neuvophysics.com




LIGHT: WAVE, PARTICLE OR DUALITY?

PUTTING THE CONTROVERSY TO REST

·          THE GREAT ENIGMAS OF LIGHT,---------------------------------372

PRISMATIC REFRACTION & DIFFRACTION

 

 

ABSTRACT:

 

I hope by now (if you haven't either gone to sleep or pulled your hair out), that you are in deep contemplation of the possibilities inherent to this new G-theory whereby (because it seems to offer an explanation for so much of the enigmatic physics), you might hopefully concur that it probably should be given further consideration, with maybe even the possibility of a robust axiology as a result.

Having said this, it matters little if the current theories are valiantly defended or not. If the introduction of a multiplex theory such as G-theory is not acceptable, then the protagonists over this issue can argue until they are blue in the face in defending their supposedly logical positions. That's because without G-theory both theories of light propagation have severe difficulties which are unable to be explained away to the satisfaction of the opposing camps.

There is a need (in most of the current understanding of physics) for wave theory to become conditionally necessary in order to allow for other assumptive phenomenology to be actually workable and visa versa.  This results in an enigmatic disunity. However with the overall answers and explanations of those other phenomena by G-theory the need for any duality is removed and geometric optics has a rational explanation. I am going to remove this phenomenology from the arena of time and change the notion from the principle of least time to the principle of the economy of action.

Once a new theory comes along that removes the need for retaining attachments to enigmatic ideas, then it is those very enigmas themselves that become the model destroyers of their own teetering paradigm.

Unless one wishes to perhaps inhibit the micro developments of such things as say; media event horizon evanescent effects controlled perhaps by photons themselves. Such an idea as G-theory should even be more enticing than fiddling with such things as slower and limited refractive index sensitive semiconductors. What may even be more exiting perhaps is the possibility of photonic or plasmic control of gravity? However even if such a thing might be thought to be impossible; for the sake of the model support for G-theory we need to take a good look at the behavior of light.

 

ASSERTATION:

 

Wave theory is a traditionally valid method of understanding and describing light in a way that can be presented graphically and comprehensibly but it is a bit like representing fractal geometry by drawing a vanishing spiral.

First of all, I will begin with just a simple real world observationally generated question. If light was propagated by waves and especially if these waves were trying out all paths (as 'wave optics' theory would have it) wouldn't we notice interference and nodal variations in everything we see? The facts happen to be the exact opposite! Everything looks crystal clear to me!

The main arguments which still stand resolute in the face of any wave optics or wave function theory is that---

1/ there is no medium, and if there were---

2/ light can travel in a beam, and no beam can survive under the principles of fluidic wave motion, so refer to 1/.

Even ideas of quantum wave function which by some quantum magic (illegally explaining one magic with another magic!) allows wave propagation through space then other serious problems emerge which will be analyzed below and which cannot be countered by any wave theory whatsoever. There must therefore be another  law which applies to geometric optics.  

Under the auspices of G-theory such things as Fraunhofer and Fresnel theories and all other photonic science remains valid within the limitations of your humble author's explanation of the behavior of light. This is because vibrating photons and strings/packets of photons can behave in strange ways, therefore complex photonic streams can in 'general' theory be reduced to the  assumption of wavelike or perhaps even spiral motion and result in the planar and spatial effects and the quantities so realized, but I will be presenting a 'wavelike' particle theory with a significant divergence from all conventional theories.

Firstly I contend that a wave-front (or emr current) can't actually exist in order to be propagated through a non existing aether (or quantum field); but the herein analyzed (but declared as only subjectively existing) wave, simply traces the vibration/rotation or spiraling etc. of photons at first in a three dimensional plus one consideration, but this is to be further complemented by the effective behavior of the photons caused by perturbative extra dimensional multiplex affects on photon particles.

because of the evidence, G-theory positively and necessarily contends that photonic emission is fundamentally effected by the agency of protons which emit quanta of photon bosons, often in streams or packets and not from electrons!

The behaviors of single and multiple photons can produce different effects, as can high energy lasers, and to a more unknown degree; intense light emanating from stellar and greater universal light sources.  Note: Whenever 'photon' is mentioned unless otherwise specified, it usually refers to a photon quantum packet of photon bosons.

Before I go any further I must address a conundrum of logic that exists with one popular theory of how light 'appears' to slow down in a transparent medium. In order to be able to address this; first we should take a look at how light behaves when it strikes an opaque object such as steel.

What is of singular importance for the moment is the slight reflectivity of steel; the best way we can analyze this is with high energy cutting lasers. It is obvious that the steel 'captures' light energy (and this phenomenon in many ways helps support the proposition that photons are packets of gravitons which consist of force bosons!) and it would be logical to assume that the surface atoms are the first to receive and also RANDOMLY REFLECT photons.

As in the example of the Crooke's radiometer and as I initially explained it is possible now that gravitons are emitted at this juncture but that would be of little significance except for the obvious implication that gravitons will help force the ejection of molten and vaporized material by GTD force*. However such ejectile material it is more likely to be caused by metal expansion and to a greater extent by the heating of the air around the vicinity of the cut causing massive changes in air flow.

*Lasers are known to be able to exert mechanical compression force on fuel pellets and have even been able to cause fusion from this.

 

However there is still some quantum behavior evident so I will now make the astounding statement: "The maximum P-mass of photons is the sum of the P-mass of the internal gravitons whose P-mass never changes because they are subject to B-E statistics while the photon itself is subject to F-D (or quantum?) statistics." So in that case the mass of traveling photons is only (vaguely if at all) inertial in linear effect because it is mostly converted to heat gain and/or neutrino scattering in a proton (atom) because parity required particles migrate multi-dimensionally and almost instantaneously to the quark lattice where they once again become unidentifiable bosons which only contribute to a temperature rise and NOT mass. It is assumed that the photaic media is at parity within itself and for this exercise we can ignore any external disparity. This means that scattering and parity adjustments will be proportional and likely limited to actions involving the singular atom receiving the photon. So there are losses when light enters even the most transparent media.

Back from that general theory iteration: Apart from the surface reflections, this causes an immediate temperature rise and an immediate  re-emission (important!) of light from those atoms absorbing the photons in completely random directions only caused by the motion of the protons in the molten metal.

I need go no further with describing the metal cutting process because I have achieved the main observation with pertinence to the subject of light speed attenuation in media. The point being that if light entering atoms becomes subject to re-emission, it only conditionally does so in RANDOM directions! Which is why a powerful secondary point of light (which is so bright that vision protection equipment is required) is able to be observed at the cutting surface,

Upon considering this: What then can cause light entering nuclides of a transparent media (as per current theory) to be passed on to the next nucleus/nuclide in an innumerable multitude of successions without any directional change? This is a valid question which should have a logical answer if the popular notion were to be correct and well understood. There is none!

However the next problem with that standard theory which declares "that light becomes delayed in-media by atomic absorption and reemission delays," creates an even more serious difficulty. I must infer from such a theory: If light slows, or even appears to slow by atomic nucleus transitions (or for that matter, any other) delay after entering a transparent medium, the incoming light behind it must either pile up and run into itself at the surface, or pile up in the first atom/s of the media respectively and cause a severe temperature rise; if not a relatively bright spot of light.

Of course you will no doubt immediately reach for the relativity gun! If you can't explain something just shoot down a constant in a formula*. Hey that works every time! Funny that!) I declare without reservation; if any scientists of previous generations engaged in such non-empirical behavior we wouldn't have any science at all! Taking any unproven 'subjective/magical out' at all in order to explain away phenomenological problems is not science!

*If light itself should be deemed to be relativistic then it stands to reason that at the speed of light, time would be expected to be stopped and not only would the light be unable to carry wave information but it would be unable to travel at all. Any relativistic argument becomes futile because it places any examination of the propagation of light as well as its wave data into a self defeating non-sequitur. You can't rationally apply relativity to light itself!

 

These two problems with light and transparent media have actually been recognized as enigmatic. So after the initial but lame and illegal appeal to relativity in explanation of the problem of light compression at the media surface; in order to explain the next problem once the light passes into the new media, current theory then arbitrarily switches relativity off, and it then declares that light is passed from atom to atom at 'c' but somehow it is now the transfer delays through atoms that supposedly causes an apparent slowing of the light. Is that situational 'pathetics' or what?

This is in opposition to the fact that (as I have already pointed out according to the stated requirements of quantum physics) protons are actually able to re-emit photons instantaneously (because of quark lattice inelasticity) albeit under QED QIP/PEP energy state restrictions. I.e. if they are in an energy state enabling them to re-emit they will do so instantaneously whilst energy state changes in a whole atom by convection are deemed to occur at 'c' anyway. Understand, that this actually only prevents any additional delay, (if you really want to think about it) so what then does cause the supposed delay? However it should be noted that in the phenomenology below I still utilize the subjective notion of reflection.

Perhaps you might argue it's because atoms have to receive enough energy from photons to be able to re-emit them once the PEP conditions were right and this might take time. After all aren't protons (not photons) fermions and therefore subject to quantum units/QIP? However even with such a seemingly acceptable argument another difficulty arises. If this were to be as supposed, then velocities in media would not be stable or constant, especially at different temperatures. Are they? (This is a difficult question because I have not stipulated any particular temperature, but you know what I mean! OK with regard to 'media differential temperatures')

If we conclude that the relativistic argument is denied and consequently the photons (or classical waves) at the event horizon of the media would by consequence have photons or 'waves' piling up into each other because the light entering the media in front has slowed, then in such a case the energy state MUST increase and the surface atoms will either re-emit light in random directions, or pass the energy to atoms in their proximity in a random manner and the media would no longer be 'window' transparent because of photon loss by various phenomena. In this case the boundary layer should not only re-emit light in all directions, it should also heat up and if a high power laser is involved, it should melt or vaporize the so called transparent object! I ask you: (Apart from impurity causes) does this occur? Then please explain where the photons go?

The only other explanation possible apart from the herein refuted 'band gap' theory (which I have already demonstrated to be highly implausible) is that (if no other phenomenology can be found) the extra photons must otherwise jump (magically) straight around the medium at faster than 'c' and recombine on the other side by some sort of miraculous time disjunct. That of course is ridiculous. The factual probability that my theory eminently solves this problem will soon become clear and it will also be seen to be not as pretentious or preposterous as those current theories.  Note: Other magical ideas that the light tries all paths before settling on the best path are refuted elsewhere herein.

Firstly I will lay out the proposed photos  laws applicable to the QED proton-photon interlocutive (not strictly entanglement) force effects which (from observance) will apply by G-theory.

1/ A photon requires a proportional force with similar but possibly reverse eigenvalues in order for it to be constrained to change tines in a linear vector shifted manner. This is stipulated to be; from zero force at zero degrees, to a force of 1 at 180os and by radial proportionality with a linear gradient. This means that a force of 0.25 will cause a 45o tine switch in either direction depending on the circumstances described, and 0.5 will then cause a switch of 90os etc.

2/ A force singularly generated by protons as a 'proton density proportional' near to far-field force is able to affect photons. What that force is, I either already have explained in part or will be addressing further.

3/ Photons will attempt to switch tines* in the projected direction by the summative force communicated by protons. This is dependent on the geometric construct of the media surface but with respect to the overriding law of the conservation of energy. The force vector reflection phenomenology which is being proposed must of course be similar (or better) in effect to that of the supposed 'wave' reflection mechanics proposed by classical physics.

*Symmetrical or other legally relatable eigenvector shift.

 

4/ Photons will lose some energy when switching tines (eigenstates). (Whether or not it is measurable).

5/ If a surface is theoretically presented to be atomically flat and reflective below the angle of refraction the photon will subjectively exhibit almost perfect elastic rebound. This is not in accordance with Newtonian physics but the quantum physics being described.

Now it becomes necessary to broach the subject of the behavior of light at the event horizons (boundaries) between media of varying densities which are deemed to be transparent.

Photons and receptive protons have a mutual (extreme near field intense) attraction depending upon the constraints mentioned in the previous chapter*. With respect to the maintenance of the conservation of energy and the economy of action principle; if a greater force is required to cause light to enter the medium than reflect, it will switch tines, and reflect at the same angle (eigenvector shift from + to -0 degrees) as the incident angle (which is the angle of the maximum conservation of energy). These actions of light are all the result of vector, force and energy laws.**

*Electrons have a summative and perturbative far field attraction to photons which is responsible for large body light bending phenomenology, and they would be considered to play (at the most) an insignificant role in this process because such a phenomenon require extreme volumetric quantities of matter for such to be realized.

 

**Proton-nucleons are determined to be the significant arbiter of this phenomenon and not electrons (probably by inverse square law over increasing distance) otherwise surface ionization would affect refractive index as well as the critical angle. However neutrino forward scattering upon reception of a photon would be the controlling function at the EWF junction being mediated by the W -W ---Zo boson. This means the critical angle will remain the same and the light path will be exactly straight through even media even though it follows a tortuous path determined by the electron positioning and the precise scattering angles so declared. This preciseness of angles also applies to re-emission statistics. The quantum eigenstate determinants are the characteristics of the particular atomic/molecular weak force interactions and this unchanging priority of states results in the reflection/refraction angles that we observe.

Such neutrino scattering known to emanate from Sol and stellar bodies could be the effective particles responsible for the bending of the light in Einstein's ring effect.

Another contention of this theory is that reflected (re-emitted) light attenuates slightly but DOES NOT CHANGE SPEED in the slightest in the same IRF.

The standard and glib postulation that the energy sum of reflected and refracted light equals the incident light energy doesn't make any sense within the frame of reference of the known observations in the natural universe; I.e. that every action occurring between two objects results in a utilization of, and therefore a loss of energy.  This includes neutrino scattering. This could have implications for inelastic rebound with subsequent relationship to Compton's scattering angle. At this stage it remains unclear. However I consider inelasticity* inside a nucleon's quark lattice to be a fact, and essential for transfer of a graviton's particles (likely to be neutrinos) during transitions. (I digress. Now returning to the thread)

*This doesn't affect quark lattice spin. It's just that external force only causes color change and not quark lattice spatial relationships.

 

Assuming the protons in the media about to be approached by photons are receptive to those particular photons, and the media is also declared to be transparent then the following is deemed to be the case.

 Photons by this theory require the action of a force to enable them to switch tines. To reiterate simplistically: This force is assumed to be linear between a force of zero to maintain direction on a tine to a force of 1 to cause a 180 degree reversal switch to another tine etc. So to exhibit the maintenance of the conservation of energy, and to reassert what I have just written I must make the following very plain: If a greater force (read--- by QED) is required to make light enter the medium at all than switch tines to reflect, it will switch tines to reflect. Conversely refraction occurs when it takes more energy to switch tines to a greater angle to reflect, than to enter the medium. This is the interlocutive data that determines the subsequent action of the incoming photons.

This twin possibility of the direction of tine switching (reflection by re-emission) occurs at the critical angle where imperfections and subsequent distortions of the proposed actions are consequently exhibited. Disregarding such anomalies we can state that this phenomenology is all the result of non relativistic QED extreme near field perturbative vector forces between the photon and the protons at and near the event horizon. By G-theory, this boundary juxtaposition is actually within the first proton and not the electron shell as is currently assumed*. The electrons would only be considered to have (if any at all) just a slight perturbative affect dependent on the nodal positioning phenomenology. This might have some bearing on media junction anomalies that are often noticed.

*incoming photon data containing the lights quantitative values as well as triangulation by the three proton EWF junctions is received by the media  surface protons both by near field fermionic perturbation as well as via internal protonic geometries. The photon reflection occurs by EWF interactions which triangulate the exact reflection eigenstate which is according to a near field curve statistic which is exactly the opposite of the incoming curve. this results in the observation of a perfect reflection eigenvalue which is not the exact case. it will be shown that surface affects are able to exist only because of the interplay of both near field perturbations and internal protonic geometric forces which will overwhelm the perturbative forces in the near field which can result in severe reflection anomalies.. 

 

While I'm on the subject I might as well expand on it: This then leads to the G-theory postulation that the assumed 'gravitational lensing' force that causes light to bend (actually switch tines) around planets is not gravity at all, rather it is thought to be through the effect of medium through far-field 'summative electronic force attraction' emanating from the massive object that's causing the light to switch tines with proportionality! This is a quantum multiplex effect.

I don't have a problem with Einstein's ring only with calculations re the amount of bending as well as the supposed cause by gravity or geodesics which (as you should already be aware by now) I declare to be a theory married to faulty assumptive reasoning.  Note: Summed electron attraction operates into the extreme far field decreasing towards infinity (---probably by inverse square law), whereas proton summative attraction into the far field would be close to vector sum zero because of the statistical variance in protonic dimensional states within the body. This however is probably just a moot aside.

Frame dragging (by G-theory) is thought to be only able to be caused by gravity but to a lesser degree than that predicted by G-rel. because the speed of gravitons is too fast to cause any significant vector shift in the force which is thought to be caused by the rotation of a body. However far-field electronic attractive forces propagate almost instantaneously so they are a prime suspect as being an additional cause of this effect if it can ever be substantiated*. This substantiation would be powerful support for G-theory and I would rename it as 'Force Frame Dragging'.  Note: The best example of the slight proximity attraction between electrons and photons can be seen in the Smith-Purcell effect.

*Any frame dragging that ever becomes measurable WOULD NOT PROVE geodesic general relativity. Proof is never concluded by assumptive interpretation, and such interpretations don't ever lend any support to theories that are already full of holes and tending towards disproof. Perhaps geodesicists should put their remarkable brains to the study of empirical logic first and then get back to physics. Note: At the time of writing, the results of Gravity Probe B were not 'in'.  Since then it has been learned that the frame dragging results were less than expected. That's a profound result in support of the contentions of G-theory and a severe blow for geodesics!  Refer to the relevant section.

 

I hope that was a necessary digression: Light becomes attenuated in two ways. 1/ By the loss of vibrational amplitude, which is caused by graviton depletion. This unlikely scenario could theoretically culminate in the complete depletion of a photon to non existence in free space. 2/ By the consequential loss of vibrational and/or rotational energy by being forced to change tines. This may actually cause infinitesimal linear speed loss. Apparent speed loss when a photon bends around a body or when it travels through a transparent medium however, does not contribute to the loss of energy of light, and with just a slight and perhaps not even observable spectra shift in the first instance. During the second instance when refraction occurs, apparent speed loss by this theory is caused by the change in the DISTANCE light travels in a medium.

This is not relativistic or according to any distortion of time (which does not change); rather the value of 'c' only appears to have changed upon exit from the medium and in G-theory therefore the incoming photons don't pile up.

I am able to speculate a mechanics whereby it is the continuance of multiple opposing eigenvector forces upon the photon traveling in media which causes a wavy/coiling and even a path of 'near-field' wandering or (in a sense) a 'two steps forward-one step backward' type propagation with a subsequent increase in the distance of travel. It is this behavior of photon media propagation that causes only apparent 'c' change.

If the media material is consistent and parallel in a QED sense then wavy but parallel tines of photon strings will of course follow similar paths and exit the medium without divergence and at the same angle as the incident angle. This effect is caused by the combined agency of protons exhibiting perfect EWF junction reception  and emission force triangulations, and (to a very limited extent) electron nodal variations.  N.B: still in parallel, within the understood and stated constraints TBE.

The force affects at the exit point of the medium are considered to be the same as the entry mechanics but reversed. Light traveling through a media of varying density will show scintillation affects. E.g. like starlight twinkling through the atmosphere. However it stands to reason that some sort of homogeneous 'field and signal' physics is in action during a light beam transition of an even medium.

Certain crystalline properties are able to cause dual diffraction (birefringence), while other crystalline or media properties are observed to result in diffusion. G-theory has no problems with photonic behavior in crystalline media. The light follows tines which may warp and twist but they must be declared to never change their average eigenvector when the transparent media has parallel sides. This is because of the statistically averaged zero sum game of all the trillions and trillions of eigenvector changes that occur during the transition of a photon through a perfectly transparent and atomically or molecularly similar (either crystalline or non crystalline) medium.  Note: refer to the previous paragraph.

We should also note the obvious; in that with regard to a perfectly transparent medium there is no actual speed reduction caused, or any loss of energy observed as a change in vibration frequency and the light remains the same color even though somewhat attenuated*. The reason that the angle of refraction is proportional to the refractive index related speed change is caused by the protonic-electronic force patterns within the media being proportional to the photonic force requirements for the photon to switch tines, which upon exit-ing the media, is once again the angle causing the best conservation of energy.  Note: Light is also reckoned to be affected by a law similar to a reversing of Maxwell's field laws of increasing effect of fermionic force as it approaches the media TBE.

*It becomes obvious that light can lose energy in two phenomenologically different ways. I.e. Attenuation: By reduction in its vibration amplitude. The other loss is not possible outside of a Q-L. The frequency is always maintained. The fact that colored media causes a change in the frequency of light is very supportive of my contention that protons re-emit light, otherwise how does the light frequency change arbitrarily when passing through tinted media if the speed doesn't change with  direct proportionality?

 

Photons may be considered to also have a reverse 'vector force affect' on the media atoms themselves, such that vibrating/rotating spirals of photons can cause proportional changes in the vibration/rotation of atomic nuclei quarks. In such a case photons may not only vibrate and affect atoms; they may also rotate in such a manner that vectorally adjusted from their vibration they might be seen to rotate on (or swirl around) a central axis as well. This rotation or spiraling (if it exists) would also contain kinetic energy, but surprisingly not because of (non existent) angular momentum but because of near-field, force-field dimensional affects which in such a case may also occur through the agency of electron orbital nodal shifts.  Note: Such node shifting will not affect the valence bonding in molecules whether crystalline or not because they would not affect the valence shell or Fermi band. I.e. light traveling in media has never been shown to affect the conductance of the media to any significant degree. Other phenomena are responsible for micro thin laminate behaviors as well as the photoelectric affect: TBE.

Note also: Higher energy photons such as ultraviolet and X–rays have a greater perturbative affect on atoms in media.

Sympathetic vibration and possibly, rotational activity between high energy photons and atoms has been noticed to have some strange and amazing effects, even to the lowering the temperature of an atom to near zero k by laser emitted photons actually vibrating the atomic bosons (energy) right out of the atom and causing light to actually stop! Yes even G-theory recognizes that light is able to be conditionally stopped but not in the ability to be emitted sense, or in transit. If photons were stopped in space, then how did the scientists observe the friggin' event!?

Cherenkov radiation in media is able to be rationally explained by this particle theory without resort to relativity.  Note: Cherenkov radiation observed between detection media in particle accelerators is by a different phenomenon.

In considering classical wave theory of Cherenkov radiation: Please explain how any electrons are able to travel through  any media at speeds approaching the speed of light? Coulombic repulsion of the other electrons in the media would slow electrons down with rapid deceleration caused by wandering until they all become absorbed by holes in electron shells, and if that's not enough, this would be exacerbated by nucleon polarization causing magnetic capture in the Fermi layer.

This will result in electron ionization in a dielectric insulator which can only result in BBR or PHOTON RE-EMISSION. The massive overload of electrons transiting the media would be expected to result in equally massive quantum jumps which in fact turn out to be in the high energy blue end of the visible light spectra. If the temperature were to be significantly raised we might see UV, x-rays or gamma particles being emitted. Of course reactor core meltdown would likely confuse the results of such an experiment and then again under those circumstances I guess such radiation might be expected to be detected in any case!  It is noticeable and significant that the electron transition flux depletion is evidenced by the fading away of the blue glow in a probably inverse square law manner.  Note: One thing to be kept in mind when observing occurrences is; that because our eyes are not linear we are open to a form of optical illusion whereby we are able to see faint photonic emission almost as well as we can observe higher light levels, so human observation should in no way be used to subjectively determine the luminescence value of the glow.

The Cherenkov radiation effect may be very helpful in being able to give us a tantalizing glimpse into the mechanics of the absorption of photons as well as other particles into opaque AMOs, because under typical circumstances, we are blind to such occurrences within opaque materials wherein internal photon emissions are fully reabsorbed in the medium and of course, we are unable to observe it.  Note:  The Smith Purcell effect is somehow assumed to display some sort of Cherenkov radiation. But the similarity of this proffered explanation with the previous one should not perhaps go unnoticed.

In this effect it was observed that an electron beam aimed parallel and very close to a diffraction grating, caused photons to be emitted from the grating with a small (but significant for G-theory) deflection of the beam.

By this particle theory; this is deemed to occur by the electron beam periodically (per electron cluster* 'flyover') repelling the other electron clusters at the peaks of the grating where there is insufficient physical volume of atoms for a dielectric polarization to occur. This results in a quantum jump in the nucleus which responds with protonic light emission for parity purposes.

*Refer to the section concerning 'Correlated Emission of Electrons'.

 

I confidently assume that the grating must have been made of a dielectric insulating material which at the peaks of the grating the atoms would be unable to fully balance and absorb the internally generated photonic emissions caused by the charge polarization in the nuclides, and so statistically expectable photon emission was the result, not surprisingly. I suspect that the results of this effect would depend on the particular grating equation involved.

The amount of energy required to cause the light emission would have been perturbative and shared by an innumerable number of electrons in the beam. The deflection of the beam although negligible was still noticeable and this would also be predictable under the circumstances.

So it can be concluded by this explanation that this phenomenon is unlikely to have anything to do with either Cherenkov radiation or indeed to any supposed changes in phase angles of light 'waves'.

Now I will address the subject of external reflection from a transparent media by particle theory in greater depth. This mechanics describes a non relativistic form of quantum electrodynamics (QCD): As a photon approaches the event horizon of a transparent media it becomes subject to the 'protonic-photaic' force-field exerted by protons within the media by laws associated with the namesake dimension.  Note: single electron perturbation with a photon is probably almost negligible but I am very open to the possibility that it is the electrons in the media and not the protons which are responsible for the perturbative forces involved in the following description of G-theory QED. However in this presentation, probability has little to do with the mechanics. It purely involves vector math.

Standard wave theory unconvincingly assumes a perfectly flat surface of atoms at the point of media juxtaposition and the shiny surface tacitly implied simply reflects the wave at low angles of incidence by absorption and re-emission of photons at the (flat?) electron shells. Problems with this theory apart from the difficulties already raised may also be exacerbated by thoughtfully evaluating and applying some hard data to the theory. Ask yourself: Is the wave theory ever firmly supported by the data?

1/ The surface of a reflective medium can be far from flat and shiny at the atomic or molecular level.

2/ Some reflected light has been observed to travel parallel to the surface of a medium. (---not refraction evanescence analyzed elsewhere.)

3/ Some light reflects and some refracts at the refractive index incidence angle.

4/ Waves appear to polarize upon reflection, being generally weighted in a certain orientation. This effect may be assumed to reasonably occur at or near the incidence angle of refraction but it is an enigma of wave theory that it seems to occur at all reflective angles independent of polarization. An evaluation by simple logic should be conclusively convincing that this couldn't possibly be the result if a light wave simply reflects from a nice flat shiny surface.

In the normal presentation of the mechanics of refraction by wave physics; whereby the wiggly line representing the light wave is shown to bend because it slows upon entering a medium, works OK for vertically polarized light but with planar polarization? duh! So how 'planar' polarized light is able to refract at all according to wave theory is a potential model destroying difficulty for the theory.

5/ Polished surfaces of various transparent media actually have different reflectivity. I.e. light loses more or less visibility by diffusion. Even though these 'wave theory' ideas are naively simplistic they still remain the popular view to date. In a pragmatic sense I accept that wave theory still remains scientifically useful in general theory, but the proposition of a fully scalar theory of light propagation is crucial to G-theory.

Such a particle theory of light by vector force resultants at the atomic and quantum level convincingly explains and resolves the above problematic phenomena.

In representing G-theory; other factors must be considered: To begin with, one photon behavioral consideration is that the lower the angle of incidence at reflection the shallower the penetration of the photon into the atom (not as far as the nucleus) and so the atomic force remains proportionally as low as the angle of incidence so the angle of reflection remains the same as the angle of incidence. This means that the forces have proportional eigenvectors and values and energy losses are proportionally abrogated.

Because a surface is never atomically flat their will always be some random diffusion, reflection and refraction, and at the critical angle this effect is maximized. Photons that are detected to run parallel along the surface of a medium have simply by collision with other reflecting photons been crowded on their tine and forced into the gravitos and when they finally return to a tine they will (by energy conservation) choose the tine which contains the most attraction (force) to the protonic media. But the photons in this situation will in no way be placed on a tine that threatens to compromise the conservation of energy. So they will not lose such energy which would be required to change tines to enter the media and nor do they now need to reflect.  This also suggests that some light 'plasms' at the event horizon of media and is instantly re-emitted after being absorbed by gravitons. This has particular importance when it comes to high power lasers and the behavior of light so caused, as will be explained.

Light tends to become slightly polarized at or approaching the critical angle because vertically vibrating photons vibrate deeper into the atoms than planar vibrating ones and this results in some reflection as well as refraction. This has been well demonstrated using polarized lasers.

Color variable transparent materials have variability of receptive protons to the color vibrational frequencies of the photons so received and the elemental or molecular material has receptive and rejective protons existing in the propos or photos as the case may be and the photons relating to the color vibration of accepting protons pass right through the object on the vacant tines because those particular protons are in the propos. This is what ostensibly causes visibly colored media. Various elemental impurities in the media will cause band and line spectra distortions. However if the situation should be observed where color becomes changed and not the intensity of the light then my previously stated phenomenology would stand.

Light with a 90o angle of incidence is the easiest to understand because the QED vector forces acting from every protonic (electronic) force eigenvector as it approaches the media horizon causes a net result of zero sum, and the attractive force of combined receptive protons (existing in another dimension) is of insufficient force required to make light switch tines to 180o, and the eigenvector/value of forces remains theoretically unchanged. (I.e. the media is not a mirror).

This comprehension of photonic entry into a media is made difficult by the thoroughly complex situations encountered with even gravitons and BBR being emitted and absorbed and reabsorbed by protons and photons alike according to the previously described interactions of particles and dimensions. The photon is subsequently seen to lose some degree of energy and therefore luminescence and because of this fact, no object is able to be considered to be completely transparent. Imperfect materials also cause aberrations that can blur evaluation of the data.

Once a photon does enter the new medium of different density it refracts but it has 'pre-discovered' that the forces within the new media are proportionally different than the forces which were being exerted upon it in the previous media. The photon found itself no longer able to reflect to best conserve energy. It has seemingly been tricked into entering the media, and if this media is of greater density or differing molecular configurations it will experience the action of greater and varying and even conflicting forces. Such perturbative force volatility causes it to switch tines (conditionally subjugated but with obvious necessity) an innumerable number of times, but because of the standardized nucleonic patterning presented by 'homogonous atomic media' it generally realizes no other net vector change in any summative eigenvector analysis. But we should understand that the photon was initially, and continues to be able to, visualize the shape of the transparent media by the summation of protonic QED forces, and each light photon frequency will react accordingly by relative vector force resultants.  Refer to the following section.

 By the tine switching (wiggling) process defined in a previous paragraph the distance the photon now travels through the media has by reason become substantially and case specifically longer and it therefore only exhibits the appearance of slowing down by traveling a greater distance. The photon has no inertia* so it doesn't slow at all. Therefore we would not expect to observe any Doppler shift in the frequency and hence no change in the color of the light if the media is perfect and parallel sided.  Note: Perfect lenses will follow a similar phenomenology.

*Tine switching is forced by the photos and by this reason a photon is able to be considered to only have excruciatingly small mass when traveling which is only observable upon the instant of its matter being received into a proton. Refer to the relevant section for a full description of such phenomenology.

 

This Doppler problem is only answerable within the standard theory by the lame and unsubstantiated idea that light can 'choose' to change its frequency but not its speed, which once again is very problematic, and the converse of this is (although still unacceptable): If light were able to change its speed in a media it would not be observed to experience a frequency change, both ideas are subordinately relativistic and therefore absurd and such a phenomenon would have to occur without any other known cause! Sorry --- I guess other magic is still available as a plan B.

Prior to this newly proffered G-theory explanatory twist on QED this has been an embarrassing 'black hole' for science and so it has remained conveniently ignored to a great extent and simply glossed over where necessary with the glibly stated relativity bullet. Such a 'gloss over' is painfully transparent to the thinking scientist: Because how can relativity ever be thought to have any plausible application if the light only APPEARS to slow down in any case?

How a relativist can come up with such an empty postulation is beyond me! Of course the next enemy of rationality is enshrined in the idea that photons don't actually move; space-time does and we have already seen the absurdity behind such arguments which already prevents any such phenomenology from being considered as useful for forming a rational conclusion* and you can be sure that further nails will soon be driven into that particular coffin as this thesis continues!

*In some respects I'm preaching to a choir that's singing from different song sheets, because the consensus in science is that general relativity is not unifyable with quantum physics. Therefore because they attempt to use S-rel in the above examples it means that S-rel and G-rel can't be unified at all. Gravity, light and quantum physics definitely are unifyable by G-theory, so G-rel is no longer required as an embarrassingly awkward pisaller either.

 

Let's face it; relativity is so conveniently available to be sneakily used as a case selective 'band aid' on many occasions, but considering the frequent necessity for its fraudulent use, and the fact that on many occasions the wounds are simply too large, The patient if clearly in view, is seen incompetently and haphazardly bandaged up, and still hemorrhaging all over the academy and close to death. "clear"!

back to some real physics: Once light has 'bent' or entered a theoretically perfect transmission media there is nothing physically in its way, because as it 'passes through' atoms all the fermions and bosons are in different dimensions than the photons, and the light gets a free (albeit perturbed and convoluted) ride though the media but it is of prime importance to note that it is STILL traveling at 'c'.

 It must also be noted that the photons are deemed to have a presence in the force field (QED) dimension as well as the photos, and are therefore subject to the perturbative forces of the protons that they pass 'through' on the way. This causes them to react accordingly through perturbation, and ironically the propagation path of the photons now appears to be more like a wave (or to put it simplistically; a squiggle), and thy travel in a wiggly line.

Such a wandering path is controlled by the density and molecular structure as well as nuclear positioning of the protons and the consequently reflected and higher generational level atomic crystalline structures. Some of these internal media forces are capable of causing the photons such a convoluted (and even very contorted spiraling paths are possible) path that the observed slowing of the speed of light through some media is very great indeed*.

I will reiterate; that this action causes the photons (while still traveling at 'c' and continuing their own vibration signature) to appear to have slowed down. Some media appears to slow light to incredibly low speeds which are almost beyond comprehension. I believe however that it is 'cold' light plasma affects in the extreme atomic near fields and not necessarily path convolution which is the cause of this. However this still remains unclear so I will suggest another substantive phenomenology.

In some crystalline structures such as in a ruby, the crystalline 'cells' may be acting like miniature cellular laminates which cause total internal reflection and refraction which causes a severe summative propagation delay but an equally summative but zero sum vector resolution of eigenstates--- Just a thought.

*This is also co-dependent on the energy level of the photon. A higher energy photon such as an x-ray photon will bend less and be more likely to pass through a media which is mildly translucent or even a media that's opaque to normal light.

 

If summative far field projected electronic attraction causes light to bend around planet sized objects, won't it still 'bend' as it passes by, very close to a smaller object? The answer (by theory) must be yes, but such an effect has only a remote possibility of being measurable even against extremely large and very dense objects here on earth. Even the earth itself is too small to offer any significant perturbative affect on photons.

In proportional comparison with planetary sized bodies this bending may only occur within a one or two atom distance from a real world sized large object and the tine shifting would be comparatively small and probably masked by the random atomic perturbative effects which probably exist near the surface of any object. Attempts to measure the speed of gravity by light bending around Jupiter have ended with questionable results.

It is theorized that the closest photons passing by the said atoms (determined by orientation of oscillation I.e. polarization) could actually be captured by the object. This bending may actually explain why the shadow of a very small object exhibits a dot of light at the center and what is worthy of serious note is the intense profundity of such a phenomenology when it comes to analyzing light passing through slits and holes.  Note: Also refer to the section on 'electron behavior when beamed through slits… analyzing the quantum mechanics'.

This subjective analysis proposes 1/ an atomic extreme near field proximity affect on light regardless of the protonic density of an AMO, as well as 2/ a near to far field electron density proportional affect. It is this first affect which becomes important when we come to study the behavior of light being passed through narrow slits and holes etc. 3/ a protonic conditional eigenstate transforming re-emission of photons during reflection and refraction.

The situation for light running parallel and very close to a transparent media may be the same but not necessarily. Similarly; for a mirror (which is sometimes made from base material with unreceptive protons) it would depend on the thickness of the mirror surface material and density of the whole base medium.

This might sound problematic if you subjectively assume that the surface of a transparent material actually becomes more mirror-like at low angles of incidence. However according to the reasons that light enters or reflects according to this theory one must remember that it is protonic forces and not the reflectivity of the media horizon that causes this.

There maybe a situation at very low angles of incidence. (I.e. the grazing angle) with transparent media, that some photons will enter the media and exit via another media horizon in a random fashion. This may not actually be observable unless one has a laser of only one wavelength and a single photon stream. Such an effect could be technologically significant!

Electrical manipulation of media has already enabled technological inventions such as LCDs and light activated welding goggles etc, and even though this is not manipulation at the atomic level, it is still interesting to suspect that future technologies that may become available by atomic manipulation could be many and varied, with some even novel. ---Invisibility anyone!? ---Perhaps a photon addressing/reading (quantum state memory) computer perhaps? With such a wide spectrum of light frequencies available, such an invention could have as much powerful potential as the much vaunted 'quantum computer' without the perceived difficulties of being able to develop such a device under the currently envisioned concepts.

What would you see if light striking a transparent object could be totally refracted or reflected or diffused by atomic control and you could modulate the subject nuclei in many different ways purely by photonic or even electronic means? Currently magnetic and electric fields have no (direct) affect on the light because photons have no charge or magnetic dipole. This predicates that light is not electromagnetic period! However it may be able to affect the quantum states of electrons and/or protons. The trick would be to get them to remain in the new state for memory purposes. --- perhaps by utilizing Cryo-dynamics?  Creating such extreme environments allows science to remove matter from the influence of the eos and this constitutes a method of dimensional manipulation. Other anthropomorphically friendly means should be sought for application in everyday technologies perhaps.

Even better: If we could find a way of popping protons in and out of dimensions at will. Imagine the possibilities! (Refer to chapter 7)

Leaving such speculation aside: Such possibilities are only made imaginable by the (immediately presented G-theory phenomenological) proposal rejecting any other particle or wave theories regarding the propagation of light. By its addressing and answering difficulties with standard models it also helps support the multi-dimensional aspects of G-theory per se.

The reason that white light diffracts is because photons of differing vibrational frequencies, by possessing different vibrational energy components require separate force requirements to enable them to switch tines, and consequently they diffract at an altered angle according to changed vector force resultants. This all occurs inside protons.

Prisms I will not address any further at this juncture. However if you may think it is just more of the same sort of wave theory resulting in similar refraction: such a conclusion has already been profoundly shown to be wrong!

But in so saying I am still to address refraction from a dense to a less dense medium, total internal reflection, mirror reflection versus absorption, refraction, double diffraction (birefringence) and diffraction gratings. Also to be addressed are negative and amphoteric refraction, Fresnel lenses, lasers, photon plasmas in more detail, and the observed spatial displacement of laser light at total internal reflective event horizons in some materials.

Firstly I will contend from the physics that refraction from a dense to a less dense medium is conditionally by the reverse vector force analysis compared to the opposite direction. Total internal reflection is considered to still remain vector force related to photon and proton interlocution.  Total internal reflection can be treated in the same manner except for intrinsic behaviours which I will shortly address.

Now to the analysis of a mirror: A surface treated mirror is considered to contain (contrary to what you may think) atoms that are counter intuitively super-receptive to photons down to several layers of atoms thick.  The main reason for this conclusion is that the atomic density of the mirror material is sufficient to present such a force to the photon that it is able to cause it to change tines up to 180 degrees and even though the surface medium is very receptive, the protons are concurrently in the photos and hence are able to exert direct and extreme attractive near field force to the photon right at the intimate vicinity of an horizon atom.

Once again counter-intuitively to the most likely prediction, this force is at a sufficiently high level to be able to cause the photon to switch tines to 180os and this in effect tricks it into reversing direction because it 'knows' that in so doing it will conserve the most energy.  Note: A photon is one of the only particles that's able to conserve both its energy and spin moment infinitely while it remains unperturbed or unaffected in the photos. Even during the mechanics of photon collision it resists changes to its spin moment. I.e. it is theoretically capable of the absolute conservation of energy because along with gravitons it is one of the causes of universal entropy and so it is not counter subject to the first law of thermodynamics but being part of our universe it is still subject to the second and third laws. Ditto gravitons; because of the mutual photon interactive phenomenology which allows this all.

This also explains the effect of being able to polish up normally light absorbent metals to enable them to reflect, because in that case an almost perfectly arrayed force of protons is presented at the surface such that it will then be atomically reflective according to the conservation of energy criteria previously analyzed, albeit often with color anomalies as previously explained.

Spatial shifting of laser light during total internal reflection in some materials would be thought to be caused by the high angle of reflection and tine (not time)/dimension shifts caused by photon-photon collisions; thus causing interactive vibrations resulting in interference phasing (or 'plasming' really) which in turn cause the photons to shift tines and effectively bounce along the internal surface of the medium by an evanescent wave interaction until they escape the overload interference of the incoming laser light and are now able to reflect as per the normal explanations without interference, but by consequence now spatially shifted.  Note: There is a limit to the numerical quantity of photons that can exist in any given space before they are forced to stop (plasm).

 I must admit that this is just as hard to describe as it is to understand. Put simply?? The high energy' and density photons reflect and the incoming photons collide with the reflected photons and 'plasm'* in a vibrational sense, because after plasming they become 'tagged' by other incoming photonic affects on atoms and they are then forced by energy conservation law to follow the new angular tine traveling back towards the media horizon. By so doing they and/or other photons reflect again, and the whole process is repeated until the photons are out of the collision zone and are then able to reflect unchallenged.

*It may be possible to create temporary light plasma by the mechanics of a periodic pattern of 'plasma laser' etched dots or cross-hatchings relating to the 'wavelength' of the incident light being utilized.

Evanescent wave function is as per the standard theories, except that instead of wave function the evanescence is considered by G-theory to be caused by some photons escaping the medium because of anomalous surface protonic force effects similar to electron tunneling according to quantum mechanics statistical projections and once outside the media they then travel in all directions until at about 1/3 of a 'wavelength of photon vibration' the photons which have been following strictly controlled protonic force field (QED) determinants are now freed to travel in an evenly dispersed manner and they now come under the inverse square law  of attenuation.  Note: It is highly likely that extraordinary optical transmission (EOT) is likely a function of photon tunneling through an otherwise impassable barrier.  This means that interlocution occurs and relents at 1/3 wavelength (actually at 0.293 by sine wave math*) from the surface of a medium and the interlocutive data transfer is deemed to be almost instantaneous.

*Vibrating photons still trace a sine wave and as I have stated previously wave phenomenology is a perfectly useful mathematical and conceptual tool for use in the study of light. Just like with relativity--- It's just not the actual facts.

The phenomenon of electrons and even whole molecules being diffracted is most likely by a tunneling mechanics. Any assumption that such a thing proves quantum wave function is presumptive.

None of the aspects of evanescence as noted in both classical and quantum physics as well as the utilization of the effect in technological devices is disputed by this theory which actually upholds them.

Electromagnetic fields only falsely appear to affect light itself at charged media junctions but that is just an illusion of perception. It is a known fact that emr or electrostatic fields cannot affect light in any other case so why should it break the law there? The clear understanding here is that the e.m. field is affecting the relevant surface atoms which in turn are affecting the photons according to this G-theory interlocutive phenomena.

Diffraction gratings act (according to this theory) as an even series of parallel lines which exhibit 'critical size dimensions' being necessary to create minute atomic/molecular level prisms with a proportional photon/fermion force with respect to the average value of the vibrational amplitude and frequency of the photons. In other words that would be sympathetic photon frequency harmonic relationship around the visible frequency spectrum.  Note: QED probability vectors are the likely mathematical analytic function of this effect.

Transmission gratings are suspected as being more complex variants of a double slit interference device. This requires that the photons are able to 'see' the whole grating by the force-field (QED) mechanics described herein.

As I have indicated before; light plasma is theorized to consist of photons, either individually or en masse as full or sub quantum (number) of particles, existing (and even able to remain stationary) in the gravitos. Plasmas are observed in nature traveling at relatively slow speeds, such as finger lightening balls as well as ground proximity ball lightening just drifting around. This plasma may consist of light plasma, or in other terms cold plasma. (This is because hot plasma would lose sustaining temperature too quickly by the 'zeroeth law' of thermodynamics to exist in the atmosphere for the many seconds as is often observed. E.g. The hot plasma caused by lightening and visible as the 'bolt' when the plasma re-emits the photons is usually gone in milliseconds which is still an 'eon' in quantum terms.

Apart from fusion energy, other plasma research that may be carried out could entail content based on the following: Luminescent light plasma may be able to be manipulated to cause it to soak up gravitons and withhold their re-emission, and in so doing cause anti-gravity effects, which could lead to anti-gravity drives and shields as well as artificial gravity. It may become possible for hot plasma to be utilized as an impact shield. Containment and protection for a starship utilizing anti-gravity technology for faster than light gravity drive space travel would be an absolute necessity.  Note: It is already a know fact that focused lasers can pick up atoms and cause fusion in a deuterium pellet.

The occupants of such a starship wearing similar technologically designed anti gravity suits (or an internal pod in the ship surrounded by such) would only then be subject to the normal laws of motion and not GTDv. Atomic, molecular and cellular bonds would not be affected by this.

It could entertained as a possibility worth exploring that an artificial gravity may be able to be induced by high intensity laser collisions. (Just a thought!) Protection of the occupants from the light/heat plasmas could utilize heat tiles covered with artificial sapphire and fused silica mirrors. Such a starship may appear like a small sun approaching and scare the living bleep out of any alien observers of distant worlds. (I digress with theory based fantasy).  Note: Such a futuristic ship and its astronauts would still be subject to accelerative and inertial forces but controlled gravity.

Einstein's slit and all polarizing slits act as they do by proximity force perturbative interactions between photons and nuclei via protons and possibly electrons in the vicinity of the slit material. The movement of atoms being fermionically attracted to the photons passing through the slit will also slightly distort the slit, such effects should be taken into account when analyzing and interpreting data acquired via the slit or holes. All light energy loss can be accounted for because some photons or gravitons will be absorbed by the atoms near the slit either by direct atomic absorption or plasma affects. The effect is likely to be coincident with the phenomenon of entanglement/interlocution.

Interference patterns produced through light experiments do not prove wave theory. They only prove a patterned dispersal of photon densities caused by the transverse vibrational vector force resultants at the atomic event horizon of the hole or slit so used. This is because of elasticity and vibration of the holes/slits caused by accelerative and decelerative vector forces acting on both photons and atoms at the quantum level. Any supposition that the slit or holes are stationary objects (Meaning the atomic matter of the slit in the extreme-near to near-field vicinity) when light passes through will lead to incorrect conclusions.

Any circular interference patterns that occur through a hole would constrain the wave to be phenomenologically similar to a pressure wave similar to sound, or the patterns could not possibly occur. So in light of that (no pun intended): I might be stupid; but how anything is able to polarize a pressure wave front within an invariant media that's not even propagative of the wave, beats me. Yet we know for a fact that light can be polarized.  Note: Electron interference patterns may be evaluated in a similar manner. We know from experimentation that an electron beam is able to be deflected by matter. Refer to the Smith Purcell effect above (in the thesis book).

So for instance if two photons are traveling side by side and one passes through the center of the slit and one passes to one side, one photon may switch tines in responses to the instantaneous quantum perturbative force applied near the edge of the slit, and its tine will appear to 'bend' in a slightly different direction.  Photons of different colors will diffract differently of course.  Note: I have kept this analysis skinny because there are better explanations of this proposed phenomenon out there! 

Fringe shift interference patterning can also be explained in a similar manner in that, the description of so called 'wave lengths' simply holds to the standard misinterpretation of photon vibrations.

Light has been shown to change tines when two high power laser beams collide and an interference pattern is noticed at the point of collision (in a vacuum!) This shows that because photons don't bounce off each other (they are supposed to be more boson than fermion), and because there remains a 'limit' for the quantity of photons per point in space, they consequently 'plasm' in the vacuum (not being a true vacuum according to this theory) and switch tines.  Note: Perfect elastic collision mechanics may cause the appearance of particles passing right through each other. For this to be occurring with light, the photons would not only have to swap velocity energy but spin moments and involve eigenvector variations as well. This seems to be phenomenologically unlikely, so I'll stick with the G-theory mechanics of light collisions thanks.

The 'plasm-ing' action sends some of the photons to your eyeballs so in that way you can see them*. Otherwise there is no other theory that I know of that can explain how 'bosons' colliding in a vacuum can redirect themselves as light to your eyeballs! It is most likely that dark areas observed in the interference pattern are actually a true vacuum; devoid of any matter at all, which cannot be said of space. This could be of great significance for future science which may require absolute vacuum constraints in order to work with sub nucleon particles! This suggests that the ultimate vacuum is possible. (We may then actually prove that 'nothing is possible!' Ha ha). Seriously; If what is created is truly the ultimate vacuum then according to this theory it would actually be a 'hole in gravity' the importance of which might be currently unimaginable yet  perhaps extremely significant for future science and technologies.

*G-theory Photon-graviton interaction phenomenology is able to explain interference patterns in the photon plasma. This is also related to the affects which occur in causing the spatial displacement that was analyzed earlier.

 

Lasing is probably caused by propos protonic quantum effects causing the photons to plasm until the energy level required to force them to jump onto a tine in a particular direction (so caused) is reached and they then 'lase'' by choosing parallel tines (so caused by the same quantum energy level being reached by all the emitting protons at the same instant). (Refer to interlocution and eos phenomenology).

This postulation need not be especially accurate science, and the standard theories of lasing may well be more accurate. This could be ascertained by experiments into the propensity for high energy light collisions to plasm and create and absorb gravitons enabling them to create or delete gravity. How else can a laser pick up or hold a hadron?

To reiterate a little: Highly reflective objects such as mirrors have protons that accept photons but the perceived force required to switch tines to 180o is less than the perceived force required to make the photon enter the object. This is still by the photon's assessment by interlocution which action will result in the least loss of energy and as usual it maintains proportional eigenvector parity upon reflection.

This all makes a photon seem intelligent doesn't It? Not really: The photon is simply manipulated by the repulsive or attractive force of the protons at the event horizon via the force-field dimension as quantum mechanics interlocution. All the photon gets to 'know', is if the proton or (media) has got enough attractive or repulsive force to cause the photon to appear to exhibit certain behaviors dependent on its own attractive force? That s all the photon can react to. Is it programmed to do this?! I think not! The forces that apply to protonic re-emission are more likely to be caused by something as mundane as sympathetic perturbative force vibrational vectors, than anything so profound. That is interlocution without entanglement.  Note: The attractive force on a photon doesn't result in perceivable acceleration because 'c' is set by the eos and the photos is subject to the pertinent laws.

An explanation of the particle theory of the photo-electric effect: It is thought by G-theory to be mainly caused by incident photons carrying sufficient quantasized 'data' (bosons per Planck) which has a rebound effect on electrons, or indeed a 'photo-protonic' affect if the incident atom is in a full quantum state and the Fermi state is right etc. when a photon is absorbed by the proton.

Put more simply: If the incident light is of sufficient energy it will conditionally shock the nucleon which will eject an electron from the outer shell. If the energy is insufficient for the quantum state the only result might be a re-emission of photons, or of course nothing might occur apart from BBR and or internal AMO convection, and this is also quantum state dependent.  Note: According to G-theory electrons DO NOT get physically knocked out by being struck by photons. That's a common idea which is typical of the tepid approach to scientific reasoning which involves making banal suggestions without showing cause or probability, and it's not at all a convincing phenomenology for a particle that has far less energy and mass than that of an electron.

This is very similar to the method of reception of ramaton particles (specifically) in the radio reception explanation in chapter 10. If the material being incidental has receptive protons in the photos then the higher vibration frequency (and perhaps even the larger size??) of ultra violet or blue photons will cause the effect more than red photons, which is truly borne out in practice because they don't actually cause the effect to occur at all.  Note: High energy emr (radio) reception can also cause electron emission from conductors, especially at sharp corners.

Experiments with ultra thin laminated media should probably be carried out to expose the affect that light striking one side of the media has on light traveling parallel through any given media (and visa versa) and also on the opposite side. This theory predicts that the light traveling parallel to the media laminates will be attracted into another media of different density to either a 'go-no go' (or greater or lesser degree) depending on variations between negative permeability* and negative dielectric material characteristics within any given laminate.

Experiments in this area may lead to a photon operated light switches which may even lead to a light computer memory being developed. This may at least result in enhanced computer memory access and read speeds, and may even have possible implications for high realism 3D TV. Light retention and spatial displacement phenomena may have real application in science as well.  Note: This in no way devalues the current and exiting science of quantum mechanics which is currently experimenting with quibits and CQPS at cryogenic temperatures. However it might be a bonus to arrange the science so it works at room temperature. Quantum computing and quantum data transfer both hold promise if their limitations are able to be overcome. Interference; which is problematic for quantum data transmission may be overcome if the MSB-s in the data are completely dark and not light. By this I am referring to the dark areas noticed in certain interference and laser experiments that I consider might actually be a perfect quantum vacuum.

G-theory provides a way forward in understanding the dilemma whereby quantum physics and classical physics appear to be unable to be unified. I.e. by the theory of multiplicity and three different sets of conditionally subjugated laws. this also requires the idea of the eos being disabled at cryogenic temperatures where quantum mechanics almost seems to be the preeminent activity.

Most of the problems associated with quantum mechanics lie in the very fundamental difficulty of observing behavior without altering it. Not to mention Schrodinger's cat.

So by way of a little further explanation as a matter of possible interest I can envisage a light switch by multi layer technique as just described whereby the multi laminar media refraction to reflection phenomena may be manipulated by other light to modulate the refractive indices of the laminate and so change the direction of the reflected light. Is that what you could call a light operated switch or beam modulator/scanner perhaps?

 

The theory behind this is by the proposal that light has a near-field effect on atoms in media. Yes magnetic and non/a-magnetic materials can have an affect in the inter/tra-media behavior of light. This is because of dimensional characteristics and magnetic dipole moment changes in response to photon induced form factor changes in positive permeability materials.

Negative refraction and indeed amphoteric (Incident angle dependent positive to negative refraction.) are functions of the atomic matrix and elemental characteristics of the crystalline media and it is thought to be caused not by electron nodal set positioning but by nucleon matrix arrangements.  Note: Please keep in mind that this work is not a technical exercise in explaining every phenomenon (science lesson), but to promote the particle theory of everything so in that regard a great deal of the existing science is simply taken for granted, and other strange sounding phenomenon are yet to be addressed herein.

It may also be of significance to note that other particles such as electrons can also undergo refraction through media which is iso-transparent.

The phenomenon with the possibility of providing the greatest difficulty for this G particle theory is that of phase and group speed differences and also the observed reflection of group waves when the basic carrier wave passes through a medium. I would suggest it still comes down to an interaction of perturbative affects*.  Note: As a point of order it must be made plain that the wave mechanics associated with fluid dynamics can have no intimate connection with any assumed wave propagation theory of light which is ostensibly a quantum effect and occurring without a media for its propagation. No AMO media can be considered to be in any way conducive to the propagation of light.

*Such a phenomenon might predicate that light in media may be able to actually be controllable by other fundamental forces under the right conditions. If we can envisage that then it becomes possible that we might be able to store light and release it a will. Is that a light memory?

 

So in all fairness then: The most model threatening problems of all are able to be aimed squarely at wave propagation theory and by extension any duality theory. This is most profoundly demonstrated in the failure of the color divergence of a light beam upon entering a parallel sided media when it miraculously DOES diverge when the sides are not parallel. E.g. A prism! I am able to and will answer both of these dilemmas by G-theory.

The main conclusion that can be drawn here is that wave theory holds up well in general respects but its failure to provide answers to several important questions arouses suspicions in the astute scientist by that very silence in the 'rational thought wave aether'.

If we really wish to study sub nucleonic behavior we may even have a need for a more intricate understanding of particle theory to an excruciatingly finer greater degree than that which this overview extends to.  Note: Even though this thesis appears to allow some wave-particle duality theory, in the pragmatic end; it's 'horses for courses'. Which is it?


 

 

 

 

 

THE GREAT ENIGMAS OF LIGHT--- PRISMATIC REFRACTION & DIFFRACTION:

 

 

In support of my contention that light photons interlocute preeminently by proton with lesser electron perturbative force interaction with a medium as they approach the surface of a new media and that protonic re-emission mechanics finally determines the behaviour.

I just have to be up front and first ask the 'in your face'--- 'don't mention the war' question even if it makes your light wave propagation model feel like sneaking out the back door while you are otherwise occupied in searching for a plausible answer that doesn't include the words magic or relativity.

This is the sixty four million dollar question: How does light recognize the actual shape of a medium before it even arrives at the surface? It plainly must subjectively pre-determine this because white light begins to diffract at the very moment it enters a prism. This must necessarily occur even well before it arrives at the other side of the object in order for it to determine whether the object is say a prism or not. In actual fact: THIS MUST OCCUR BEFORE THE LIGHT EVER ENTERS THE MEDIUM. By any wave theory the wave is unable to send data back from the exit face (or indeed from anywhere) back to the entry face especially before it even enters the medium*. How on earth can classical physics explain such a phenomenon? Let me 'lock the door' behind your wave theory by giving a plausible and reasonable explanation by G-theory.

*Any proposed reflective wave mechanics is denied. Relativistic explanations are also denied because by G-rel that would require a violently stressed electromagnetic tensor which wouldn't be relatable to any acceptable geodesic manifold and by S-rel it's pure impossibility by requiring a reference frame disjunct without any relative motion change. It becomes ridiculous when you find yourself now having to represent the idea that time changes inside media.

 

It stands to reason then that (with a little artful personification) the incoming light has to make a very quick decision prior to entry into a medium in order for it to remain intact and refract at equal angles in the case of a parallel sided media. Either that or it would otherwise be required to exhibit variable eigenspace and/or frequency refraction through the media and hence  diffract in different spurious directions upon exit-ing and even if it only exhibited slight non coherence this would cause it to exhibit severe multi-fraction and further dispersion of colors if the media has an angular shape such as a prism. The problem I will reiterate; is that the 'dumb' light begins to disperse the very instant it begins to refract through the prism but not when it starts to refract at a similar angle through a parallel sided pane of glass say.

This problem is a severely model threatening dilemma under the current understanding, yet far from allowing the model to be 'dumped on' like that, the problem is currently fobbed of as 'We don't exactly know the laws of refraction yet' (or some other excuse) by way of an answer to inquisitive students who are astute enough to see the enigma. That might be a fair excuse in some circumstances but not when faced with  impossibility. Especially while at the same time other theories offer a more likely pathway to finding a  possibility solution.

If you have taken note of this G-theory proposal of the conditional mechanics of fermionic forces and their role as the arbiters of refraction/reflection as well as the bending of light around a universal body then it is now in all likelihood that the student may now be able to be taught the correct and valid reason. I.e. The problem is solved because light can appear to 'see' into a medium specifically by the combined interlocutive protonic forces being applied on it (entanglement). In this we can also derive the plausible notion that each frequency of light requires a slightly different tine change in order for it to specifically obey the law of the conservation of energy to the best of its singular ability whenever the denser transitional medium is not parallel sided or even. From that we arrive at the phenomenon of color divergence.  Note: Perfect energy conservation has never been observed in the universe.

 

 

 

Light wave or particle 2

 

If light is a wave then the Plank's constant or quantum value would be invalid for describing the relationship between a wave amplitude and its energy, and the wave relationship defining the amplitude would be determined by the peak to peak amplitude of the wave oscillating at 'c' or perhaps rms (0.707.p) in either case that is ridiculous because the wave amplitude would be incredibly large… 1.e. 494-700nm

 This problem is solved relativistically or by adding in a fifth dimension by uo eo. That is an invalid method and I have shown the true equation for photon energy in the section--- PHOTON EMISSION STATISTICS

The proposals here are that light is never a wave and it travels as an observed unbroken string of quantum packets and the obvious evanescent transitions in the cladding of a light fibre lends strong support to my contention that light is re-transmitted and not reflected at all. The delay time in the cladding is required to re assimilate a quantum (or input equivalent value quantum number) of sub quantum bosons which are re-emitted under perfectly transposed eigenstate emission standards.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Light is not propagated as a wave. It has momentum in the vacuum.