Physics is done with objects

    If we concede that light is mediated by some kind of object, we have to determine the physical configuration
    that can simulate the properties of light. How do we go about determining what light looks like if we need to
    use light to see what light looks like?

    Actually, in Science it is quite easy. In Science, we use our brains rather than our eyes. Even blind men can
    be physicists. Even blind men can visualize an object. We don't need to see a star at the other side of the
    Universe to imagine what it would look like. Certainly, Stephen Hawking has never seen a black hole or dark
    matter and yet these alleged objects are routine hypotheses of contemporary Mathematical Physics. And
    despite that no one has seen a muon or the Higgs -- two important particles of Quantum Mechanics -- the
    mathematicians nevertheless draw them to illustrate their theories. The point is that if the proponent alleges
    that light is an object, he should be able to draw it. The reason for this is that an object has shape. A concept
    doesn't.

    In other words, we are not interested in the instant discussion to determine what light looks like in reality. We
    are saying that if the proponent is going to simulate light with objects such as particles, he has no choice but
    to begin his presentation by pointing to an illustration of his hypothesis. In fact, it is quite easy to illustrate a
    ray of light comprised of particles and it has been done many times. It would look something like this...
The abstract EM wave
The physical Electromagnetic Rope
    The Particle Hypothesis fails the Checklist of Light

    There is nothing wrong with this except that particles are incompatible with the Checklist of Light. The
    proposal that light consists of a stream of particles meets few if any of the items on the checklist. Particles
    barely pass a couple of them and then only with a lot of help.

    For instance, 3D particles qualify as objects. We can use them to simulate the Photoelectric Effect. Likewise,
    we can postulate that these particles are generated by the atom and spitted out. This is consistent with what
    Quantum proposes: light originates in the atom. So far, so good.

    However, light also has well-defined wave properties and behaviors as exhibited in experiments such as the
    double slit and polarization. These wave behaviors cannot be ignored. The proponent cannot wish them away.
    And he certainly won't be able to explain these wave-like properties with particles rationally. He can at best
    try to persuade you to believe in his magical theory. He will attempt to convince you that that's how weird our
    Universe is.

    The proponent of particles can also postulate that the particles travel at the speed of light (300,000 km/sec).
    He will not be able to tell you the cause, the physical mechanism that makes wavelength inversely proportional
    to frequency (c = ƒ λ, where c is the speed of light: 300,000 km/sec). Why does frequency rise when
    wavelength shortens and vice versa? Why can't we increase both the frequency AND the wavelength and have
    the wave or particle travel faster than light in a vacuum? What would prevent this short of a magic wand? What
    physical impediment is there?

    To make matters worse, the mechanics regard their 'photons' to be elementary 'particles'. In other words, the
    photon is a dimensionless and massless 'entity'. The mechanics purport to do 'physics' with nothing! They do
    'physics' with spirits and ghosts. The infamous particle would qualify as a genuine entity if it were 3D. Physics
    does not recognize objects which are 0D. Those belong exclusively at the Loony Asylum. Therefore, the 0D
    elementary, point particle of Mathemagix is a non-starter in Science. It does not even qualify as a candidate
    for serious consideration by the Checklist of Light. The only way to present an object in Science is to illustrate
    it. That's the only and objective 'proof'. A 0D whatever cannot be imagined, visualized or illustrated. We're done!
.
.

    To summarize, even if the so-called 'particles' proposed by the religion of Quantum Mechanics were 3D, they
    cannot simulate ANY wave property! Particles are incompatible with orthogonality, Faraday and Maxwell Laws,
    frequency, wavelength, and amplitude. None of these features of waves can be reconciled with particles.
A zero-dimensional 'particle' is NOT an
object or body for the purposes of Physics
This is NOT a particle
According to the establishment, experiments have shown that light travels through
the vacuum at 300,000 km/s. If Special Relativity has any merit, this speed is not
only a constant, but the maximum limit of the Universe. Otherwise, the skeptic is
debunking Special Relativity and cannot continue praising Einstein.
The wave equation synthesizes the relation
between frequency and wavelength. When the
frequency increases, the wavelength contracts
and vice versa. What physical obstacle would
cause particles to obey this rule? Why can't
we increase both the frequency AND the
wavelength and travel faster than c?
    The Rope Model of Light

    There is, on the other hand, an entity that meets all the criteria on the list. It looks like a strand of DNA. It has
    the shape of a braided two-thread rope. Whereas the infamous 'wave' of Mathematics is a concept, the rope
    is an object. And whereas the wave waves up and down, two-dimensionally, the rope torques three-dimensionally.
The electromagnetic rope passes the Checklist of Light with flying colors.
b. The mathematical wave is allegedly emitted by an atom. The rope binds any two atoms. The proposal is that
all atoms in the Universe are interconnected.

c. We cannot point to a stationary wave. We would see an abstraction (illustrated as tiny arrows at left). The
mathematical wave is already in motion. The mathematician has to identify what it is that is moving. In contrast,
we can point to a rope before it torques.

Go to the hardware store today. Ask for a rope. See what they sell you. Now ask them for a wave. Bring to
the conference what they sold you.

    The equation c = ƒ λ is the equation of a rope. There is no other entity that can simulate this equation as
    applied to light. When we increase the lengths of the links of the rope (wavelength), the number of links we
    can fit for a given length of rope decreases and vice versa.
    As a bonus the simple, symmetric rope explains gravity.
How the rope model explains the slit experiment
If a wave is made of particles,
what pushes or pulls each
particle up and down? Why
does the particle remain faithful
to the axis?
a. Wave is what an object does. There is no
physical object called 'wave' For the purposes
of Physics, wave is strictly a verb.
The differences between a wave and a rope
What is light?
Presenting a rational
model of light
Penrose's squiggly
wavepacket
    Nevertheless, a series of particles expelled by a rotating atom in our spinning Sun would necessarily travel
    like the drops gushing out of a water sprinkler. The particles would never travel in a straight line as light clearly
    does. The corpuscles would not even oscillate up and down along an axis to simulate a wave. What would
    compel them to go up? What would compel them to go down? Is the proponent going to invoke magic?
Discrete particles emanating
from spinning and rotating
atoms in the Sun would travel
in curves like water droplets
coming out of a rotating water
sprinkler. Light does not behave
that way. Light travels 'straight'!
The Particle Hypothesis of
Quantum Mechanics does not
pass the Checklist of Light.
Specifically, it has no way of
simulating the wave behaviors
of light.
How the rope model explains entanglement
Introduction to the Rope Hypothesis

Home      

Nila and Bill      

Extinction       

Mathematical Physics      
Rope Hypothesis    
Ye Olde You Stupid Relativist
To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:

Rational Scientific Method   

The Rope Hypothesis   


Physics papers

or @

Academia