Speed of Light

Animation from Wikipedia

Reference: Speed of Light Essays

Einstein’s book “Relativity – The Special and General Theory” starts out by looking at Euclidean geometry objectively.

Euclid sees that the concept of space is derived from material dimensions. Therefore, he assumes space to be perfectly rigid. This means that the distance and direction determined by two points in space are absolute. All  proofs in Euclidean geometry are built on this assumption.

Euclidean Geometry uses matter as its basis to understand space.

Einstein points out that nothing in reality is perfectly rigid. Therefore, space cannot be perfectly rigid, and distance and direction specified by two points in space cannot be absolute. Physics must modify geometrical concepts to make them logically consistent with physical reality. Therefore, Einstein’s theory of Relativity treats space as relative and not absolute.

Einstein uses matter more realistically as the basis to understand space. 

Einstein famously postulated that light does not need material medium to travel. This puts light in a very different class of its own called the wave-field. Einstein declared that “electromagnetic field” is a more basic form of substance than matter.

“Electromagnetic field” is very likely a more fundamental basis from which to understand space.

Let’s review the concept of electromagnetic field. Light is a form of electromagnetic wave. It propagates as a transverse wave, similar to the disturbance we see on the surface of a pond. It does not propagate like a longitudinal wave, an example of which is sound wave moving through air.  The difference is that a longitudinal wave moves through a medium, where a transverse wave travels at the interface of two media.

Since light is a transverse wave, it does not move through any medium; instead it forms at the interface of electrical and magnetic fields. These two fields continually transmute into each other like the peaks and valleys of the wave on the surface of pond. In doing so, the two fields drive the disturbance forward (see the animation from Wikipedia above). It so happens that the electrical and magnetic fields are part of light itself.

An electromagnetic wave is a disturbance propagating in space.

Light moves as a wave disturbance and not as a mass particle. The idea of light particle (photon) appears only in reference to energy interactions. The photon may not be discrete in space as assumed by many.

Light moves as a wave disturbance at the speed of 3 x 108 meters/second according to units assigned on the basis of matter. That disturbance is not in some material medium but in space itself. The Disturbance Theory postulates space to be a primeval field of zero frequency that turns into electromagnetic field of finite frequency when disturbed. Space may be compared to the undisturbed surface of a pond.

Space is an undisturbed theoretical field of zero frequency.

The speed of electromagnetic disturbance (light) is constant and depends on the electromagnetic properties of space, as shown by Maxwell’s equations.

In the model proposed by the Disturbance Theory, space and time are experienced as disturbance of a theoretical field. There is no other way to measure space and time, except through the phenomenon of the disturbance. The cycles of electrical and magnetic fields determine Time. The spread of disturbance determines Distance.

Space and time appear in the units of “wavelength” and “period” of the disturbance respectively. The constant “c” describes the ratio of wavelength to period. Thus, space and time combine through “c” and the relative measure of disturbance is expressed through frequency.

The disturbance levels (DL) within the electromagnetic field are described as log base 2 of frequency.

Here are some notable disturbance levels (DL).

Space (Theoretical)                         DL 0 

Visible Light                                  ~ DL 49

Gamma Ray                                   > DL 64

Electron                                            DL 67

Neutron/Proton                                DL 78

DL > 78 is the region of matter. For matter, wavelength and period are infinitesimal and we can use the Euclidean concept of “dimensionless point” as a good approximation for location. This approximation for locations in field, however, does not hold that well. A “point location” in field has dimensions of finite wavelength-period. Thus mathematics takes a strange and complex form in Quantum Mechanics.

Locations in field cannot be approximated by Euclidean points.

Around DL of 67 the disturbance converges upon itself and electrons start to form within the electromagnetic field. The electron is a more complex electronic field within the basic electromagnetic field. The ratio “c” likely contributes to the properties of “spin” and electrical charge within the electronic field.

It is logical to postulate that as one moves from the periphery to the center of electronic field the disturbance levels increase and the disturbance condenses.

Around DL of 78 the disturbance condenses and a still more complex field starts to form at the center of the electronic field . This field may be identified as the nucleus of atom.

An atom is made up of nuclear and electronic fields within the electromagnetic field.

In a nuclear field the disturbance levels collapse and the disturbance appear as mass. The ratio “c” likely contributes to formation of gravity. Maybe mathematics will help us gain new insights into these relationships.

The speed of light is contained within the material objects. The material objects move relative to each other.

The speed of light “c” evidently has a nature very different from the speed of material objects.

The conjectures made above are logically consistent. They are worthy of further investigation.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • vinaire  On December 18, 2015 at 8:08 AM

    Space to electromagnetic field (light) to electronic field (charge) to nuclear field (mass) motion is getting more complex and the simplicity of natural laws is diminishing.


  • vinaire  On December 19, 2015 at 10:45 AM

    In a nuclear field is it possible that the protons appear at the periphery while the neutrons appear only as one descends toward the center of the nuclear field?


  • vinaire  On December 22, 2015 at 9:31 AM

    All we know from the Bohr’s model of atom is that there are certain stable atomic states, and that the atom can switch among these states. The idea of particles within an atom brings up erroneous pictures in our mind because electron is not a particle in spatial terms.

    All particles at atomic level are discrete only in terms of energy, based on experiments. We can detect them only through energy interactions. Looking at their wave properties they are not particles in terms of space. It is an erroneous assumption, in my view, to think of them as particles in space.

    In my view, we are dealing with field, and with gradients of frequency within the field. These “electrons” could be the nodes in the interference pattern generated by interfering waves of continuously changing frequencies. A wave of continuously changing frequencies shall be a wave of energy within a field.

    This is just a conjecture at the moment.


  • vinaire  On December 25, 2015 at 8:24 AM

    Einstein says in his book of Relativity, “The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V. For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference.”


    We are used to looking at uniform translation with respect to mass that can be pinpointed. Relative velocities are additive only from the viewpoint of mass.

    Where field, such as, light, is concerned (with wavelength to period ratio “c” constant) it is spread over a large volume and cannot be so pinpointed. So, comparing speed of a mass particle, to the speed of disturbance spreading in a field, is like comparing apples to oranges. A correct comparison for speed of mass would be to the speed of the whole voulme of the field.

    A field can be pinpointed only by its frequency. In case of fields it would be relative frequency (or energy) that would be additive, as demonstrated by Bohr’s atomic model. So there may be a way to find a common ground between Einstein’s theory of relativity and Bohr’s quantum theory.



  • marildi  On December 25, 2015 at 1:01 PM

    Hi Vinnie. On your recent post “Archives” this message appears: “Apologies, but we were unable to find what you were looking for. Perhaps searching will help.” I’m letting you know here because there didn’t seem to be a way to comment there.

    This also gives me a chance to wish you a Merry Christmas! I miss you over on Geir’s and I’m going to ask him to give you an amnesty in the new year, because I thought he over-reacted that day.

    Anyway, happy holidays!


  • marildi  On December 25, 2015 at 1:11 PM

    p.s. I should have put “amnesty” in quotation marks. You certainly didn’t do anything bad enough to be “declared.” 😉 A simple protest would have been enough. Maybe you and Geir should get a 2D co-audit. 😀


  • vinaire  On December 25, 2015 at 1:11 PM

    Hi Marildi, Good to hear from you. Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you too. I reposted “Archives” as “All Posts” under the Pages. It is simply a list of all posts on my blog. I shall keep it updated.


    I also responded to Lorraine’s video after 4 years finally. See below.


    I hope Lorraine is doing well. Please convey my best wishes to her. 🙂 I hope she will communicate with me again. I like her.



    • marildi  On December 25, 2015 at 2:55 PM

      Now I’m involved in some Christmas activities for the day but I’ll get back to you. I want to watch that video in a new unit of time. And I’ll give my sister your message. She likes you too. 🙂


    • vinaire  On December 25, 2015 at 2:57 PM

      Please send her my whole response to the video. Thanks.


  • vinaire  On December 26, 2015 at 11:39 AM

    Einstein says in his book of Relativity, “Nevertheless, there are two general facts which at the outset speak very much in favour of the validity of the principle of relativity. Even though classical mechanics does not supply us with a sufficiently broad basis for the theoretical presentation of all physical phenomena, still we must grant it a considerable measure of “truth,” since it supplies us with the actual motions of the heavenly bodies with a delicacy of detail little short of wonderful. The principle of relativity must therefore apply with great accuracy in the domain of mechanics. But that a principle of such broad generality should hold with such exactness in one domain of phenomena, and yet should be invalid for another, is a priori not very probable.”


    Einstein is justifying his assumption that the laws of electrodynamic and optics hold good despite uniform translatory motion per the principle of relativity.

    The laws of electrodynamic and optics are based on the concept of field rather than on the concept of mass; therefore, this assumption should be considered carefully.


  • vinaire  On December 27, 2015 at 6:55 AM

    The following may turn out to be an interesting analogy:

    Mass is a condensed “nuclear field” within a converged “electronic field”, which itself lies within a uniform “electromagnetic field”. The electromagnetic field represents disturbed space.

    Similarly, self (ego) is a condensed field within the converged field of mind, which itself lies within a uniform field of consciousness. The field of consciousness represents disturbed God space.



%d bloggers like this: