Does light require a medium?
The Ancient Greeks were among the first to simulate light with particles. Some 17th Century theorists
(e.g., Hooke, Huygens) and most 19th Century experimentalists (Young, Fresnel, Michelson) proposed that
light could be mimicked with waves. The 20th Century scholars merged the corpuscle and the wave into the
unimaginable wave-packet. But it is the 21st Century that finally zeroed in on the Rope.
The particle model of Quantum is bunk!
We have now established that light is NOT, can NOT be made of, and can NOT be mediated by:
Anyone making such outrageous claim in the 21st Century should be kicked out of Science! He has not
understood the argument and needs to go back to kindergarten. It is simply irrational to say that light is
MADE OF energy, of waves, of nothing, of wave-packets, or of vortexes. Light cannot be MADE of and
is not MADE of concepts. The proponent could just as well have said that light consists of love or of
information. All rational scientists should firmly oppose the introduction of such deranged proposals
before engaging in a discussion concerning the behavior of light. We must first settle WHAT light IS and
WHAT light IS NOT before we talk about what light DOES or about how it behaves.
On the other hand, it is quite rational to propose that light is comprised of particles. A particle can be
imagined to be a speck of dust, a tiny ball, an invisible cube, or whatever has three dimensions. The
proponent would strain a rational person's imagination to suggest that the particle in question has only
two dimensions. He would have to go out of his way to justify such assumption.
However, a person should be locked up at the asylum if he proposes that the particle that mediates
light is zero-dimensional (0D). And this is the problem with the religion of Quantum Mechanics. The
problem with the so called 'particles' that Quantum proposes is that they are not particles at all. The
word 'particle' like so many other words that the mathemagical 'physicists' use is misleading
(e.g., point, line, dimension, straight, distance, length, object, spin, etc.) Particle doesn't mean what
people think it means... which is a 3D (or in the worst case 2D) entity of sorts: a corpuscle. The
particle of the religion of Quantum is a ZERO-dimensional non-entity. The famous 'corpuscle' of
Quantum is a 'point' particle which has no length, width or height.
To make matters worse, according to the mechanics, the fundamental, so-called 'particle' of Quantum
also has no mass. The Quantum photon is a massless, non-dimensional, total non-entity! It is with this
'thing', with this ad hoc 'body', that the mathemagicians pretend to do 'science'. Ergo, Quantum Magic!
In other words, the alleged 'particle' of Quantum is not only a concept, but it is an irrational concept.
The mechanics want to get away with saying that a non-entity, a zero-dimensional, massless 'particle'
-- an irrational concept -- is moving from here to there.
In the case of virtual photons the mechanics go a step further and claim that these non-entities pop in
from the void and then disappear. The virtual photon comes into existence only when the mechanic
wishes to explain a phenomenon that he doesn't understand. It is then that he invokes the magical
'virtual photon' much like the traditional religions invoked angels to explain invisible phenomena they
Introducing the Rope Model of Light
Here we propose a physical mediator for light, an alternative to 0D 'particles' and abstract concepts waves
and wave-packets. It is known as the Rope Hypothesis. This model provides a physical interpretation to
electromagnetism, the workings of the atom and gravity. The casual reader is advised to review the history
of light in order to come up to speed on the subject.
The Rope Hypothesis
discrete, isolated particles
|The Rope Hypothesis
We begin with a simple question. Is light a physical object or an abstract concept? Is light out there, in the
lamp, or in here, in your brain? Is it something or nothing that is vibrating?
Most people would probably answer that they believe that light is neither an object or a concept. They have
been told and perpetually repeat that light is some form of 'energy'. They are satisfied with this reply and
never pondered whether it made any sense.
It turns out that dictionaries and encyclopedias define the word energy as a concept.
energy: a property of objects... a quantity... the ability to do work... In classical mechanics,
energy is a conceptually and mathematically useful property, as it is a conserved quantity...
In the context of chemistry, energy is an attribute...
Therefore, if light is alleged to be some form of 'energy' and energy is a concept, the proponent is in effect
saying that light is a concept. He is saying that there is no such thing as light out there moving from A to B.
Under the 'energy' version of light there are no flowing particles striking the mirror as Quantum proposes.
Light is just an abstraction, a concept, a sensation in your mind. Light is nothing but an optical illusion.
To make things more complicated, no one has rigorously defined the word concept. All we have are
concept: a general notion or idea, a construct
If light is alleged to be energy and energy is a concept and concept is just an idea, a thought in your mind,
the proponent is confirming that light is absolutely nothing. There's nothing out there moving from A to B,
nothing flowing out of the laser or reflecting in the mirror.
Here we will make it black and white. We start by enunciating the first principle of Physics...
The Golden Principle of Physics
Physics can only be done with objects. There is no Physics without objects.
Imagine a universe where all matter is removed. There are no galaxies, stars, planets, moons, asteroids,
atoms, gases or light. We have total emptiness, nothing, vacuum... however you want to imagine it. What
phenomenon can occur in such a desolate place? What event would there be to explain?
Therefore, anyone doing Physics without objects is known as a mathemagician. Anyone who moves concepts
around is an impostor. It doesn't matter what degree he has, whether he got it from Cambridge, or whether
he won a Nobel. He is not a physicist. The test for a physicist is whether he can rationally explain how a
magnet attracts another. If he can't do it, if he can't explain this simple, basic phenomenon, he never took a
Physics course in his life. He certainly won't be able to rationalize the attraction with nothing. If he claims that
he has a degree in 'physics', tell him he got it from a monastery. It is a worthless piece of paper that they
sold him in exchange for his tuition.
The next step is easy. If Physics demands an object, we have no choice but to define the bread and butter
of the discipline...
object: that which has shape (syn: thing, something, body, entity)
If a physical phenomenon is mediated by objects and an object is that which has shape, we should be able
to illustrate any theory of Physics...
theory: a. the mechanism behind a phenomenon, b. a movie of how an event happened
The language of Physics is not Mathematics. The language of Physics is illustration. When the mediator is an
invisible entity (e.g., air), it is the responsibility of the prosecutor of the theory to make the invisible visible for
the audience. Science is not about beliefs or opinions. That is the exclusive province of religion. Science is
about rational explanations. A rational explanation of Physics is one that can be illustrated and put on the Big
Screen. The director of a movie of Physics should not have to utter a word. We should be able to understand
his theory by simply watching the movie.
In contrast, there is no concept that has shape. What is the shape of energy? What is the shape of time?
What is the shape of information? Such words cannot be used as nouns in Physics. It is irrational in Science
to state that you transferred energy, accelerated 'a' mass, waved 'a' wave, stored information, warped time,
or carried 'an' interaction. This ridiculous language is outlawed in Science, let alone in Physics. Anyone using
words such as energy, mass, time, force, field, charge, wave, plasma, vortex, etc., to 'explain' a phenomenon
of nature is a mathemagician and is marginalized in Physics. We usually recommend that they check
themselves into the nearest asylum.
It is thus that nothing is a concept. Nothing means that the 'it' under scrutiny has no shape. Nothing is the
antithesis of something (i.e., that which has shape). In Science, it is irrational to propose that a concept
moves. In Science, only objects may be said to move. Therefore, all the words in the dictionary can be
divided into these two camps: object and concept. Objects are those which have shape and concepts are
those that don't. It is a black and white, on or off, yes or no issue. Physics only deals with objects.
Now that we've established those irreconcilable differences between an object and a concept, we rephrase
a. Is light an object or a concept?
b. Does light have an object as a mediator or is light just a process in our minds?
c. Does light move?
Many wave theorists answer that unlike other wave phenomena -- sound, earthquakes, slinky -- light does
not require a medium through which to propagate. They actually believe and candidly state that there is
literally nothing out there that is vibrating. They end up doing 'physics' with nothing. They end up moving
nothing and lose no sleep over it.
We have no choice, then, but to make the issue crystal clear again. By 1888, Heinrich Hertz [On an effect
of UV light upon the electric discharge, Annalen der Physik 267 (8), 1887] and his assistant Wilhelm
Hallwachs [On the Influence of light on an electrostatically charged body, Annalen der Physik 269 (2),
1888] discover the Photoelectric Effect. This phenomenon consists in pointing light at a polished metal
surface and inducing an electric current. Einstein would explain the Photoelectric Effect in 1905 as the flow
of particles called 'quanta' which Max Planck had hypothesized just five years earlier.
Those who claim that light does not require a medium must give a PHYSICAL interpretation to this
phenomenon. Are they going to do Physics with nothing? Will they invoke spirits and ghosts to compel
current to flow in the polished metal?
Light had better consist of some kind of entity or we're all crazy!
People who propose the undulation of nothing must start at an even more fundamental level. They must
take an introductory course in Physics. They will learn on the first day of class that Physics absolutely
demands an object. We cannot do Physics without objects. And for those who propose waves, they will learn
that there is no physical object called 'wave'. Wave is not what something is, but what something does. Wave
is what a flag does. There is no waving without the flag! The task of the wave theorist is to identify the object
that is waving before he can proceed to tell his theory. Otherwise, whatever comes out of his mouth is pure
religion, black magic, nonsense. It is divorced from Physics. The same reasoning is extended to electricians
who propose that light IS a vortex. There is no physical object called vortex.
Einstein explains Hertz's Photoelectric Effect
using discrete particles. The particles of light
strike the electrons and compel them to flow.
Einstein won the Nobel Prize in 1921 for
allegedly proving that light consists of
particles. Revisionists who worship Einstein
try to convince you of the opposite: that light
does not require a medium.
There are only two possibilities. Either every atom in the Universe is an isolated entity which sends one-way
particles, waves or wave-packets to all others (Quantum Mechanics) or all atoms are interconnected (Rope
Hypothesis). We propose the latter. Atoms are bound to all others by an extended entity that has the physical
configuration of a rope: two twined threads. You now understand the essence of what the pages in this
module are about.
The structure of light and the atom Quantum jump, ionization, electricity
The neutron, energy, charge The Periodic Table and the CMBR