I’ve posted a paper here: “A hypothesis on the nature of light” that has interesting and testable implications regarding quantum entanglement.
The hypothesis that light is at absolute rest, and that the apparent motion of light is the reflection of an observer's own motion in time, has been shown in the hypothesis to resolve the wave/particle paradox, to make intelligible the apparent non-local behavior of light, and its status as an absolute and limiting velocity. The nature of four-dimensional motion has been shown to make apparent characteristics of light such as wavelength, coherence, polarity, interference, and simultaneity more comprehensible as manifestations of the motion of mass, rather than light. These theoretical resolutions might be expected to argue for its superiority over the common-sense belief in the nature of light, but that has not been seriously entertained to date. It is my hope that the proposed experiment here can confirm it, and lead to further experiments to better understand the motion of mass in time.
What is it?
What is it that makes a hypothesis uninteresting?
What is uninteresting about a hypothesis that takes the generally accepted idea of spacetime as a four-dimensional continuum characterized by the Lorentz transformations, uses it to explain physical peculiarities that otherwise remain unexplained, and offers a means of experimental verification? Isn’t that all a legitimate hypothesis needs to do?
The conceptual features of the hypothesis include an explanation of the speed of light as invariant and the absolute limit of speed; the apparent wave/particle duality of light is resolved; the double-slit interference pattern is explained; motion in time as the likely source of gravitational energy is revealed; and quantum non-locality is shown to be local after all. The latter suggests an experiment that can confirm or invalidate the hypothesis.
What more is required? Is the hypothesis patently absurd? Is its fundamental misconception easily exposed? How can so many physical manifestations be explained by an absurdity?
Why not indulge a simple exercise in refutation, whether conceptually or better yet, with an experiment?
Why not?
What is it?
@James, if AP=BP the detection should be simultaneous. This can not be the case with the rotating detectors because there should be always at distance AB from each other. So when A detector comes to P and makes click, B detector is to the right in the screen AB distance away. It would not click and it will not show the same time.
If anyhow they come to P at the same time they would not be not AB away from each other but at 0 and collide.
Imagine you were right? We must always travel to the Sun to get light and surely collide there with all other planets. And because we get light constantly, your circle speed must be unlimited.
Also light comes from other stars too. Are we rotating to them simultaneously to all?
I am curios though, how this model explains double slit experiment of Young 1802?
Hello Ilian
Thank you for responding. Regarding your comment specifically about the proposed experiment, I'm not aware of a previous experiment that is sufficiently accurate, or using light with low-enough energy, to discriminate "simultaneity" at less than a wavelength; without my hypothesis, there has been no reason to expect a half wavelength difference.
Regarding your objections and general questions about my hypothesis, every massive body moves in time parallel with every other, varying only by their relative motion (and by acceleration); motion in time being 4-dimensional, I believe it is impossible to fully conceptualize, but I show by means of several diagrams in the paper that motion in time is a continuous radiation from one point in space and concentration on another. And I show with several diagrams how the double-slit experiment works in terms of the hypothesis and without paradox; I can't explain it without graphic support and preliminary explanation; but I welcome your objections and comments after reading the paper.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Condensed Matter Physics
- Zero