a sound but it does not requre two objects for a thing to be sound. Also somwhere, i think you agreed with me that pain is an object because you said it is in my brain didn'nt you? But bill you got me wrong i didn'nt say i had an headech. It was not in my brain it was squarly well located on my back also i don'nt understand these two objects you are talking about i was not pearced by a needle. You see pain has a form regardless of an observer. Concepts have a form regardles of observes. Form is to concepts as shape is to objects. Do not mistake concepts with conceiving. When we conceive, we only model a reality just like we do when we shape. It doest however become a reality. The errow done by mathematicians is confusing mathematical models with the real thing they are trying to model.You see bill picture this scenario; i confused today a lion i was trying to make with a clay with the real king of the jungle!

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "'object'... a thing whose background is conceivable"

    .

    Problems...

    .

    1. object = 'a thing'

    2. 'conceivable' invokes an observer (i.e., an object that does the conceiving)

    An object has shape all on its own. It doesn't need an observer to have shape. An object doesn't have shape as a result of an observer.

    .

    .

    "Your case will be a special one in a family of things that meet this criteria."

    .

    It's the only definition that can be used CONSISTENTLY (i.e., scientifically).

    .

    .

    "a sound can qualify as an object even though it has no shape... i located a sound somewhere behind me"

    .

    How can 'a' sound have location if it doesn't even have shape? Sound is a VERB, not a NOUN! A genuine noun (for the purposes of Science) can occupy a single location. Sound requires two or more of someTHING.

    .

    .

    "a sound has a dynamic background"

    .

    Which confirms that sound is a VERB! A verb is NOT a physical object. Verb is what an object DOES.

    .

    .

    "sound can exist"

    .

    We're not at existence yet. We have yet to settle what an object is. But the onus would shift to YOU to define the word 'exist' before you can claim that sound can exist. Otherwise, you have said nothing.

    .

    .

    "another category of existence different from that of say a stone"

    .

    Define 'exist' and we'll all know what you're talking about.

    .

    .

    "an object... with a static background is the object pain"

    .

    'Pain' is a VERB!!! Pain requires TWO or more locations of an object.

    .

    .

    "Ican locate a tiny pain on my back"

    .

    Absolutely NOT! Pain is in your brain. Quadriplegics have no pain in their legs or arms. You can saw them in half if you want to.

    .

    .

    "an ET is blind will he go home with an idea of a moving object in your case?

    .

    Not in MY case. In YOUR case. YOU have inserted the observer. Not me!

    .

    An object has shape whether the ET is blind or not.

  • profile image

    Kirui 6 years ago

    I think a generalisation to your definition of the word 'object' is a thing whose background is conceivable. That is 'not that thing' is conceivable. Your case will be a special one in a family of things that meet this criteria. Can't i use this definion consistently if work hard enogh? In this case, a sound can qualify as an object even though it has no shape. This morning, i located a sound somewhere behind me so a sound can exist without necessesarily needing a shape nor a space ocupation. So i simply put it under another category of existence different from that of say a stone. Shouldn't science also categorise at the conception stage of dissertation? In this case a sound has a dynamic background. An example of an object under my category with a static background is the object pain. Ican locate a tiny pain on my back without any object piercing me. An advantage of this comes in a case where an ET is blind will he go home with an idea of a moving object in your case? Also not that pain was there ever since contrary to how people in this wep seem to object too quickly without giving a deeper thought on the issue. It is just that perhaps no body was there to feel it.

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 7 years ago

    Bill,

    Thanks for the answers. I've taken enough of your time. I should get the book if I really want a better understanding.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 7 years ago

    "it has been hypothesized that space is an aether and it is that medium"

    .

    In Science, we don't recognize objects such as aether, waves, spacetime, black holes, or 0D particles. If space is 'an' aether, please draw this object you call 'aether'. What does it look like? Is it like an ocean?

    .

    .

    "doesn't it, too, assume then that space is not void?"

    .

    I have no idea where you got that!

    .

    space: that which has no shape

    .

    I think that it is as clear as can be.

    .

    .

    "what would be the causative agent determining length? ... a series of shorter lengths"

    .

    ???

    .

    I have no idea what you're asking or what you are referring to. In Physics, we deal with objects. Length is a concept. Rephrase your Q in terms of objects.

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 7 years ago

    Bill,

    (In order for light to travel rectilinearly, it must do so via a continuous physical medium.)

    I understand it has been hypothesized that space is an aether and it is that medium that not only allows for the wave motion of light particles but also for the constant speed of light, as there is no reason why light particles should always be emitted at a constant speed.

    Your rope explanation seems more plausible, but doesn't it, too, assume then that space is not void? Also, what would be the causative agent determining length? It would seem more natural to have a series of shorter lengths connected to closer atoms that in turn connect other close atoms that then lead to the great expanses of space being covered instead of them being covered in one gigantic leap.

    Evolution shows that it is the cumulative effect of small changes that over time produces variations. Perhaps it is so in all natural events?

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 7 years ago

    "the electron transport chain that ends with ATP production that then drives organic life"

    .

    In order for light to travel rectilinearly, it must do so via a continuous physical medium. The establishment's particle hypothesis cannot explain why light travels 'straight' while undulating like a wave or why the E 'field' runs orthogonally to the M 'field'. Only a DNA-like, twined rope can justify these behaviors.

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 7 years ago

    Bill,

    Quite interesting. Although I do not have the physics background, I do see a comparison here with the electron transport chain that ends with ATP production that then drives organic life.

    It may well turn out that the theory of everything is based on universal shapes.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 7 years ago

    "the EM-presence is "connecting" and "connected"

    .

    Exactly!

    .

    "How do you think Olber's Paradox works?

    .

    Too complex to get into it here. That's in the book.

    .

    "Are the days-long exposures the Hubble gathers contradictory to "light traveling"? it is just very small/faint..."

    .

    As you concluded correctly, that's an issue of intensity, not of 'traveling'.

  • profile image

    Estamio2 7 years ago

    As there is no location in the Universe where a device could NOT 'see' (or be affected by) light (EM), the EM-presence is "connecting" and "connected".

    How do you think Olber's Paradox works?

    Are the days-long exposures the Hubble gathers contradictory to "light traveling"? That is, the light is already 'here', it is just very small/faint...

    Thanks