Light: is it made of this?

[Robonewt]

Let me start by saying I am not a physicist, I am just interested in the theoretical ideas of science. I find it amazing that we still have problems defining light, is it a particle, a wave, both or neither. These thoughts I have presented here just look at it from a different angle. I am also no mathematician and so apologise before hand if my explanations appear very simplistic. Ok with that said, let me begin.

 

Light is always compared to water and sound for its wave properties, but considered as a particle because it can travel across a vacuum. Perhaps we should take the comparison closer instead of further away.

Let me expand……

 

Waves on water are caused by vibration of a physical body within the water, this causes that kinetic energy to be transferred from one particle of water to the next creating a wave that moves along the water.

 

Sound waves follow the same process, only the vibrations are sent through the medium of air rather than water, so each particle of air passes the kinetic energy onto the next transferring the energy along, the wave shape is held by the bonding between the air particles.

 

Now I think that the problem we have when looking at light stem from our trying to view it as a wave and a particle in a single entity, rather than a medium of particles that are carrying a wave, just like water and air.

If you take the photons themselves as the medium of particles, just as water or air is. The wave effect is actually the vibrations of the source travelling through the medium of the light particles. The only difference is that the light particles have a velocity as well.

 

Water, air and even solid matter consist of particles that are held together by a force of attraction. It is this attraction between the particles that holds the body of whatever the medium is together, the stronger the force the more dense the body and the more solid. When one particle moves it affects the particles around it, thus when a vibration moves the first it affects the next which affects the next.

 

Light is no different. When an object emits light it does two things, firstly an energy is released in the form of (for arguments sake) photons. At the same time, the source is vibrating. This motion is passed into each photon as it is emitted. Each photon is bonded to the preceding, following and surrounding photons, this transfers the kinetic energy of the vibration along the path of the photons creating a wave. As the medium is moving outwards the wave is carried along with it.

 

A similar effect would be seen if you were to shoot a hose of water out into space all the while moving the nozzle up and down. The water would travel across the vacuum at the speed it left the hose, and it would also carry the wave of kinetic energy caused by the vibrating movement of the hose.

The wavelength of the wave would relate to the vibration of the object emitting the vibration. For an object to emit white light it must have enough electrons to vibrate at the various rates to produce the various wavelengths.

 

The next bit is just a guess at the mechanics of atoms emitting light.

I think that each of the electrons would be vibrating at a constant rate, but each electron would vibrate at different speeds to the others. As electrons are excited they build in energy speeding up, until a maximum is reached and the friction between them and the nucleus emits electromagnetic energy and the electron drops back to a closer orbit and velocity, starting the cycle again. The wave transmitted on the back of the energy would be relative to the vibration rate of the electron. Because the mass is so small the photons will continue to move in the direction they were first sent at constant speed because there is no force large enough to inhibit them.

 

To summarize, I believe light can travel through the vacuum of space because it consists of particles of electromagnetic energy that are carrying the wave generated by the vibrations of the electrons at source. Its speed is only constant because it encounters nothing in the vacuum to absorb its energy or affect its path, with the exception of extremely high gravitational pulls from masses of extreme size, enough to affect the tiny mass of the electromagnetic energy. A change in speed as the particles entered a new medium would not alter the wavelength, but if the particles have to work against an external gravitational force, some energy would be converted to mass and so the wavelength would change slightly (red shift effect?).

Another way to look at it would be to use water to replicate the effects of a light emitter. Consider a large sphere covered in tiny holes. Take the sphere into space away from any gravitational effect and fill it with water. The water would just stay at rest within the sphere. Now add a water supply that pumps water into the centre of the sphere and start it pumping. The water would be pushed out evenly in every direction at a constant speed, the speed of the water pump. Now loosen the fixtures holding the sphere so that it vibrates. The water would continue to be emitted in every direction at uniform speed, but it would now be carrying a wave, generated by the vibration of the sphere. This wave would be transferred across the vacuum of space until it received sufficient outside force influence to deflect it. I think light and electromagnetic waves are just very efficient versions of this effect. The emitter constantly pumps out electromagnetic particles of various energy levels, all the while vibrating with a frequency generated by the electrons moving around the nucleus.

 

To take this further, if all electromagnetic particles have an equal total mass that is the sum of its energy and physical mass, then the higher the energy the smaller the physical mass, this would allow for higher energies of electromagnetic particles to pass through denser mediums, hence light can pass through water but not flesh, X-Rays can travel through flesh but not bone and Gamma Rays can travel through everything. Denser mediums have smaller holes between particles, so it requires smaller physical mass to pass through the holes.

 

Maybe when poets describe an ocean of light they are closer to the truth than they realise.

[ajb]

Classical light rays are waves in the electromagnetic field. Photons (light particles) are the result of quantising the electromagnetic field. Quantum field theory produces from the classical field localised excitations which we interpret as "light particles". These particle are massless.

 

Maxwell's equation tell us that accelerating charges produce electromagnetic radiation.

 

So, I think the answers you are looking for can be found in any book on classical electromagnetic theory and then supplemented by a book on quantum field theory.

[TriggerGrinn]

In relativity The light, or space-time you observe is seperate from all other frames, and soley constant to you.

[weknowthewor]

Please see here for more details...

[zanduran]

i personally think its a wave with the ability to travel through dark matter wich is every where

[Klaynos]

i personally think its a wave with the ability to travel through dark matter wich is every where

 

Why?

[zanduran]

why not

from my understanding of dark matter it it everywhere and it is mass and therefore a possible medium

[Klaynos]

why not

from my understanding of dark matter it it everywhere and it is mass and therefore a possible medium

 

If it is everywhere then why do we have maps showing that it is infact not everywhere?

 

It has been shown there is no medium that it propagates in.

[zanduran]

well then i guess my prior knowledge of dark matter quite simply sucked can you further explain it

[Klaynos]

Astrophysics is not my area of knowledge, I have just a cursarry knowledge that it is matter than does not interfere with most of the EM radiation we detect but is massive.

 

It is quite possibly made up of WIMPs or axions.

 

For alot more information, including the map see:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

 

zanduran, just to say I respect you for surrendering to evidence so quickly and posting your other thread in the correct place. Well done

[zanduran]

but now i have to recall it to some degree because you used wikipedia for info sorry

[insane_alien]

while wikipedia isn't a technical source by any means, the references are valid. Go look at those and they'll say the same thing.

[Klaynos]

but now i have to recall it to some degree because you used wikipedia for info sorry

 

Please see:

 

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJL/v557n2/015391/015391.text.html?erFrom=2009548686594128144Guest

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v84/i25/p5699_1

 

Or

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#External_links

 

Which has ALOT of references that ARE technical links.

 

If I posted wikipedia for a reference for newtons laws would you still disbelieve me?

[ErlyRisa]

your descirptio is almost poetic in nature.... beautifull....if scientists could explain reality a succintly... more of us higher order beings would understand.

 

you what state is most certainly accurate (with exception of stating that light is made up of electron(but to the avid observer, they would understand what u mean))

 

just something to add...

 

Can you explain what makes the rock in pond affect carry a transverse wave... that could explain even more about light.