The Nature of Light II

The nature of light has been debated for hundreds of years. In the twentieth century, Einstein was finally given credit for making sense of light, among other things, in his papers on the quantum nature of things and on relativity. His theories, along with those of almost every other physicist of his time and of this time, were structured to represent light as a transverse wave, traveling at speed C.

The representation of light as a wave makes sense only if you have a boundary within which that wave can flow (also known as a waveguide). Einstein provided for no such waveguide, assuming that light could (for some reason undisclosed by him or by anyone else) travel in a bobulating wave restricted to a narrow ray of the light’s dimensions. Typically these dimensions are 1 micron (infrared), or ~500 nm (green), etc.

Tesla read Einstein’s theories and scoffed. It was the only time Tesla ever was seen to be angry in public, during a discourse involving Einstein’s theories. Light could be nothing but a thing analogous to a sound wave, according the Tesla. The sound wave idea required a medium (aether) and a waveguide. Tesla agreed with the idea of a medium, but never ventured a bet as to the nature of the waveguide that must accompany the light, for any transverse wave refractions to occur.

Various types of “structure” have been proposed for the aether, but they all have a common flaw: they assume a consistent structure, rather than a dynamic one. My proposition is that the aether is dynamic, and I have given it a term appropriate to the dynamic nature I see: lyotropic aether. Lyotropic derives from the Latin, meaning ”to dissolve and reform.” A lyotropic aether disregards ealier experiments meant to disprove it.

An LCD monitor is lyotropic. In the presence of energy, the liquid crystal within the display aligns in a way that can seem to be a mode of self alignment and self-propagation. That’s not exactly the case, instead as the energy moves across the screen of the LCD, the alignment continues coincidentally with the energy, seemingly “growing” the alignment into particular paths.

As Tesla wrote, light itself is scalar, because the self-propagation is in all directions at once, unless something in the path of the light redirects it with the power of reflection and refraction. So, in practice, light usually has a vector associated with the way the source is constructed. Likewise, light is longitudinal in nature. Tesla was adamant also about this. Nature’s mode is longitudinal, because nature’s mode is described by crystallography. Everything else looks the way it looks because of reflection and refraction. Transverse waves are percolations confined to a waveguide.

Think about light eminating from an atom. Would it pick a particular direction? Of course not! Think about a pulsating orb, which is eminating its energy in all directions at once. This is the view of light as a scalar phenomenon. However; an atom rarely exists alone. Atoms are social animals. When there are multiple atoms, they affect one another, and there is refraction. Only at that point is there a directivity, or a “vector” quantity at play. Drop a pebble into a pond, and it ripples in all directions. So does light, absent any sort of medium boundary around which it must flow or reflect or refract. This is all in line with Tesla’s view, albeit he never conceived of a waveguide to complete the picture. That waveguide is the lyotropic aether.

I can hear someone complain that atomic energy shell emission is in discrete moments, and that the scalar reasoning seems to imply it is not, especially since at this place we accept the idea that individual “rays” are filaments within lyotropic aether. However; a photon is defined as the energy in a single cycle of oscillation, which is certainly not really a single moment of energy, as determined by the geometry of the percolations (crystallographic) being so much smaller than the transverse wave that defines a photon. Hence, the “photon” is subdivided.

Note: the author is a writer on technical subjects in some areas, of novels, and of other literature, but does not have any formal credentials related to the medical field, or in physics. Thus, this all constitutes an opinion of what might be possible, based on his own hobby-level knowledge quests.