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:

    a. energy
    b. nothing
    c. waves
    d. wave-packets
    e. vortex

    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
    didn't understand.

    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.
Bill Gaede
The Rope Hypothesis
Quantum Mechanics

discrete, isolated particles
The Rope Hypothesis

interconnected atoms

    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

    So what is a notion, idea or construct if not a synonym of concept?
    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
    the questions:

    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


Mathematical Physics      
The Rope Hypothesis    

Nila and Bill      
Ye Olde You Stupid Relativist

Bill's papers  or find them @  Academia
To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:

Rational Science