Stop the press, once again! I’ve made a striking realization about the nature of light. In my quest to explain the Theory of Everything through the reflection of elementary particles of energy (kau particles, instead of the old name of dots), I have just realized that I’ve been quite wrong about the nature of light.
The error is about the movement of light in any media with a refractive index. While light moving in vacuum is a circular array of kaus moving in a parallel path, as I’ve thought for nearly three years, I’ve been badly wrong about the interaction of light with matter.
In the Theory of Everything -manuscript that was ultimately desk-rejected for not being valid, I stated that light is a helix of kaus (or dots, as I called them in the paper). I continued to claim that their movement was governed by refraction from the interaction with matter. The paper claimed that the kaus/dots would move in a helical trajectory, without explaining any mechanism for what would cause this helical movement. While I had certain doubts, I was certain that the twisting of a ring of kaus/dots into a helix would explain the propagation of light through matter.
Except, probably the reviewers knew that the premise was off. If the reviewers knew more physics than me, they probably knew that the proposed model didn’t make sense. But that’s the good thing about not having any preconceived ideas of what is or isn’t possible. That is, the idea of a helix of light was wrong, but it wasn’t that wrong.
So, what was wrong with the helical model? Well, knowing that the only fundamental interaction is the reflection of kaus with each other and the movement between reflections is a straight line. This means that if you cut the helical movement of the dots into infinitesimally small linear segments, you get a vector with a linear component, shared with all the other kaus, and a perpendicular component, more or less unique to each dot in the ‘almost helix’. But if the helix only follows this logic in the first, infinitesimally small step, what happens in the next step? The kau doesn’t continue reflecting along the same direction, as there is no mechanism explaining that, but the reflection reverses the perpendicular component.
This means that the shape of light that I once thought would be a helix is a zigzag of infinitesimally small steps with opposite handedness between the steps. This retains the diameter of the original helix but compacts its length to almost a single kau. I call this structure a helizag, because I think it sound both descriptive and fun.
And for the first time, the shape of light makes sense. The wave-particle duality -vagueness wasn’t very convincing, although it made experimental sense. And my original helix was a decent simplification of the idea, but it didn’t really make sense upon closer inspection. But I’m close to 100 % sure light is a helizag.
If you have any reason why my hypothesis couldn’t be correct, let me know. I’ll promise to listen.
Comments