One of the many interesting realizations derived from this new geometry is that way that it allows one to describe light. The nature of light, as has been commonly expressed, remains an enigma. It is both particle and wave. It has inertia, but can be dispersed. How can this be?
Light, or more generally, electromagnetic energy has the following characteristics:
It travels through space in a straight-line manner at a constant speed, ‘c’.
It also travels in waves, which although appearing to be planar when forced into a two dimensional venue, are helical in nature, with the electric maximum leading the magnetic maximum by 900.
It has inertia, as evidenced by the photoelectric effect.
Light is a phenomenon that is always in motion. If it is not moving, then it is not light, and since it is, it would seem best to describe it utilizing velocities. As it turns out, this is neither confusing nor hard.
The linear component of light can be expressed by our Linear velocity variable:
For light, this variable is actually a constant whose value is ‘c’, as we’ve discussed.
The wave nature of light can likewise be expressed as another one of our velocity values, in this case:
Since the wave has both a length (its amplitude) and a rotation rate (tracked by its frequency), this quantity is best expressed by our Spiral variable. For any given quantity of light the relationship between the amplitude and the frequency is also a constant, shown by the Planck equation:
E = hν
Which can be manipulated to show that :
ν/λ = c
and means that light, while traveling at 186,000 miles a second in the linear dimension is also orbiting about that linear axis at a constant, proportional rate of speed.
The inertial aspects of light are contained in the final dimension, the Rotation or spin dimension, in our system notated as:
The inclusion of this component may be a little less obvious than the other two, but one of the things that we learned while exploring the Rotational dimension is that the primary artifact of this type of motion is that it creates inertia, and it is that inertia, not mass, that can have effects on the outside, larger world.
As it turns out, this is also a constant, in the sense that any inertial value for a photon is sensitive to and controlled by the particular amplitude and frequency of the light energy being considered, as related by Planck’s constant above.
Therefore, light can be expressed by the following equation:
Elight = f (Vl , Vlω, Vω)
So how does this help us with our little light identity problem? Well, I’m so glad that you asked. Each dimension can be seen to carry its own time with it, since time is an integral part of each measurement parameter. And each dimension brings its own time with it when being expressed in the physical world.
We’ve already shown that one cannot directly see a velocity.
The trick here is that we are not prepared to see any quantity beyond an acceleration.
When we see light as a wave, we are seeing the evidence of only the Vl and V lω variables, that is, an orbit (spiral) over distance. The Rotational velocity is still there, but our test and analysis precludes our ability to display that variable in that particular situation. Think: Young’s Double Slit experiment.
Likewise, when we force the photon to demonstrate the Photoelectric effect, there is no addition to the measurement made by the V lω velocity, since its action is parallel with the plane of action, so the only quantities affecting the outcome are Vl and Vω, which contribute inertia and linear velocity and combine to produce force. The situation is not that all three of the velocities are not all present at any one time, it’s just that they are invisible to us until we force them to evidence themselves in some particular way, and as yet, we have not devised an experiment to show all three at once.
We just haven’t been looking for all of the quantities at once.
So using these assumptions and this description of light, there is no need to ponder whether light is a particle or a wave, because it is both, and it is all three velocities simultaneously. Since we’ve only devised tests that can demonstrate the presence of two velocities (accelerations) simultaneously; the third velocity either escapes or is destroyed in the measurement process, and we are led to assume that the third velocity wasn’t there to begin with.
So ask yourself this: which is more plausible; a theory of light that says that it is made up from three constant velocities that only can evidence themselves in pairs or that light mysteriously ‘decides’ which of its characteristics to exhibit based on the presence of the observer who causes the wave function to collapse?