The Nobel Motion of Light
In my last post, A Vibrating Polygon of Branes, I presented a way to entangle two toroidal strings of elementary particles of energy into a closed loop of two entangled quasi-polygons, where half of the path of the particles was in an apparently linear path half of the time (when the other entangled polygon was behind) and curved the other half of the time (when the entangled polygon was behind the other polygon). Still at the time of finishing of the post, I thought that light would be a toroidal string (or a brane), but upon further reflection I’ve concluded against it. Light is the exception, where the radius of the entangled helix of helices has a radius of an elementary particle of energy, resulting in it no longer being a true entangled helix of helices, but just an entangled helix of two intertwined linear arrays of particles of energy. This way, there are no other particles along the radius of the helix causing vibrations, limiting the motion of the particles along the helix. The only limitation of motion comes from the other entangled helix. In practice, this means that half the time particles of energy move unreflected along a linear path and half the time they are being reflected from their neighboring helix, producing a curved sum motion.
And this is how the motion of light looks animated:
The first third of the animation shows the helix in y-z projection, masking its forward motion. While it might look natural that the helical turn remains static, despite the helix rotating, this actually took a loot of effort in Blender. I had to sync two rotational motions to accomplish this. Physically this actually means that there is no true rotational motion: just linear motion ending in curved, reflective motion.
The second third of the animation shows the camera turning into a (more or less) sideways view of the motion of the helix. And the final third of the animation should show this sideways motion for long enough for you to see that the circular projection has turned into a sine wave in the x-z projection. Except I have some unexplainable problems with Blender, and the camera isn’t following the track that I’ve made for it, so what you see isn’t really an x-z projection.
And why do I call this post “The Nobel Motion of Light”? And not “Noble Motion of Light”? Well, it’s an obvious pun on how I ranked the importance of this finding. This is the physical explanation of the same phenomenon that won Einstein his only Nobel Prize, the photoelectric effect. While many people (at least non-scientist) might falsely remember his Nobel Prize being for the general theory of relativity, the prize was given out for the physical explanation that light must be carried as quantized packets of energy, photons. And the prize was not given for the special relativity, where Einstein introduced the idea of E = mc², while the exact equation wasn’t used in the paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. So, if I can show this theory makes mathematical sense, will I win the Nobel prize? Well, that doesn’t depend on the mathematics. It depends on the physics. If physics shows that my theory is correct, then yes, I will get a Nobel prize, quite likely. But if physics shows that my theory isn’t correct, then I probably won’t get one, at least for this theory.
So how do I show that the theory is mathematically sound? I convert the above animation to arrays of particles, expressed with motion vectors and experiencing reflections that introduce new motion vectors, I should be able to reproduce the above animation. At least if I’m right.
Probably the starting point must be a small arc of the larger structure, as visible light has wavelength of hundreds of nanometers and the elementary particles of energy are about 28 orders of magnitude smaller (if they are on the order of Planck length). To put this into perspective, an arced string 10 000 particles long would have an angle of 0.0000000000000000000036 degrees (I was initially worried whether this would have an effect of the calculations in Excel, but I think I’m still in the safe zone).
Even though I’m quite excited already about what I have come up with thus far, I will have to hold my horses until I have confirmed it with a vector model. But if I can replicate the animation with the vector model, then my excitement level shoots through the roof, as it becomes peer-reviewable.
Whatever I find next, I’m sure to keep you informed.
Comments