Waving light lattice: Another reformist fail

PSI Blog 20210621 Waving light lattice: Another reformist fail


This week’s book prize goes, once again, to George Coyne, our most prolific questioner:


“Hi Glenn,


What do you think of this explanation from Laszlo Petruska regarding the question "if light is a wave, what is waving? 


He answers: 'In the 1950’s QFT introduced another model. The fundamental electromagnetic field permeates space everywhere, not just between objects, but all the way down to the subatomic domains of matter. According to one interpretation, the fundamental electromagnetic field is the three-dimensional lattice structure of its quanta, the photons.

Electromagnetic energy/radiation propagates in this field as the up and down oscillation of the field values in a wave pattern as the photons of the field transfer the electromagnetic energy to one another in the direction of propagation.

As far as the wave-particle duality of light: the photons of the field act like particles, but the field values change like a wave. That’s it.’”


[GB: Thanks George. This is a good example of what I like to call a “reformist fail.” What are the criteria for such? Firstly, the theoretician must include some part of regressive physics or cosmogony that clearly violates at least one of “The Ten Assumptions of Science.” Secondly, it must be an honest attempt to resolve at least one of the numerous contradictions engendered by relativity. Here, Petruska is trying to resolve the wave-particle paradox by accepting Einstein’s ad hoc that light consists of photons. As I have mentioned many times, photons do not and cannot exist. According to relativity, photons are massless “particles” containing nothing and traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space containing nothing. In other words, they are purely imaginary.


In his answer to “what is waving,” Petruska cites the 3-D lattice structure idea, which has been around for some time. That is a typical reformist attempt to resolve the T-wave problem while rejecting the wave-particle paradox. Of course, waves only occur in media and T-waves (transverse waves, i.e., waves that move up and down and side to side instead of back and forth like L-waves) mostly occur in solids (and at the surface of the ocean). Light clearly occurs as a T-wave, with polarization being the evidence for that. Media having high degrees of freedom (limited or no connections between microcosms) normally have L-waves, while those media with inter-particle connections can have T-waves.


The particles in gases (such as the atmosphere) have much freedom and tend to be roundish, and so they exhibit L-waves; the particles in solids (such as steel) have restricted freedom, and so they exhibit T-waves. Now, aether, the medium for light, generally has been modeled after the atmosphere as a gas filled with round particles. So how could it have T-waves? Some reformists have suggested aether actually is a solid. That doesn’t make much sense because the vacuum supposedly containing the ubiquitous aether is transparent and offers little resistance to movement unlike any solid we know of. The proposed lattice structure is an attempt to give solidity to the light medium in support of the T-wave evidence. Others have tried that with aether particles taking the place of the photons in the figure. Why photons or aether particles would form a lattice like this is not explained. Petruska emphasizes the up and down movement typical of T-waves, but does not explain why his lattice also could not have back and forth movement typical of L-waves. Light has few L-waves, so that falsifies his lattice theory.


As readers know, my speculation resolves the T-wave problem by suggesting aether particles are tiny vortices.[1] Unlike photons, which supposedly travel from galaxy to eyeball, these are ubiquitous and constantly in motion similar to the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in air. But because of their odd shape, few of their interactions would be like those of ideal gases, which contain ideal spherical particles whose collisions produce longitudinal motion.]





[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].





No comments: