What Is Light?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

b. Electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength.

Originally posted by IntegratedInstigator
These dictionaries are going to be defining light as per the current modern understanding of it. Mr Gaedes theory is a new attempt at describing light differently.

I don’t see him changing the definition of light as the entire EM spectrum. I see him simply challenging the accepted models of a particle, wave, or wave-packet and offering the new model of a rope that permanently binds any two atoms in the Universe.

You’re saying he’s actually changing the definition of “EM radiation of any wavelength”?

Originally posted by Mactire
One of the experiments was; they aimed sound waves at a wall and then placed a sheet of glass between the wall and the sound source with holes in it. In a nutshell: While filming and viewing the experiment, the soundwaves did as expected and went through all the holes, bounced around, and some of them made it back through to the sound source. When the experiment wasn't being filmed or watched, the sound patterns and their returns behaved in a completely different way.

How do they know that if nobody filmed or watched it?
Or do they mean sensors and things other than filming don't count as observation.
Ah HUH!!! CAUGHT YA!

These particles are pretty sneaky when no one is around, but how the hell do they know that?
Without looking?

reply to post by Mary Rose


that s a some kind of a constant in it - Thrust .. en.wikipedia.org...
upload.wikimedia.org...



or a N-AV-A as No 9 sk. a boat too hen a prophet
so narayanas shes-a en.wikipedia.org...
1 mirrors 9 in sk sanskrit.farfromreal.com...
to hear its just - 6 - shas - as water power ..tides of aether ..or the quarters bible.cc...
of timespace ien.wikipedia.org...
or .. really a kaw en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
upload.wikimedia.org...
so there its a new land builder force joehohk.0fees.net...
for en.wikipedia.org...
ultimate phisical atom smphillips.8m.com...
as a real golden cow - kamadanu became a problem artifact later on en.wikipedia.org...
yey

ETA just in case I missed the point, in my original post you asked about, I didnt mean that he was redefining light. In fact I meant that you wont find anything about his new theory in any dictionaries or text books, that was all. Im still half asleep

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose

b. Electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength.

Originally posted by IntegratedInstigator
These dictionaries are going to be defining light as per the current modern understanding of it. Mr Gaedes theory is a new attempt at describing light differently.

I don’t see him changing the definition of light as the entire EM spectrum. I see him simply challenging the accepted models of a particle, wave, or wave-packet and offering the new model of a rope that permanently binds any two atoms in the Universe.

reply to post by Mary Rose

 

I can see where you are coming from, no he is not changing the definition of light as a whole. He is offering a new model to replace the old one, by which we understand the nature of light. Maybe my above quoted statement might have been better said "Mr Gaedes theory is a new attempt at describing the nature of light differently.

Essentially he is saying that light is not a transverse wave or a particle as its currently accepted.

You’re saying he’s actually changing the definition of “EM radiation of any wavelength”?

'of any wavelength' seems to be a given for me since light operates by the same mechanisms regardless of whether its visible light, infrared light, microwave energy, gamma ray energy. It all operates by the same mechanisms. Mr Gaedes is merely offering a new mechanism by which all light operates.

From my understanding, the songs I listen to on the radio are sent to me via photons (electromagnetic waves, radio waves, propogated via photons). The computer screen I am reading is emitting electromagnetic waves, visible light, propogated via photons. When I go to the doctor and get an xray, he beams photons through my body, but the bone is too dense to allow them to pass. This is also electromagnetic energy, propogated via photons.

The same phenomena that allows you to listen to the radio allows you to see a computer screen, or cook your food in the microwave, or get xrays at the doctors, or use night vision infrared thermal imaging goggles.

The point I am trying to get at is that If he changes the mechanism by which one of them operates, he much change the mechanism for all.

Originally posted by IntegratedInstigator
Essentially he is saying that light is not a transverse wave or a particle as its currently accepted.

Also, the “wave-packet,” correct? There are three models at present, and his would be a fourth?

Also, to clarify, the entire EM spectrum is what we call “light” in this context, and it consists of:

1. radio wave
   
2. microwave
   
3. infrared
   
4. visible region
   
5. ultraviolet
   
6. x-ray
   
7. gamma ray
   

Correct?

I'm thinking maybe it would be better to use the term "EM radiation" when discussing Mr. Gaede's theory.

(I'm also not sure he means the whole spectrum.)

(I'm reading his book Why God Doesn't Exist at present, and have not read Chapter Four yet.)

reply to post by Toadmund


That's the sort of unknowable theory that science often has to contend with. Kind of like how gravity works. We can feel its effects, and have multiple theories on how it works, but until these ideas can be replicated in a lab, they will remain theories.
If you want a better explanation of the experiment I suggest watching the doc. They're better at layman's than I am.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Haha yes, wave-packet can be considered a third but they are essentially just one theory. Wave-Packet or wave-particle duality is just the mixture of the two stating that photons behave both as waves and particles. What Mr Gaedes wants to do is throw away wave particle duality all together (and by association the wave like properties and the particle like properties of light) and instead explain the phenomenon in terms of a tiny tight rope connecting every particle in the universe.

Yes those are the different categorized levels of electromagnetic radiation as I am aware of them off hand.

I agree it is confusing to talk about the phenomenon as light in this context. I guess I was just trying to reiterate the point that everything from radio waves up to gamma rays are the same phenomenon, electromagnetic radiation. This includes the visible light spectrum which makes up only a very tiny sliver of the entire spectrum.

Again, when you change the laws of one of the 'levels' of EM radiation (which is just a frequency), you must change them all I am assuming. This is why I think that by him offering a new theory for how light works, by extension it must apply to how all frequencies of light behave, light being a form of electromagnetic radiation this includes radio waves, visible light, and gamma ray radiation.

I could be completely off base here, but mentally trying to apply his new model to all levels of EM radiation, I dont see why his theory wouldnt be capable of applying to things like radio waves, microwaves, xrays, visible light, etc...

We are Light. Its consciousness/soul even thought. And from Light the energy of all that is used in the schools, the condensed energy streams that construct the feeling solid hologram around us, streams. The input systems and projectors are the stars, and the Family shine through coding everything, watching over, and the Guides.

One day we will take their place, as the bump forward occurs, the roll of metaphorical film of our infinite lives advances.

When They come,when the earth and our universe is lifted up and transformed, the Light will make the sun appear as a matchstick, our eyes won't see this, but our souls, if we can raise our Lovelight higher will be able to stand in Their presence, light as a feather, guilt free, in love with all souls, and wishing not only no harm,and equality, but the personal happiness of all.

Thats the age I beleive we're in now, the transformation.

Of course then begs the question, what is gravity. The gravity of guilt. The black holes and dwarf stars, the dark squares in the duality tiles that make up everything. And is the job not to overcome this? Why do angels have wings in every picture? Why did Yeshua walk on water? Why do some gurus levitate? Light as feather, a separation of elements, overcoming the gravity of guilt and harm.

For the Light here in the school has an opposite, not in the Beyond, a temporal shadow, something darker than dark and colder than light and gravity based.

We need to see with eyes of Love and Light.

reply to post by IntegratedInstigator


Another thing I've thought about is that he doesn't mention longitudinal waves. From Wikipedia:

Maxwell's equations lead to the prediction of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum, which are transverse (in that the electric fields and magnetic fields vary perpendicularly to the direction of propagation).[2] However, waves can exist in plasma or confined spaces. These are called plasma waves and can be longitudinal, transverse, or a mixture of both.[2][3] Plasma waves can also occur in force-free magnetic fields.

And what about scalar waves?

What I call “scalar waves” are pure longitudinal EM waves (LW).

SCALAR WAVES

. . . So EM theory is thoroughly and seriously flawed, from the ground up. . . .

Originally posted by Mary Rose
1. Mathematical physicists use particles, waves, and wave-packets (photon) to model light despite that everyone knows them to be incorrect. The wave and the wave-packet are invalid scientific hypotheses. The particle is a valid model, but experiment and observation have debunked it countless times.

2. Classical and quantum waves and particles cannot explain a single significant static or dynamic property of light. Only a rope-like configuration can simultaneously generate push and pull and simulate most if not all observations.

3. Mathematical physicists routinely use the planetary model of the atom despite that everyone knows it to be incorrect. The wave, wave-packet, and probability-cloud models of the electron don’t qualify as scientific exhibits.

4. The electron is a balloon-like entity that envelopes the hydrogen atom and is made from threads converging on it from every atom in the universe. This model accounts for the observed properties of the atom.

5. The proton and the neutron are not discrete particles. They are convergence points respectively of threads and ropes that interconnect these entities with every atom in the universe. The role of the neutron is not to keep protons apart as alleged by the mechanics. The neutron is simply a necessary byproduct of ropes crisscrossing the Universe.

Here is part of the description of a YouTube video on the subject:
] In short.. Electron filmed for the first time

and in somewhat longer version www.youtube.com...


also here ..again in this time loop... is >> Part1 of the filmed animated explication of How the Eye Functions (1941)

Uploaded by Anatomicplanet on May 21, 2008
Beautifully animated explication of human eye and eyesight.
www.youtube.com...


as the mirrors of the soul-lights
......................................eyes of off .... and... solarsystem.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by IntegratedInstigator

 

Another thing I've thought about is that he doesn't mention longitudinal waves. From Wikipedia:

Maxwell's equations lead to the prediction of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum, which are transverse (in that the electric fields and magnetic fields vary perpendicularly to the direction of propagation).[2] However, waves can exist in plasma or confined spaces. These are called plasma waves and can be longitudinal, transverse, or a mixture of both.[2][3] Plasma waves can also occur in force-free magnetic fields.

I am not familiar enough with plasma physics or high energy physics to discuss extending his theory into that realm, haha. I am having a hard enough time connecting it all with the theories I am most familiar. Before we discuss plasma waves we should understand plasma, the energy levels are so high that the various constituents which make up atoms are seperated from each other and form a sort of electron soup (among other particles). Wikipedia describes it as an electrically conductive fluid. I assume this is due to the electrons and other subatomic particles being able to free float around?

Waves in plasmas are an interconnected set of particles and fields which propagates in a periodically repeating fashion. A plasma is a quasineutral, electrically conductive fluid. In the simplest case, it is composed of electrons and a single species of positive ions, but it may also contain multiple ion species including negative ions as well as neutral particles. Due to its electrical conductivity, a plasma couples to electric and magnetic fields. This complex of particles and fields supports a wide variety of waves.

ETA: Bold is my emphasis. So what it sounds like is that he should still be saying that they are not in fact particles or fields. I suppose I would assume we have to replace these particles and fields(waves) with tight threads interacting to form particles as in the lower energy cases???

And what about scalar waves?

What I call “scalar waves” are pure longitudinal EM waves (LW).

SCALAR WAVES

. . . So EM theory is thoroughly and seriously flawed, from the ground up. . . .

I cant even begin to understand the link you provided, and a quick search for EM scalar waves didnt bring up much either. My brain is already getting fried from the 'simple' cases, haha, I will bookmark the link you provided and take another shot at it tonight.

I would be among the first to say that something is seriously flawed. But that is because the best we can do is take what we see, and try to describe it in terms we can understand. When your understanding is flawed from square one, it inevitably leads to all sorts of extreme cases that require round about explanations.

Originally posted by nii900
and in somewhat longer version www.youtube.com...

I looked up the description of that one and it referenced the Live Science website. Here is the article about it, dated 24 February 2008:

Electron Filmed for First Time

Scientists have filmed an electron in motion for the first time, using a new technique that will allow researchers to study the tiny particle's movements directly.

Previously it was impossible to photograph electrons because of their extreme speediness, so scientists had to rely on more indirect methods. These methods could only measure the effect of an electron's movement, whereas the new technique can capture the entire event.

Extremely short flashes of light are necessary to capture an electron in motion. A technology developed within the last few years can generate short pulses of intense laser light, called attosecond pulses, to get the job done.

"It takes about 150 attoseconds for an electron to circle the nucleus of an atom. An attosecond is 10^-18 seconds long, or, expressed in another way: an attosecond is related to a second as a second is related to the age of the universe," said Johan Mauritsson of Lund University in Sweden.

Using another laser, scientists can guide the motion of the electron to capture a collision between an electron and an atom on film.

The length of the film Mauritsson and his colleagues made corresponds to a single oscillation of a wave of light . The speed of the event has been slowed down for human eyes. The results are detailed in the latest issue of the journal Physical Review Letters.

Mauritsson says the technique could also be used to study what happens in an atom when an electron leaves its shell.

Originally posted by IntegratedInstigator
When your understanding is flawed from square one, it inevitably leads to all sorts of extreme cases that require round about explanations.

Amen.

Interesting theory.

The theory "nothing is faster than the speed of light" is false. Light is pushed from a star via emissions.

If we can avoid light we can travel faster in space than light. Light is a friction in space travel slowing you down.
How do you bend light away from you? Magnetic field. Then you'd travel faster than light avoiding the friction.

Our perception of distance in space is solely based upon our simple eyes and calculating the friction emitted from stars we see as visible light. If we avoid it with the correct magnetic field maybe distances aren't so far?

Mr. Gaede's theory is published in What Is the Electron?, a compilation of essays published in January, 2005 by Apeiron. This is from the Editor's Preface:

The electron is the first elementary particle, from both the physical and the historical point of view. It is the door to the microworld, to the physics of elementary particles and phenomena. This book is about electron models.

The year 1997 marked the centenary of the discovery of the electron as a particle by J.J. Thomson. We have already passed the centenary of Planck’s great discovery and the beginning of quantum physics; 2001 marked the 75th anniversary of Schrödinger’s equation and the beginning of quantum mechanics, while the year 2003 was the 75th anniversary of the Dirac equation and Dirac’s model of the electron.

Today the most widely used theoretical approaches to the physics of the electron and atom are quantum mechanical and field theoretical models based on the non-relativistic Schrödinger and the relativistic Dirac equations and their probabilistic interpretation. This is the basis of modern quantum field theory. More than 75 years is a long time for a physical theory! This theory is the basis for all contemporary calculations of physical phenomena.

After 75 years most physical theories tend to be supplanted by new theories, or to be modified. The theory’s successes, as well as its difficulties, are now evident to specialists. There is no proof of the uniqueness of the quantum field theory approach to the model of the electron and atom. Are other approaches possible? Quantum field theory may be sufficient to describe the electron, but is it necessary? This theory and its mathematics are very complicated; can we now propose a simpler construction? Is the electron an extended structure, a compound object made up of sub-particles, or is it a point-like elementary particle, which does not consist of any sub-particles? What is the limit of application of modern classical physics (based either on the corpuscular or wave model) in the description of the electron? These and many other questions remain without definitive answers, while experiments on quantum entanglement have given rise to new discussion and debate. New high-precision experimental data, e.g., on the electric and magnetic dipole moments of the electron, may prove decisive.

This book, What is the electron?, brings together papers by a number of authors. The main purpose of the book is to present original papers containing new ideas about the electron. What is the electron? presents different points of view on the electron, both within the framework of quantum theory and from competing approaches. Original modern models and hypotheses, based on new principles, are well represented. A comparison of different viewpoints (sometimes orthogonal) will aid further development of the physics of the electron.

More than ten different models of the electron are presented here. More than twenty models are discussed briefly. Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.

It must be stressed that the vast majority of the authors do not appeal to quantum field theory, quantum mechanics or the probabilistic Copenhagen interpretation. The approaches adopted by these authors consist in using “lighter” mathematics and a “lighter” interpretation than in quantum theory. Some of them are sound approaches from the methodological point of view.

The editor will not presume to judge the models or the authors. We will not venture to say which model is better, and why. The reasons are simple. (i) Readers can reach their own conclusions themselves. (ii) Investigation of the electron is by no means finished. (iii) My own point of view is presented in my contribution to the book. So I want my paper to be on an equal footing with other new models of the electron presented here.

The general analysis of the electron models presented here shows that they can be classified as follows: corpuscular and wave, classical and quantum, point and extended, structureless and with structure. The reader can compare and ponder all these approaches! I would like to thank the authors for their contributions.

It is my hope that this volume will prove worthwhile for readers, and encourage them to pursue further investigation of electron models.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here is the beginning of Chapter Four of his e-book Why God Doesn't Exist ("God" here being Mathematical Physics) published by ViNi, 4th Edition copyright 2009:

4. The electron is a balloon-like entity that envelopes the hydrogen atom and is made from threads converging on it from every atom in the universe. This model accounts for the observed properties of the atom.

Since the Scientific Revolution started 400 years ago, the mathematicians have considered only two physical configurations to model the behavior of light: waves and particles. Here we present a new hypothesis. Light consists neither of particles nor of transverse waves. Light is a rope that permanently binds any two atoms in the Universe.

edit on 05/22/11 by Mary Rose because: Correction

edit on 05/22/11 by Mary Rose because: Spelling

Okay, what is this guy smoking?
Electrons are sub-atomic particles. They are smaller than neutrons and smaller than protons (both of which are made up of these things called quarks, one of which is the electron). There is no way that an electron- one of the fundamental building blocks of the universe- could swallow up an atom. If this could happen, then why has the phenomenon not been observed or predicted in any (sane) theory?
Oh, and for that bit about how the universe is only measured in waves and particles, ropes are not new. STRING THEORY. Look it up.

Peace,
SeraphNB

Originally posted by seraphnb
Electrons are sub-atomic particles. They are smaller than neutrons and smaller than protons (both of which are made up of these things called quarks, one of which is the electron).

Are you saying the electron is a quark?

Regarding string theory, Mr. Gaede says this in his book:

In Chapter Five, I touch upon String Theory (ST), which does not warrant detailed analysis since it is simply higher level nonsense founded upon traditional relativity and quantum. The arguments I use against GR and QM can just as well be extended to ST.

The dude has quite a hefty criminal record en.wikipedia.org...

His ideas of light are interesting but they need to refined. And besides, light can travel faster - Look up Cherenkov Radiation.
I believe the reason why we have a speed limit is because thats how they built all their maths around to satisfy equations. It would be a nightmare to find out that lights speed can really be broken as then all the laws of physics would crumble.
Yet I don't know why they overlook it - matter apparently just pops out of nothing in the Quantum level and scientists really don't want to venture that area as its like forbidden fruit.

reply to post by seraphnb


Unfortunately, string theory is a dead end - thats what I believe anyways. I just think having 11 dimensions is just...Weird and necessarily complicated.

Until or unless the Graviton is detected experimentally - I don't really think a Grand Unified theory can be found - OR - A Grand Unified Theory has already been found but scientists can't see that they've found it. Its like trying to find the remote to turn on the TV if you place it here and there.

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
The dude has quite a hefty criminal record

Let's keep this discussion on-topic.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Didn't mean no disrespect. Just thought his criminal record might be the reason why some people aren't taking him seriously.