The Disturbance Hypothesis of Light

Yoda

My “disturbance hypothesis of light” is far from complete but it is being egged on with help from some very intelligent friends. The following comment from Mark has helped me flesh out some of the ideas in more coherent form.

Comment from MarkNR

 

My response:

Yes, there are transverse and longitudinal waves. When you flip a rope, the wave that travels over it is transverse. When you play with a slinky, the wave that travels through it is longitudinal.

The ripples on the surface of water in a pool are of transverse nature. But the sound waves that travel through water or air are of longitudinal nature. The electromagnetic waves are thought to be transverse.

You are right in that a transverse wave seems to be a “surface” phenomenon, whereas, longitudinal wave seems to be a “volume” phenomenon. I never looked at it that way before. But it makes sense.

If electromagnetic waves are transverse in nature then are they traveling at the interface of two very different media? Well, we have electrical and magnetic fields associated with this phenomenon. So, an electromagnetic wave may somehow travel in a medium that easily separates into an electric and a magnetic field.

I have been thinking that the electromagnetic waves are to some degree discrete in nature even at very low frequencies. Let’s call such a discrete wave packet of some arbitrarily number of wavelengths a photon.  In that case, a photon will be very long and snakelike at low frequencies, but it will get shorter and more compact as the wavelengths become shorter at higher frequencies.

At the level of electrons, the frequency within the “photon” is high enough to display mass properties due to its compactness. The electron appears like a particle. But it is still spread over some distance to display appreciable wavelike properties.

At the level of proton, however, the frequency within the “photon” is extremely high to make it appear more like a particle than a wave. Its “spread” is very small. At the level of neutron, I believe that the “photon” becomes still more compact such that the charge property gets converted to mass property completely.

This seems to indicate that there is some relationship between the charge and mass. I am trying to define that relationship in terms of “disturbance levels”. A neutron is a really compact “disturbance”. A proton is less so. And an electron displays still lesser compactness of disturbance. What is being disturbed is a primeval field, which appears as “electromagnetic” upon disturbance.

What you are talking about is the corpuscular theory of light that Newton favored. However, Maxwell’s research supported the wave theory of light. I believe that the truth is somewhere in between. I am trying to express my understanding in terms of “disturbance levels” of a primeval field. Such disturbances appear to be increasingly discrete as they gradually become more compact with increasing frequency.

I am simply postulating a primeval field whose inherent nature is yet to be discovered, but the disturbance of which is “electromagnetic” in nature. A disturbance may be looked in terms of having a frequency even when there is nothing vibrating but only a repeating pattern of disturbance.

The notion of “particle” seems to come from the notion of “spread of disturbance” as it becomes compact. The disturbance levels simply lay out a gradient of this “spread”, which becomes increasingly compact. The more compact this disturbance is the better defined its position is in space as a particle.

Your “puffs of smoke” analogy is very apt. It is a concrete rendition of the abstract patterns of “disturbances in vacuum”. Thank you.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • MarkNR  On February 11, 2014 at 1:51 PM

    Putting abstract ideas into an objective analogy can be challenging. My thoughts on the propagation of light is basically Newtonian. My vision of the construct of EMR is more nebulous.

    • vinaire  On February 11, 2014 at 4:28 PM

      Well, we have to continue fleshing out the consistencies here. Please keep an eye out for inconsistencies, so we can look more closely at them and discover the underlying consistency.

  • Chris Thompson  On February 12, 2014 at 12:07 AM

    I like an analogy as well as the next guy or better; however, I’ve decided to be careful with them as making analogies between dissimilar orders of magnitude aren’t going to help us discover them. The trouble with understanding QM is that it isn’t like anything that we know anything about and making analogies at this level such as “water through a garden hose is like electricity through a wire” isn’t true and creates confusions except at the most shallow levels. I have been watching Feynman lecture on “The Character of Physical Laws” and in part 6 from about 5:00 to about 6:00 minutes into this part, he says as much. Moral for me is to keep my mind open and be cautious about my analogies and how I use them so that when a thing presents itself “as it is” rather than it “seems to be” I will be ready to see and to recognize it.

    • vinaire  On February 12, 2014 at 6:51 AM

      How do you know that the “quantum mechanical way” (a probabilistic-statistical model) is not an analogy?

      • Chris Thompson  On February 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM

        Wow I didn’t mean to be unclear. What has been stated so far about IS analogy. This is natural since we cannot observe it very well. But this will improve. But your question makes me wonder if you think anything can truly be seen as it is and not just as it seems to be? Anyway, I like the math treatment of It the best since though it cannot be viewed but it can be successfully predicted. Possibly the disturbance level of QM is more if the dimension of mind than of sight and sound. It may remain that way, this may be innate.

        • vinaire  On February 12, 2014 at 12:57 PM

          I keep in mind the following KHTK Postulate:

          KHTK Postulate #0: There are no absolute certainties.

          DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”

          All certainties are relative. This statement does not degrade any certainty we have. It simply means that one can always come up with a better certainty. That is how science makes progress.

          Einstein declared the speed of light to be a universal constant. This is a certainty for now, but I believe that there is possibly a wider context in which the speed of light may simply be a special case.

          There is no progress possible for a person who believes his certainties to be absolute.

          .
          Since it is all relative, it is better to focus on inconsistencies,than worry about whether it is a tautology or analogy.

          .

    • Rafael  On February 12, 2014 at 12:44 PM

      Hi Guys
      I was looking at Feynman´s Lecture and I still don´t see how Vin´s model could explain the two slit experiment, electrons or photons don´t behave like condensed or solidified waves all the time.
      It is as if they were traveling as some sort of cause which has a probability of different, undefined yet, effects at their destination, but when we interfere with it, becomes a single, defined effect which then is what we see at their destination point.
      “Cause” can pass trough both slits still undefined, “effect”, being defined, passes only trough one slit.

      He he, sorry for using the concepts of cause and effect, but I can´t find any other way to describe it, seems to me we are dealing with a field of infinite possibilities, and trying to see it as if it were defined.

      • vinaire  On February 12, 2014 at 1:17 PM

        I haven’t looked at the double-slit experiment in detail yet. I shall be doing so soon.

      • Chris Thompson  On February 12, 2014 at 9:35 PM

        Hey Rafael! I don’t think the conclusions of double-slit are a correct analysis of what is actually occurring. I don’t believe time in this universe can go backward and I don’t believe in particle wave duality. Because this explanation of what occurs is inconsistent, I believe there is a better explanation for what is going on. Somethings which hasn’t been touched on as yet.

        • Rafael  On February 12, 2014 at 10:14 PM

          Hi Pal!
          You are probably right.
          Feynman´s Lectures are fantastic, I´m squeezing time to see them all. I´m looking forward for a good explanation of what actually happens, in the meantime, a big, big hug for you and your family 🙂

        • Chris Thompson  On February 13, 2014 at 8:54 PM

          Love love love you man! (jus’ sayin’!)

        • Rafael  On February 13, 2014 at 9:36 PM

          Same here brother 🙂

  • Chris Thompson  On February 12, 2014 at 12:13 AM

    The reason that I like “disturbance levels” is that it gives us a fresh chance to take measured phenomena and plot them on (yet another) scale using each of them as a reference point for every other phenomena which challenges us to use well worn relationships such as the “inverse square of distance” etc., to suggest consistencies and to ferret out inconsistencies using mathematical precision.

    • vinaire  On February 12, 2014 at 6:54 AM

      The idea of disturbance covers both particle and wave-like motion.

      • Chris Thompson  On February 12, 2014 at 9:09 AM

        And possibly dissolves the “duality” into a third and more consistent description when QM is seen as it is and not just as it appears to be.

      • vinaire  On February 12, 2014 at 1:04 PM

        This hypothesis describes a particle as a wave packet of very high frequency.

  • Chris Thompson  On February 12, 2014 at 10:02 AM

    “A disturbance may be looked in terms of having a frequency even when there is nothing vibrating but only a repeating pattern of disturbance.”

    Let’s also allow our minds to be open to quantum time -QT- as also possibly inherently discrete so that we don’t miss the opportunity to understand the discreteness of QM as arising from possibly discrete rather than continuous time. This might become a surprising package.

    • vinaire  On February 12, 2014 at 1:25 PM

      Both space and time may be postulated as continuous or discrete. This is analogous to wave or particle in a way.

  • vinaire  On February 13, 2014 at 4:26 PM

    KHTK Postulates for Physics

    KHTK Postulate #P0: There are no absolute certainties.

    DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”

    All certainties are relative. This statement does not degrade any certainty we have. It simply means that one can always come up with a better certainty. That is how science makes progress.

    Einstein declared the speed of light to be a universal constant. This is a certainty for now, but I believe that there is possibly a wider context in which the speed of light may simply be a special case.

    There is no progress possible for a person who believes his certainties to be absolute.

    .

    KHTK Postulate #P1: Underlying all reality there is a primeval field.

    The undisturbed primeval field defines the theoretical ground state for this universe.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 13, 2014 at 4:51 PM

    KHTK Postulate #P2: A disturbance of this field generates electric and magnetic fields.

    Transverse waves seem to form at the interface of two different media, such as, the ripples on the surface of water in a pond. This surface forms an interface between water and air. On the other hand, longitudinal waves seem to form within the media, such as, the sound waves that travel within water or within air by generating pressure waves.

    The electromagnetic waves are transverse in nature. They are associated with electrical and magnetic fields. It can therefore be surmised that the electromagnetic wave exists at the interface of electric and magnetic fields. We may then postulate that the electromagnetic wave travels in a medium that easily separates into an electric and a magnetic field.

    .

    • MarkNR  On February 13, 2014 at 5:21 PM

      It seems that the 3 ideas of; transverse waves, longitudinal waves, and material traveling without a medium, have stirred up new thoughts.
      Interesting theories.
      Mark

      • vinaire  On February 13, 2014 at 5:31 PM

        Well, you stirred them up, didn’t you!

        • MarkNR  On February 14, 2014 at 12:34 AM

          I do what I can.
          Mark

        • vinaire  On February 14, 2014 at 5:49 AM

          LOL!

  • vinaire  On February 13, 2014 at 5:22 PM

    KHTK Postulate #P3: This disturbance then spreads as electromagnetic waves in this field.

    This disturbance in the primeval field spreads in the form of electromagnetic waves. This is similar to the way ripples spread on the disturbed surface of water in a pool. The rate at which this disturbance spreads must depend on the properties of the field acting as medium. However, the “properties of the field” may simply derive from the structure of the disturbance itself.

    In other words, the rate of propagation of the electromagnetic waves may depend on the frequency of the wave. However, the differences in the rates of propagation due to difference in frequencies may not be observable in narrow bands of the electromagnetic spectrum. The speed of light has been observed to be constant only in the visible band of light.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 13, 2014 at 5:52 PM

    KHTK Postulate #P4: The structure of the disturbance may be characterized by levels of doubling frequencies.

    Disturbance levels, where each level is twice the frequency of the previous level, may be used to refer to its structure. The Disturbance Level ‘n’ shall have a frequency of 2n.

    Therefore, disturbance level 0 shall have a frequency of 1. The disturbance level 100 shall have a frequency of about 1030. The radio waves shall appear around DL29 (Disturbance level 29). The visible light shall appear around DL50, and the gamma rays shall appear around DL65.

    Thus, the rate of propagation of electromagnetic waves shall depend on their disturbance levels. The Einstein’s postulate for the speed of light is true only in the visible range around DL50.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 13, 2014 at 6:51 PM

    KHTK Postulate #P5: The structure of disturbance consists of space, time and inertia.

    The motion of disturbance consists of separate states that follow each other. The “separation of states” is the characteristic of space. The “states following each other” is the characteristic of time. The frequency of disturbance seems to provide some rigidity to its motion. This rigidity may be called inertia. Each disturbance level consists of its own space, time and inertia.

    The radical idea here is that space, time and inertia are components of motion. This idea may appear counter-intuitive because we observe objects moving in space and time. But we must also note that the disturbance level of an object is different from the disturbance level of the background. The inertia of the object is different from the inertia of the background. The ‘spacetime’ of the object is different from the ‘spacetime’ of the background. We simply have co-existing disturbance levels that are very different from each other.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On February 13, 2014 at 8:49 PM

    I’ve been thinking about disturbance frequencies and density of mass and also the way sound travels faster in a dense medium such as water as compared to air. Thinking about how light spreads out across the universe, seemingly without limit and quickly tends to make me wonder at the density of this postulate of primeval field. “Density” seems ambigous to me. Sound waves are carried better through dense mediums such as railroad tracks than they are through the air. Elastic mediums such as sound batt insulation seem to kill the sound wave by “capturing” the transmitted energy rather than pass it on even though they are dense but not as dense as a railroad track.

    • vinaire  On February 14, 2014 at 6:14 AM

      The concept of density does not exist at the level of primeval field because there is no matter at that level. Matter comes about with the formation of electrons, nucleus and atoms at a disturbance level closer to 100.

  • Chris Thompson  On February 13, 2014 at 8:50 PM

    I have been looking at space as elastic. Or else more of it is being created every moment? Yet if it is elastic, it transmits EMR very well without capturing its energy. This seems to be inertia without interference.

    • vinaire  On February 14, 2014 at 6:26 AM

      Space is at very low disturbance levels. It has properties that are very different from high disturbance levels. We tend to mix high DL (matter) properties with low DL (space) properties. We need to study DLs by themselves.

  • Chris Thompson  On February 13, 2014 at 8:50 PM

    “Particle-wave duality” is not a sufficient explanation.

    • vinaire  On February 14, 2014 at 6:29 AM

      It is golf ball versus snake.

      Particle is a compacted wave packet, or wave packet is a spread out particle.

  • Chris Thompson  On February 13, 2014 at 8:51 PM

    “Quantum-erasure” seems to be a hoax.

    • MarkNR  On February 13, 2014 at 9:00 PM

      Sorry for my ignorance, Can you give me a link to info on “Quantum-erasure”
      Mark

      • vinaire  On February 14, 2014 at 6:34 AM

        Maybe this?

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

        • MarkNR  On February 14, 2014 at 8:06 AM

          The quantum eraser and delayed choice quantum eraser experiments depend on so much hardware and so many assumptions and considerations added together, that, at present, I cannot fully trust their assumed results.

          For instance, when a believed single photon is passed through a BBO crystal, it is said to split into 2 entangled photons of lower frequency. This phenomenon ‘appears’ to be fact, but the mechanism is not understood, the very basic nature of a photon is not understood even to the point of whether a photon is actually a single unit of existence. Observations ‘appear’ to ‘lead one to believe’ in the ‘theories’ put forth.

          The observations can be duplicated, but the whys are still theory in its highest sense. I commend engineers for adding more observational data which may eventually lead to additional understanding, but I must SEPARATE DATA FROM ASSUMPTIONS AND THEORIES. This is often difficult due to the wording used by the experimenters.

          It is entirely possible that every single photon is of infinite size and only has an apparent position, yet its influence can be far reaching in sub space (sorry for the cheesy Star Trek term) without the inconvenience of traveling through space, thereby appearing to have an effect before the cause occurs

          Since (an assumption) ‘C’ is the very basis for our observation of the passage of time and instance of occurrence, any information which traveled faster than light would, for any practical purpose and observation, be arriving before it’s conception.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On February 14, 2014 at 9:15 AM

          Good post! This is the way I see it as well.

        • vinaire  On February 14, 2014 at 1:26 PM

          From Double-slit experiment

          However, the light is always found to be absorbed at the screen at discrete points, as individual particles (not waves), the interference pattern appearing via the varying density of these particle hits on the screen. Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include detectors at the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), but not through both slits (as would a wave).These results demonstrate the principle of wave–particle duality.

          If we consider photon to be a wavepacket like a long snake, it could still be looked upon as a single snake or “particle”. So, I do not see wave and particle as concepts that are exclusive of each other as the above quote assumes.

          Also, I need to understand how a single photon is detected as passing exclusively through one slit. Detection of individual discrete impacts does not invalidate the wave nature of what is impacting.

        • MarkNR  On February 15, 2014 at 12:55 AM

          Again, I must agree. Since all objects above absolute zero are emitting photons continuously, all the mechanics of the experiments are bombarded by and emitting photons by the trillions. Electrons seem a more plausible particle to work with.
          Mark

        • vinaire  On February 14, 2014 at 1:38 PM

          From Double-slit experiment

          The observer can decide whether or not to put detectors into the interfering path. That way, by deciding whether or not to determine the path through the two-slit experiment, he can decide which property can become reality. If he chooses not to put the detectors there, then the interference pattern will become reality; if he does put the detectors there, then the beam path will become reality. Yet, most importantly, the observer has no influence on the specific element of the world which becomes reality. Specifically, if he chooses to determine the path, he has no influence whatsoever which of the two paths, the left one or the right one, Nature will tell him is the one where the particle is found. Likewise, if he chooses to observe the interference pattern he has no influence whatsoever where in the observation plane he will observe a specific particle. Both outcomes are completely random.

          It seems to me that the difference in results comes from whether or not the detectors are there. That is a physical and not a mental interference with the original experiment.

        • vinaire  On February 14, 2014 at 2:09 PM

          From Double-slit experiment

          An important version of this experiment involves single particles (or waves—for consistency, they are called particles here). Sending particles through a double-slit apparatus one at a time results in single particles appearing on the screen, as expected. Remarkably, however, an interference pattern emerges when these particles are allowed to build up one by one (see the image to the right). For example, when a laboratory apparatus was developed that could reliably fire one electron at a time through the double slit, the emergence of an interference pattern suggested that each electron was interfering with itself, and therefore in some sense the electron had to be going through both slits at once—an idea that contradicts our everyday experience of discrete objects. This phenomenon has also been shown to occur with atoms and even some molecules, including buckyballs. So experiments with electrons add confirmatory evidence to the view of Dirac that electrons, protons, neutrons, and even larger entities that are ordinarily called particles nevertheless have their own wave nature and even their own specific frequencies.

          The above quote assumes that discrete particles are like “golf balls”. But if we broaden the idea of discrete particles to include snakelike wavepackets then the above phenomenon can easily be explained. Upon impact a snakelike wavepacket can also appear like a point.

        • MarkNR  On February 15, 2014 at 12:46 AM

          These articles seem to jump around without warning from photon to electron. Although related, they are still very different entities.

          I have considered, in the past, about 30 yrs. ago, that all so called particles are based on vibrations which give them their personality. This was hinted at in a previous comment of mine concerning metallurgy. (2 or 3 months ago) Some aspects of string theory appear to coincide with this hypothesis, but then goes of on tangents. (pun, sorry)

          Mark

        • vinaire  On February 15, 2014 at 7:22 AM

          You may read the original article in full at the link provided.

        • vinaire  On February 14, 2014 at 2:19 PM

          From Double-slit experiment

          This experimental fact is highly reproducible, and the mathematics of quantum mechanics (see below) allows us to predict the exact probability of an electron striking the screen at any particular point. However, the electrons do not arrive at the screen in any predictable order. In other words, knowing where all the previous electrons appeared on the screen and in what order tells us nothing about where any future electron will hit, even though the probabilities at specific points can be calculated. (Note that it is not the probabilities of photons appearing at various points along the detection screen that add or cancel, but the amplitudes. Probabilities are the squares of amplitudes. Also note that if there is a cancellation of waves at some point, that does not mean that a photon disappears; it only means that the probability of a photon’s appearing at that point will decrease, and the probability that it will appear somewhere else increases.) Thus, we have the appearance of a seemingly causeless selection event in a highly orderly and predictable formulation of the interference pattern. Ever since the origination of quantum mechanics, some theorists have searched for ways to incorporate additional determinants or “hidden variables” that, were they to become known, would account for the location of each individual impact with the target.

          I don’t think that math involving probability functions, as Quantum Mechanics does, is the only way to interpret this phenomenon. It is like calculating the probability of which part of the snake we have in focus at any instant. In my opinion, classical mathematics can just as well explain the phenomenon if we stop assuming a discrete particle to be like a “golf ball”, but look at the possibility of it being like a snake. However, that would require relativistic concepts of dilated space and time. The spacetime at DL50 is much more dilated compared to spacetine at DL100.

        • vinaire  On February 14, 2014 at 9:42 PM

          From Double-slit experiment

          A well-known gedanken [thought] experiment predicts that if particle detectors are positioned at the slits, showing through which slit a photon goes, the interference pattern will disappear. This which-way experiment illustrates the complementarity principle that photons can behave as either particles or waves, but not both at the same time. Despite the importance of this gedanken in the history of quantum mechanics, technically feasible realizations of this experiment were not proposed until the 1970s. (Naive implementations of the textbook gedanken are not possible because photons cannot be detected without absorbing the photon.) Currently, multiple experiments have been performed illustrating various aspects of complementarity.

          So, the quantum-eraure experiment cannot be conclusive.

        • vinaire  On February 14, 2014 at 9:46 PM

          From Double-slit experiment

          An experiment performed in 1987 produced results that demonstrated that information could be obtained regarding which path a particle had taken without destroying the interference altogether. This showed the effect of measurements that disturbed the particles in transit to a lesser degree and thereby influenced the interference pattern only to a comparable extent. In other words, if one does not insist that the method used to determine which slit each photon passes through be completely reliable, one can still detect a (degraded) interference pattern.

          So, different results are obtained from the double-slit experiment because of changed experimental conditions. There is nothing new and earth shaking from a classical viewpoint.

        • vinaire  On February 14, 2014 at 9:55 PM

          From Double-slit experiment

          A simple do-it-at-home demonstration of the quantum eraser phenomenon was given in an article in Scientific American. If one sets polarizers before each slit with their axes orthogonal to each other, the interference pattern will be eliminated. The polarizers can be considered as introducing which-path information to each beam. Introducing a third polarizer in front of the detector with an axis of 45° relative to the other polarizers “erases” this information, allowing the interference pattern to reappear.

          So, changing the physical conditions change the results of the experiment. This will obviously happen. The theoretical explanations given seems to be arbitrary.

  • Chris Thompson  On February 13, 2014 at 8:51 PM

    It is good way to look at things. I wonder what will turn up?

  • Chris Thompson  On February 13, 2014 at 8:56 PM

    Vin: Motion may be characterized by ‘Disturbance Levels’ where each disturbance level is twice the frequency of the previous disturbance level.

    Chris: My bad. I thought each disturbance level was an order of 10 higher than the previous. But now I remember it was double and that was because of harmonic doubling. Correct?

    • vinaire  On February 13, 2014 at 9:23 PM

      Yes!

    • vinaire  On February 14, 2014 at 6:32 AM

      It is a cosmic musical scale. 🙂

      • MarkNR  On February 14, 2014 at 8:31 AM

        Oscillations, vibrations, frequencies, harmonics. The first devised method of complex communication through physical space between non physical entities that considered themselves separate. Great pride in accomplishment and effort expended was enjoyed by its creators, especially when beauty was added, music.
        Mark

  • vinaire  On February 13, 2014 at 9:35 PM

    KHTK Postulate #P6: At higher disturbance levels, space and time seem to shrink and acquire greater inertia.

    The disturbance seems to be made up of discrete wave packets of arbitrary number of wavelengths. The wavelength shortens as the disturbance levels increase. The wave packets will appear long and snakelike at lower levels but compact and ball like at higher levels. Thus the inertia increases with increasing disturbance levels. As there is no absolute measure of space and time, the wave-length and period of a disturbance level shall provide a measure of its space and time.

    The wave packets (photons) in the electromagnetic spectrum are so spread out that mass property is not visible but the inertia is there (expressed as momentum). The radiation at the higher end of the spectrum shall display greater inertia than at the lower end.

    At the level of electrons, the wave packet is compact enough to display some particle like mass properties but it is still spread over some distance and thus displays wavelike properties. It also displays charge that is spread over an appreciable volume.

    At the level of the nucleus, the wave packets are so compact that they appear more like particles than waves. A proton is very compact and displays greater mass than electron and displays highly dense charge as well. A neutron is a really compact “disturbance” that primarily displays mass.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 14, 2014 at 10:02 PM

    From all that I have studied, different results were gotten from Quantum eraser experiments because physical conditions of the experiments were changed.

    The theory that results were different because “which-path” information was gotten seems to be pretty inconclusive. There is a lot of wishful thinking here.

  • vinaire  On February 14, 2014 at 11:27 PM

    Here is a revised postulate:

    KHTK Postulate #P1: Underlying all reality there is an undisturbed primeval field.

    KHTK postulates the theoretical ground state for this universe to be an undisturbed primeval field that has no frequency, wavelength or period.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 15, 2014 at 12:56 AM

    Here is another revised postulate:

    KHTK Postulate #P2: When this field is disturbed by primeval energy, the disturbance takes the form of undulating electric and magnetic fields of finite frequency, wavelength and period.

    When the surface of water in a pond is disturbed, the disturbance takes the form of ripples spreading outwards. In a ripple, the particles of water move up and down in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the ripple.  Such a disturbance is understood as being transverse.

    When we speak, the air in front of our mouth is disturbed. This disturbance takes the form of pressure “ripples” spreading outwards. In a “pressure” ripple, the air particles move back and forth along the direction of the ripple.  Such a disturbance is understood as being longitudinal.

    The transverse disturbance seems to form at the interface of two different media, such as, between water and air. The longitudinal disturbance seems to form within a single media, such as, within air, or within water.

    The familiar electromagnetic wave is understood to be transverse in nature. It may, therefore, be surmised to form at the interface of electric and magnetic fields.  We may then postulate the space to be manifestation of a field, the disturbance of which takes the form of the familiar electromagnetic wave.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 15, 2014 at 8:44 AM

    Here is another revised postulate:

    KHTK Postulate #P3: The harmonics of this electromagnetic disturbance may be represented by disturbance levels that keep doubling in frequency.

    The basic disturbance level may be defined as having a frequency of 1 (20). At this frequency the “wavelength” may determine the very sense of space, and the “period” may determine the very sense of time. We may call it the disturbance level of zero, or DL0.

    The next disturbance level may be defined as having a frequency of 2 (21). At this frequency the wavelength and period shall be half of the values at DL0. The very character of space and time at this level may therefore be different. We may call it the disturbance level of one, or DL1.

    The next disturbance level may be defined as having a frequency of 4 (22). At this frequency the wavelength and period shall be a quarter of the values at DL0. The constants, such as, permittivity and permeability associated with space and time shall be different. We may call it the disturbance level of two, or DL2.

    Following this pattern, the nth disturbance level shall have a frequency of 2n. The wavelength shall get smaller, and the period shall get shorter as n increases. The constants, such as, permittivity and permeability, associated with space and time are expected to increase with shortening of wavelength and period. The nth disturbance level may be represented as “DLn”.

    The disturbance level for the whole range of visible light will be from 48.5 to 49.5, approximated around DL49. The disturbance level of radio waves may be approximated around DL27. And the disturbance level of gamma rays may be approximated around DL65.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 15, 2014 at 9:45 AM

    Here is another revised postulate:

    KHTK Postulate #P4: The speed at which the electromagnetic disturbance propagates decreases with increasing disturbance levels of the harmonics.

    The constants of space are defined by permittivity and permeability.

    Permittivity is the measure of the resistance that is encountered when forming an electric field in a medium. The permittivity of classical vacuum, or free space, is about 8.85 × 10−12 Farads/meter.

    Permeability is the measure of the ability of a material to support the formation of a magnetic field within itself. The permeability of classical vacuum, or free space, is about 1.26 ×10−6 Henries per meter.

    Both permittivity and permeability seems to represent a measure of inertia (resistance to motion) characterizing the electromagnetic disturbance in space. This inertia is postulated to increase with increasing disturbance levels as wavelength and period shorten. This would reflect in the decreasing speed of propagation of the electromagnetic disturbance with doubling of frequency.

    The constant 3 x 108 meters per second for the speed of light applies to DL49, which is a narrow band in the electromagnetic spectrum. It is postulated that radio waves (DL27) shall propagate at a higher speed, and the gamma rays (DL65) shall propagate at a slower speed than that of visible light.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 15, 2014 at 1:47 PM

    KHTK Postulate #P5: The electromagnetic disturbance propagates as discrete wave packets.

    The electromagnetic disturbance is to some degree discrete in nature. It propagates as a wave packet of a certain number of wavelengths.  These wave packets are very long and “snake like” at low disturbance levels, but they are highly compact and “golf ball like” at very high disturbance levels, where inertia is expressed in the form of mass.

    In between, such as, at the level of electrons, these wave packets are compact enough to display some mass properties, but they are still spread over a short distance to display wavelike properties. It seems that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle about the position and momentum of an electron comes into play only when we assume the electron to be “golf ball like” rather than “snake like”.

    The charge of the electron is there because of the inherent electromagnetic nature of disturbance. However, as compactness increasing at higher disturbance levels, even the charge seems to disappear into mass. A neutron with no charge is a very compact “disturbance”. A proton with charge is somewhat less compact. And an electron with a much higher charge to mass ratio is much less compact. A relationship between charge and mass is worth exploring.

    .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: