Vacuum and Light quanta.

socratus

Vacuum and Light quanta.

All stars and planets move into the Outer space without
friction. Therefore Newton and Huygens were sure that
the Cosmic space, Aether /Vacuum was an empty space.
In that time Newton gave preference to corpuscular
light theory and Huygens to the waves theory.
But later A.J. Fresnel and Th.Young discovered that
light was transverse waves. And the transverse waves can
propagate only in the firm and spring space as the steel.
Can Aether/ Vacuum be empty and steel at the same time?
Many theories were written to explain this problem. All of
them are covered with dust and maybe only historians of
science remember them.
Now somebody wrote:
" Maybe the problem of transverse waves in Aether is
possible to solve in another way. Perhaps it is
necessary to explain not the Aether but how light works."
My answer on the question:" How does Light quantum work?"
1.
Light quantum can travel with constant speed c=1.
and then we call it Photon.
2.
Light quantum can work with speed c>1.
and then we call it Electron.
3.
Light quantum can stop its moving and take
a rest c=0 and then we call it Anti matter.
4.
Is my interpretation correct ?
Yes. It is correct. Why?
Because when Electron interacts
with Vacuum we also call it Anti matter
5.
If you doubt in my rightness, ask yourself :
What does " The Law of conservation and transformation
of energy" mean according to one single Light quanta ?
================..
Best wishes.

socratus

Vacuum and Gravity.

Now it is considered that Newton / Einstein's laws
of gravitation are basis of physics, the first laws of the Universe.
But the detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
is so small (the average density of all substances in the
Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that gravitation
field, as whole, is broken , it doesn't work, as whole, in the Universe.
So, the Newton / Einstein's laws of gravitation are correct only
in the small and local part of Universe and we cannot take them
as the first ones. What can the first law of the Universe be?
All galaxies , all gravitation fields exist in Vacuum (T=0K).
Therefore the Vacuum can be “The first law of the Universe.”
Question:
How can the hot process of star formation in cold Vacuum begin?
===========..
P.S.
Sorry, I forgot that it is possible also to take
a" Big bang" as the first law of Universe,
as the basis of physics. Everything is possible
in the mad Orwell's house.

socratus

Vacuum, infinity, particles... etc.
#
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
#
"Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,"
said Peter Milonni
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
============..
1.
The Third Law of Thermodynamics says that we cannot
reach the Absolute temperature of Vacuum T=0K.
This temperature is a border for us.
Classic physics says that all particles in T=0K will stop their
movement. But Quantum theory doesn't agree with this statement.
Dirac and other his colleagues said that in the sea of
vacuum " virtual, negative, imaginary (i^2=-1) " particles live.
So, the Third Law says that the border between infinity universe
and the " finite world" is marked by Kelvin temperature T=0K.
In another words in the infinity universe T=0K another
objects with finite " inner borders " can exist. The question is:
How can the infinity universe interact with the " finite world" ?
======...
2.
What is a geometrical and physical parameters of particles
in Vacuum, in Nothing , in T=0K?
Can we know anything about this "soup of virtual particles" in vacuum?
The physicists think about the " virtual, negative, imaginary
(i^2=-1) " particles as about of a " point". They are mistaken.
Because, there are physical laws which forbid such opinion.
Because according to J. Charles law ( 1787), when the
temperature falls down on 1 degree the volume decreases
on 1/273. And when the temperature reaches -273 degrees
the volume disappears.
Because, as consequence from the Third Law
( W. Nernst-1906, M. Planck-1911, A.Einstein-1925)
when it is closer to zero T=0K the particles lose more
their volume, density, pressure. The volume of these
particles aspires to infinity. And when this “ infinity”
comes nobody knows what to do with the infinity.
But, according to the
" Law of conservation and transformation of energy"
the particles cannot disappear. So, they can only change
its geometrical form and its kinetic energy and become
“flat particles” with potential energy. These flat particles
must have geometrical form of a circle C/D=pi.
So, it is mistaken to think about elementary particle
as about a point.
3.
And from another side we know that photon is a real particle
and can fly with constant speed c=1.
In this movement its form is a compressing circle.
4.
etc.
==============================

socratus

Mr. B. wrote:
If you are looking for support, at most you will find paranoid
and/or confused individuals who want to take shelter in your
us-vs.-them state of mind.

Who is who?
=================....
1.
The speed of Light quantum is constant: c=1,
no matter how the source or the observer moves.
/ Michelson’s experiment. 1881. SRT. 1905. /
2.
But .. .. in every book and textbook is written that
there isn’t absolute speed. For example in the book
“ Relative theory- actual” by Prof. Ernst Schmutzer.
Part 3.2.2.page 122. and
Part 3.2.4. page 130.

Another book “Relativity for the layman”
By James A. Coleman.
Part 3 pages 47 -48

Another book “The materialistic essence of Einstein’s
Relative theory” by Mostepanenko M. B.
Page 37.

Another book “ Einstein and development of physical/
mathematical thought.” by Science Academy of
USSR. Article “ Physics and Relative theory”
by M. Born. On the pages 74 and 81.
And article “ Relative theory and some questions
about the optic of moving bodies” by Francfurt U. I.
and Frenk A.M. Page 224: “ Relative theory
doesn’t know absolute moving”.
etc….
3.
From the school days I cannot understand how
it is possible to say that the speed of photon is
absolute constant c=1 and in the same time to say :
“ All motion is relative (hence ,the theory of relativity).
We can never speak of absolute motion as such,…..”
…etc.
Maybe somebody can explain me this paradox.
==========..
It is very difficult to prove the correctness
in our Orwell's mad house.

====================...
Best wishes.
Israel.

sdhobbs

Einstein is also supposed to have said that C (speed of light) was the maximum speed of any matter in the universe and that this was because as matter approaches the speed of light its mass (momentum) becomes so infinitly great that it can not be accelerated further.

Yet if light is a particle and has mass, it's mass/momentum must also be almost infinite, so if that were the case then would it not pass straight through any object on its path and so we would not have a shadow.

Besides I thought the idea of "photons" was actually initially a way of imagining and quantifying the energy in light mathematically and not a physical reality.

Also if light were particles travelling as fast as the speed of light, why can we not hear them? For if they are travelling that fast, each would also have a "sonic boom", so with all this light around pouring down from the sun then it'd be a bit noisy wouldn't it?

Also on the subject of an "absolute" vaccuum, this would be an area of space where there is no energy (0K) with no light, no magnetic fields, no matter or any other known physical qualities. You say "we know that a vaccum has strange effects", but do we? I think if every matter and force were removed then in fact it would have no effect at all except to explode any matter placed within it and "diffuse" all energy forced into it
until the area or "space" was occupied completely by an even medium of whatever was introduced.

Sorry, reword the bit on matter: It would explode any matter within it which did not have sufficient internal bonding to hold it together. For example a huge lump of diamond may stay intact, but a human would quickly be turned inside out and spread into a thin mist.

socratus

Inertia and Spin. / My opinion./

1.
Aristotle.
Every object needs force/power/energy for its moving .
If no force, no moving.
2.
Newton.
Of course great Aristotle is right saying that there is no movement
without forces . I respect him very much and I won’t make a
fool myself quarrelling with him. However I can say more and explain
Aristotle’s opinion by the formula F=ma. It means, the force of moving
object depends on acceleration which it gives to this object’s mass. But
here I have two opportunities /possibilities.
a) The acceleration appears as a result of outside influence.
One body (moving body) interacts with another body (moving or
resting).
b) But if I have only one, single body moving in the straight line
and it doesn’t interact with another body it means that this body
also must have an acceleration. In this situation I don’t know
how the acceleration appears, I don’t know if it is inner
acceleration of body, I know nothing about this acceleration.
But this kind of acceleration must exist and I will name it “inertia”.
3.
Mach.
Newton doesn’t know the reason of inertia, but maybe inertia depends
on all stars, on all the matter in the Universe.
4.
Planck.
Newton’s inertia is very strange, and Mach’s idea too. But if I will take
that our Universe looks like a “black body “ then I can suggest that
must be some very small particle (quant) which can move “inertial “
with constant speed c=1 over a period of time. I will write this “inertial “
moving of quanta by formula: h=Et. But really, it is hard for me to
believe that I am right.
5.
Einstein.
Of course Planck is right. But I don’t like the way he reached the result.
He says nothing concrete about the particle and the reason of this
acceleration’s beginning. I will take another road. If I use the Boltzmann
resting particle (R/N=k ) and give him Wien’s displacement constant (b),
as an acceleration, then the particle will have the Planck’s impulse but
now the formula is h=kb. Planck’s formulas and my own are equal, as they
explain behavior of quant (light quanta) from different point of view.
6.
Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck.
It is all well.
But we can see different kinds of movings in the real Nature And look at
Planck’s formula h=Et. It includes time (t). And time, by its nature, is a
limited parameter. It means that this particle cannot go straight at all time
with constant speed c=1. This kind of moving must be temporary
and can change. So, another possibility is that the particle can spin
around itself and we will write this kind of moving by formula h=h/2pi.
7.
L. de Broglie and Heisenberg.
These two spins of particle are very important parameters, so we will
try to explain all phenomena in the Nature using only these parameters.
…………………….
But, unfortunately, they both didn’t have success. Why did they fall?
Because to use only spin parameters is not enough. The spin
parameters belong to the particle who/ which have/has also another
parameters: speed (c) and volume (a) and all together they can create
particle which we call electron: e^2=ahc. Now using electron and
Boltzmann particle (R/N=k ) it is possible to explain the beginning
of star formation (gravitation) and later all another phenomena of
the Nature.
===============.
P.S.
Someone wrote to me:
“An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “

I don’t say about myself, I say about this article:
“This article waits for its Nobel Prize.”
Does somebody have another opinion?

Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik/ Socratus

socratus

Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything .
====================.
Could the vacuum contain dark energy, gravity particles,
and frictionless gears?
by Tim Folger
published online July 18, 2008

When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void.

http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

socratus

What is infinity?
Abstraction or Reality?
Speculation or Fact ?
Does infinity have any physical parameters?
================..

The Universe is Infinite Vacuum in the state of T=0K,
at first of everything. Why?
Because it is visual fact.

The Universe as whole is Kingdom of Coldness.
Now the physicists think that this Kingdom of Coldness
in a state of T=2,7K ( after big bang).
But this state is limited and temporary.
Why can it be limited and temporary ?
Because in the Universe astronomers found enormous spaces
without any material mass or energy it means these spaces in state
T=0K. Only mass and energy can warm up the Kingdom of Coldness.
But the detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot “ close “ the Universe and therefore
the Universe is “ open”, endless and this small mass can warm up the
Kingdom of Coldness only in it some limited and local points.
Therefore astrophysicists search for “ dark matter” because it will save the
“ law of gravitation “ as a first law of the Universe and it will
warm up the Kingdom of Coldness.
#
The cosmological constant of Universe is zero or near to it.
This physical quantity cannot “ close” the Universe therefore
the Universe is endless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

==============..
P.S.
If somebody belief in “ big bang”, he must take in calculation
that T=2,7K expands and therefore T=2,7K is temporary
parameter and with time it will go to T=0K.

=================…
http://www.physorg.com/news141317146.html

Questions from this article:
1.
what happened BEFORE the big bang,
2.
whether there was a "before."
3.
what may have happened in a "pre-big bang."
4.
"What banged? Where did it come from?"
5.
"Is ours the only universe? If so, how did it come to exist?"
6.
What are :
“the big bounce," "the multiverse," "the cyclic theory,"
"parallel worlds," even "soap bubbles."………
7.
What is: "Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang."
8.
……
particle smasher might discover extra dimensions
…
What are the extra dimensions: 4-D...etc ?
9.
“ shadow”……
travel between parallel universes ………..( !!! )
and cast a "shadow" that scientists might be able to detect. ……..
The shadow might take…….

/ one more scientific fairy - tale /
10.
Last August, ground and satellite observations revealed
what appeared to be an enormous "hole in the universe,"
a mostly empty region of the sky, 900 million light-years
wide - about 5 billion trillion miles -…………

Where are the gravitational waves here ?
11.

At a Vatican conference in 1951, Pope Pius XII said the big bang was consistent
with church doctrine.
"Creation took place in time, therefore there is a creator, therefore God exists!"
the pope declared.

I changed some quotations.

The theological explanation of the world's existence
cannot lie at a different level from scientific understanding.

The Materialistic world gets its finite being
from an infinite being. (T=0K )

The universe that cycles endlessly through creation and destruction...
{between the Vacuum and Materialistic world.)
=========================..
Many questions and the answer is one: T=0K.
!!!
==============================…

Sylwester Kornowski

Two predominant fields fill infinite truly empty volume (it is definition of the nothing)
1 Spacetime responsible for the gravitational interactions
2 Vectorial field responsible for the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions (the last two interactions are associated with loops created from the vectorial field so range of these interactions is finite – see the L. Susskind proposal).
Density of these two fields is much higher than density of our Universe – it is the reason why the Universe is flat.

Photons are the excitations of the vectorial field. Electrons are the specific polarized places of the vectorial field. It means that photons and electrons disappear in one place of the vectorial field and appear in another one, and so on. It leads to the wave function. Conclusion is as follows – the quantum physics is associated with the vectorial field. Lifetime of photon or electron in one place is equal to the Planck time. It means that when photons or electrons go through two splits then even one such particle appears MANY TIMES in each split. So we cannot say that electron or photon go through only one split. It leads to the interference pattern. We see that photons and electrons indeed behave as particles and waves.

The spacetime is composed of objects having only inertial mass. The vectorial field has mass whereas the photons, i.e. the excitations of this field, have not. My theory leads to conclusion that spacetime is composed of tachyons. Energy of the tachyons is eternal – it leads to the law of conservation of energy and to the principle of relativity. The vectorial field is composed of the binary systems of neutrinos interacting weakly – it causes, that neutrinos and binary systems of neutrinos are moving in spacetime practically with the same speed. The photons and the electrons are not waves in the background/aether. As I wrote before, they disappear in one place and appear in another one, and so on.

See my theory on my website.

socratus

Sylwester Kornowski wrote:
================.

Photons are the excitations of the vectorial field.
Electrons are the specific polarized places of the vectorial field.
It means that photons and electrons disappear in one place of the vectorial field and appear in another one, and so on.
It leads to the wave function.
Conclusion is as follows – the quantum physics is associated with the vectorial field.
Lifetime of photon or electron in one place is equal to the Planck time.
It means that when photons or electrons go through two splits then even one such particle appears MANY TIMES in each split.
So we cannot say that electron or photon go through only one split.

========================.
It is hard to understand interaction between electron
and photon in your explanation.
================.

It leads to the interference pattern.
We see that photons and electrons indeed behave as particles and waves.

=================.
Can photon and electron be one particle in different stats ?
===================.

The spacetime is composed of objects having only inertial mass.

=====================.
What is spacetime in your theory?
4-D space, 5-D space……..etc
How it connects with Nature?
=====================.

The vectorial field has mass whereas the photons, i.e. the excitations of this field, have not.
My theory leads to conclusion that spacetime is composed of tachyons.

==================.
Like water composed of drops of water ?
==================.

Energy of the tachyons is eternal – it leads to the law of conservation of energy and to the principle of relativity.

=================.
Does the God give to the tachyon eternal energy ?
===================.

The vectorial field is composed of the binary systems of neutrinos interacting weakly – it causes, that neutrinos and binary systems of neutrinos are moving in spacetime practically with the same speed.

The photons and the electrons are not waves in the background/aether.

=================.
It is correct, but why?
===================.

As I wrote before, they disappear in one place and appear in another one, and so on.

==================.
One place is “ in the background/aether.”
And another place is “ spacetime” which is composed of tachyons.
And third place is … “vectorial field “ …..
…and appear in another one, and so on.
……..???
1.
What is “background/aether.” Really mean?
What is formula of “background/aether.”
2.
What is “ vectorial field .” Really mean?
3.
What is connection between “ the background/aether.”
and the “vectorial field “ ?
=============..
Best wishes.

Sylwester Kornowski

socratus

My speculation.

Everything began from Infinite Energetic Vacuum: T=0K.
Somehow, the energy is extracted from the Vacuum
(the Energetic Dirac Soup) and turned into particles.
The Materialistic World gets its finite being
from an Infinite Energetic Being – Vacuum: T=0K.

To understand this ‘speculation’ we must know:
1. What is Vacuum: T=0K ?
2. Which virtual particles can exist in Vacuum?
3. How can virtual particles turn into real particles?
======== .
Until now the physicists ignore the Vacuum Energy T=0K
because it is the Zero Point Energy for our measuring devices.
Because the Absolute Zero Point Energy is border for our
measuring devices.
Can this fact be enough reason to stop our investigation?
==========..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
================ . .
Please, have patience and wait “when the next revolution rocks physics.”
==========..

socratus

What did Planck do?
Planck studied a ‘ black body’ and saw.
If Michelson/ Morley quantum of light, which moves
with constant speed c=1, fells into ‘ black body’ and
doesn’t come back when the radiations/ thermodynamics’
death of Universe must come.
Therefore, in order to save the Universe from death,
Planck decided that the Michelson/ Morley quantum
of light must radiate from ‘ the black body’ by quantum of
light. This quantum of light is an energy quanta.
Why?
Because the quantum of light come from ‘ black body’.
Max Laue called it as ‘ The Kirchhoff 's vacuum’.
On my opinion the thermal equilibrium of ‘ black body’,
‘ The Kirchhoff 's vacuum’ is a real model of Vacuum: T=0K.
And Vacuum itself, as QT says, is the Homogeneous Space
of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy.
Therefore, quantum of light must be an energy quanta.
#
Our education.
I n the school’s books is written that black coal or soot
is good example of a ‘black body’. But astrophysicists
use the laws of ‘black body’ to understand the Universe.
And the Universe doesn’t covered with black coal or soot.
Our Universe as whole is Vacuum.
================== . .
P.S.
In physics, a black body is an idealized object that absorbs all
electromagnetic radiation that falls on it. No electromagnetic
radiation passes through it and none is reflected. Because no light
(visible electromagnetic radiation) is reflected or transmitted,
the object appears black when it is cold. However, a black body
emits a temperature-dependent spectrum of light. This thermal radiation
from a black body is termed black-body radiation
#
In astronomy, objects such as stars are frequently regarded as
Black bodies, though this is often a poor approximation.
An almost perfect black-body spectrum is exhibited by the
cosmic microwave background radiation. Hawking radiation
is the hypothetical black-body radiation emitted by black holes.

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

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

================= . .

socratus

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:09 PM,
David Rountree
ghost_hunter_ 01@comcast. net wrote:
>>
Frequency is the key to everything.

It can be said a resonance at a frequency mediates momentum exchange
in our kinetic universe. We can say infrared photon pairs exchange
kinetic energy between molecules of a substance and its environment
exhibiting what we call heat, a tiny portion of the total frequency
ranges comprising the energy of the object . If you tell me the
average frequency of photons exchanging momentum between molecules and
radiating from a body, is no different than telling me the temperature
except in the units of measure.
>
All frequencies together give the total energy or mass of an object
An electron changes momentum only by sending and receiving photons at
particular frequencies unifying the electric and kinetic into a
singular mechanism. It is that a frequency is equivalent to a
momentum (p=h*f/c) on the bottom layer that frequency can be
everything in a world that is fundamentally kinetic. Even when we
push on something, it is resonance by exclusion of common frequencies
in common quantum state, exchanging photons that does the pushing, we
never actually touch the object, photons exhibit momentum exchange and
all momentum exchange is by photon exchange ultimately.
>
The notion that frequency tells us how often something happens is
wrong. Each photon exchange happens independently, perhaps just once,
it need not be frequent. The photon momentum is exchanged laterally
and transversely (angular) in the exhibition of a space time interval
having a specific time period, t=1/f, and distance, x=c*t. It is the
time delay exhibited not how frequent it is that exhibits the energy,
the space, and of course time itself.
>
In the unification time is exhibited inversely to energy. High energy
is big and slow, low energy is small and fast. The resonance of
common frequencies becomes frequencies becoming distinct relatively by
momentum exchange obeying Mead's law that the universe conspires to
prevent there from being two equal frequencies. But what is manifest
is time delay, and space by x=c*t, and seemingly solid matter not
penetrable at wide ranges of occupied frequencies. The time delay
equivalence of energy, e/h, by discrete action locally constructs a
fabric of orderings, serially as time, and in parallel as space.
>
The frequency tells us the dimension of the space time manifold
exhibited by each event. It does not repeat. It exhibits a single
delay element relatively. It exhibits a lateral and transverse
(angular) right handed or left handed twist in quantum state by
cooperative equal and opposite logical action. A delay element alone
is insufficient for logical action. And, or and not operations plus
a delay. We can expect the universe to be logical, and find the
apparent quantum logical action is universal general purpose logic.
Physically, two one half dimensions are exhibited to one bit of
precision each having one way arrows of a length determines by the
momentum exchanged frequency equivalent. This physical construct
proves general enough to build any conceivable information system and
the universe is not distinct from an information system as far as it
is comprehensible.
>
Given that quantum systems are information systems, without local
hidden variables, that the quantum logical description is complete,
as both experiment and theory suggest, the logical nature of the
universe is unrestricted. No simple model, restricting logic, as say
only frequency in some fixed dimensions, can be complete. A quantum
system can be constructed to contradict any limited logical system due
to in universal general purpose nature.
>
In the objective information model, no human ideal is allowed, only
the logical action and associated relative delays are allowed in the
model. anything else is considered fantasy. All quantum
interpretations become superfluous. All that matters is the manifolds
of space time interval exhibited by delays by perspective. The notion
of the policing of information in physical systems has recently been
formalized in the notion of Information Causality,
http://arxiv. org/abs/0905. 2292
===================== . .
#
Socratus.
In his book " Isaac Newton " Soviet academician
S. I. Vavilov wrote:
" . . photons with extremely fast frequency . . .
in the experience was observed . . . .
the remarkable phenomenon of transformation
them in … … …electron.
Undoubtedly, reverse process is also possible. "
======== . .
Questions:
Can photon and electron be one and the same particle
in different conditions ?
Can the difference between photon and electron depends
only from frequency ?
============ . .
#
May 23, 2009.
I think not just frequency, but phasing and polarity will differ.

David M. Rountree, AES
Scientific Paranormal Investigative
Research Information and Technology

www.spinvestigations.org
=========== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
===================== . .

socratus

The God. !!! ???
===================== . .
#
The God is something Infinity and Eternal.
He exists in every place and in everything.
He is Absolute and Concrete.
#
What is God?
Can God create our world without physics laws and formulas ?
No.
If God can act only in such way, then what is the first law
( formula, system) from which He begins to create our world?

In my opinion ‘ The theory of Vacuum and Quantum of Light ‘
gives answer to this question.
===================== . .
#
'Quantum of Light' is the Subject, not the Object!

http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=1598

Dr. Cynthia Kolb Whitney
#
Photons have knowledge in them,
. . .
The Truth itself is hidden inside light.
. . . . .
The relationship between light itself and knowledge is the answer
to the 'disturbing feelings' people get in this field, because they
don't want to admit that if Light was itself Intelligent
there might be religious implications to it.
14 Aug, 2008
Posted by: ron naldoda

Physicists spooked by faster-than-light information transfer.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/full/news.2008.1038.html
===================== . .
#
You seem to have it all figured out.
Have you figured out why it is that light exists in quantum chunks?
/ Vern /
============== . .
#
According to the Quantum Theory the Vacuum is some kind
of Energetic Space which can create quantum chunks –
virtual particles - energetic particles - frozen light quanta.

The ‘chunks – virtual particles - energetic particles –
frozen light quanta ‘is not a “ pure philosophical concept “
that is never observed in practice.
The Quantum Theory says that :
“ Its effects can be observed in various phenomena
(such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the
van der Waals bonds, or the Lamb shift), and it is thought
to have consequences for the behavior of the Universe
on cosmological scales. “

/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy /.
=================== . .
Without Aether/ Vacuum physics makes no sense.
=========== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
===================== . .

Vacuum and Light quanta.

Forum Options