Is there more to light than meets the eye ?

[purintjp]

I am a layman when it comes deep scientific theory but I have a keen interest in Astronomy and especially Cosmology

and have learned much over my 62 years.

I was hoping someone might be able to comment or answer questions on my observations.

 

First question ......

 

With all the latest theories pointing to seemingly outlandish ideas about the nature of our Universe, i.e.

The Big Bang, Black hole singularities, String theory (requiring upwards of 12 dimensions), Dark Energy,

Dark Matter etc. etc. etc. I can't help but wonder it there is a fundamental problem with one of our thousands

of accepted physical laws. Since many of these theories are founded on layers of Mathmatical equations it

would seem like a giant house of cards needing only one mistake to topple it. Using the principle of Occam's

razor I would expect a far more simple explanation for what is wrong or missing. I wonder what you think.

 

Some further observations and questions .........

 

I have given much thought to one of our assumptions concerning light itself and have come up with what I believe to be one possible explanation for

a novel solution to gravity effects.

 

I think we underestimate the effect light has on our Universe.

It is generally accepted that there is only a handful of mass particles

in a given outer space volume, however, using a thought problem (ala Einstein) I imagine an abitrary volume in deep space,

for simplicity's sake, of say a sphere with the diameter of the distance a light photon travels in just one second (about from here to the moon).

I then imagine that I can take a simultaneous observation from all points within that sphere to some arbitrary star or galaxy.

 

The amazing thing is that all those observations would indicate that a light photon from that distant object is penetrating that volume completely at all locations. This would indicate a staggering amount of light within the

observed volume.

Add up all the visible light sources in the Universe and it would seem that light utterly permeates the Cosmos no matter where that volume is located.

In other words, we are just too small to visualize and grasp the significance

since we can only be at one place at a time and can only see light coming

straight at us.

If we could stand back from the cosmos and view it from outside it would probably be a solid mass of light.

 

So what ! , you say. According to Einstein's theory of Relativity text (see reference) the gravitational mass of a

body is equal to it's inertial mass. Light is deemed to have no 'rest mass' but it does have 'inertial mass'. If that is

the case then, given the sheer size of cosmos volume, the light it contains must surely have a gravitational effect over great

distances giving rise to many questions. In fact, the greater the local light amplitude and volume the greater the gravitational effects ought to be.

 

I suspect that neutrinos are somehow also involved in this since neutrinos can go where light can't.

 

Does "empty" or "0" exist or is it just a tool to balance equations ?

 

Could this be a possible explanation for some of the unknown forces in our Universe ?

 

Is the Universe, in fact, based on light as the ultimate smallest unit ?

 

Could this be the 'cosmological constant' ?

 

An off topic question - I have a real problem with singularities. Can we be

absolutely certain that the same effects we observe could not be caused by

an extremely dense and small object as with a singularity ? If we can't see

it how can we be so sure ?

 

(Reference 'Relativity' by Albert Einstein published by Pi Press in 2005. See pages 84 and 85. This is a translated

version)

 

 

Hope you find these thoughts stimulating.

 

Yours,

 

John P. Purinton

22672 Shady Grove Circle

Lake Forest, CA 92630

 

purintjp@cox.net

[Daecon]

With all the latest theories pointing to seemingly outlandish ideas about the nature of our Universe, i.e.

The Big Bang, Black hole singularities, String theory (requiring upwards of 12 dimensions), Dark Energy,

Dark Matter etc. etc. etc. I can't help but wonder it there is a fundamental problem with one of our thousands

of accepted physical laws. Since many of these theories are founded on layers of Mathmatical equations it

would seem like a giant house of cards needing only one mistake to topple it. Using the principle of Occam's

razor I would expect a far more simple explanation for what is wrong or missing. I wonder what you think.

Could it be possible that you're over-estimating the quantities of things? I don't think there are thousands of physical laws as much as there are a few general laws that can explain multiple phenomena.

 

Also, I suspect that all these theoretical and mathematical constructs to explain the nature of the Universe have shown to be self-consistent, and consistent with observed results around them, otherwise these ideas would have already been rejected. Occam's Razor I think is the principle of "not making crap up" as opposed to "simple is better". Some things are just naturally complex.

 

The amazing thing is that all those observations would indicate that a light photon from that distant object is penetrating that volume completely at all locations. This would indicate a staggering amount of light within the

observed volume.

Add up all the visible light sources in the Universe and it would seem that light utterly permeates the Cosmos no matter where that volume is located.

In other words, we are just too small to visualize and grasp the significance

since we can only be at one place at a time and can only see light coming

straight at us.

If we could stand back from the cosmos and view it from outside it would probably be a solid mass of light.

 

So what ! , you say. According to Einstein's theory of Relativity text (see reference) the gravitational mass of a

body is equal to it's inertial mass. Light is deemed to have no 'rest mass' but it does have 'inertial mass'. If that is

the case then, given the sheer size of cosmos volume, the light it contains must surely have a gravitational effect over great

distances giving rise to many questions. In fact, the greater the local light amplitude and volume the greater the gravitational effects ought to be.

So light's inertial mass could be our undiscovered "dark matter"? That's an interesting idea, however I don't know enough to comment on it.

[moth]

wouldn't the inertial mass of the light coming from a star be less than the mass lost from the star due to the conversion of matter to energy and not enough by far to be dark matter/energy?

[purintjp]

Reply to Transdecimal

 

I suppose I could be overstating the number of physical laws.

After surfing through many scientific searches on the web I came to

the conclusion that many of these laws are hotly debated as to accuracy.

It just seems that we really don't know enough about things that are so

far away to set hard and fast rules. I suspect that any one theory of

cosmology is probably not right but may contain some valid ideas.

History is replete with discredited theories.

 

I don't believe that light could be dark matter but it could have something

to do with dark energy since it would most decidedly be a repulsive force.

 

Reply to Moth

 

The light that I am talking about has been propagating for 14 billion years.

Remember that high mass stars have a fraction of the life span of stars

like our sun so they have been created and reborn many times over releasing

vast amounts of light throughout the cosmos.

 

In any case, how can you refute the obvious evidence ?

 

It may even be that light is the force and not matter that is expanding

the universe. Light has to get to the cosmos limits faster than matter.

 

Given that light is coming from all directions in my hypothetical sphere I

guess that is would be inertial mass neutral where all stars and galaxies

look like points of light.

It would be more like an ocean where high lumination areas would create tidal repulsive forces. These would be areas close to or within galaxies and

stars or star clusters.

 

Thanks to both of you for your comments. This is a new experience for me.

Most people's eyes glaze over when I talk about this.

[swansont]

wouldn't the inertial mass of the light coming from a star be less than the mass lost from the star due to the conversion of matter to energy and not enough by far to be dark matter/energy?

 

That's an excellent observation. The change in mass from fusion is indeed a small fraction of the overall mass, and gives you the total energy released from the star. And since Baryonic matter is a small fraction of the dark matter needed to explain observed behavior, photon from these stars can't comprise dark matter.