EMR as Dual Wave Phenomena - Gluons as Aether

[JAK]

We have no true way of "looking at a photon"; observing a photon is even more prone to uncertainty than Heisenberg's principle. But part of the definition must consider all facets of light, not just isolating Thomas Young's double-slit experiment circa 1803. A complete definition must consider, not only Young's experiment, but electron/positron annihilation, polarized light (which my approach is sadly lacking at this point), a magnetic component, and gravitational lensing. Even that may be an incomplete survey of known properties.

For the dual wave hypothesis, it was primarily an attempt to explain "dark energy". The hypothesis explains our inability to detect “dark energy” due to the two waves of energy (EMR) cancelling each other via destructive wave interference. The first assumption is that if a "blip" or a "beat wave" of some sort (photon) does not exist, our equipment cannot detect it. Thus, complete destructive interference renders the EMR undetectable.

The next assumption is that the universe is permeated by an “ocean of dark energy", and I'm leaning strongly toward gluons being an integral part of this ocean. If particle annihilation dumps out a gluon, then the 1st law of thermodynamics requires an accounting of where it came from. Was the gluon part of the two particles? Does that mean that each particle had half of a gluon? If only one had it, which one? (Both seemed to be of equal value.) Tracing back to the original creation of the particles, where did the gluon come from? Did the reaction need to await the arrival of a gluon or are gluons ubiquitous in the universe? In fact, are the gluons and “dark energy” the same? Or is the “ocean of dark matter” an ocean of gluons? I am proposing that the universe is an ocean of gluons – the infamous and maligned aether. Dark matter and/or dark energy are the aether permeating our universe in its entirety.

Further, with an ocean of gluons, the gluons might only attach to each other, not to "particles". These gluons might also be inseparable from each other and form a "stretchy net". Particles getting caught in this "net" would be like billiard balls placed into a nylon mesh net. The balls would collect together, not because they stick to each other, but because the stretch of the netting forces them together. With particles as the billiard balls in a gluon netting, they, too, would collect, the more particles, the deeper the “pit” in the netting. Thus, galaxies would be a deep pit in the curvature of space, in the gluon netting.

If this is true, then I believe gravity can be explained as the slope of stretching of the gluon fabric. A gentle slope is considered “gravity”. A steeper slope is called the “weak force”. The deepest slope is a deep pit of highly stretched gluons which do not break but tightly clutch the particles they surround. This is the “strong force”.

If these expressions are true, then I believe that gravitons and the Higgs-Boson can be eliminated. The tension of the gluon net would perform the function of both of those "particles" which have never been found. The Higgs-Boson has been postulated as “stretchy” being almost infinitesimally small at times and also capable of being as big as all outdoors. The gluon fabric is ubiquitous and functions at the smallest measurements as well as on an astronomical scale. Thus, the Higgs-Boson will never be found unless it is equated to the gluon. Similarly, the graviton, another hypothesized and elusive particle, can be shed from our universe. Once again, the gluon fabric does the work of the graviton mediating not only gravity but the weak force and the strong force as well.

For the electromagnetic forces (positive and negative attraction), I rely upon the dual wave approach. If the two waves are not of the same frequency, then a “beat wave ensues” with one wave overtaking the other wave creating peaks of constructive interference followed by valleys of destructive interference, hallmarks of the “beat” wave. Because there is the approaching (crescendo) and then ebbing (decrescendo) of the “peak and valley” aspect of the waves, the approach or crescendo may be the root of repulsion while the decrescendo may be the root of the attraction. Alternatively, the reverse may be the true phenomena.

The final assumption is that the two waves have a core pulling the waves back to a central attractor. This would be the “clothes washer” factor. Just as an unbalanced clothes washer begins to “thump” while spinning, the bulging of an unbalanced beat wave may be the “thump, thump, thump”. And just as the washer has a central spindle pulling back against the unbalanced state, the unbalanced photon would also be coaxed back to a central core. Thus, “dark energy” would be “balanced” – equal frequency and 180 degrees out of phase.

All of this brings the discussion back to the interesting possibility that gluons are also "strings". To that end, if "time" is 3-dimensional on the physical plane as well as 3-dimensional on a mental plane (as most sci-fi movies assume), and perhaps 3-dimensional on a spiritual plane, then 9 dimensions for strings might be accounted for. If a 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional root is added, I'm up to 11 or 12 dimensions depending upon the "root" dimensions. But the "string" aspect of this hypothesis needs LOTS of work for which I am ill-prepared at the moment.

[Drifter]

We have no true way of "looking at a photon"; observing a photon is even more prone to uncertainty than Heisenberg's principle. But part of the definition must consider all facets of light, not just isolating Thomas Young's double-slit experiment circa 1803. A complete definition must consider, not only Young's experiment, but electron/positron annihilation, polarized light (which my approach is sadly lacking at this point), a magnetic component, and gravitational lensing. Even that may be an incomplete survey of known properties.

For the dual wave hypothesis, it was primarily an attempt to explain "dark energy". The hypothesis explains our inability to detect “dark energy” due to the two waves of energy (EMR) cancelling each other via destructive wave interference. The first assumption is that if a "blip" or a "beat wave" of some sort (photon) does not exist, our equipment cannot detect it. Thus, complete destructive interference renders the EMR undetectable.

The next assumption is that the universe is permeated by an “ocean of dark energy", and I'm leaning strongly toward gluons being an integral part of this ocean. If particle annihilation dumps out a gluon, then the 1st law of thermodynamics requires an accounting of where it came from. Was the gluon part of the two particles? Does that mean that each particle had half of a gluon? If only one had it, which one? (Both seemed to be of equal value.) Tracing back to the original creation of the particles, where did the gluon come from? Did the reaction need to await the arrival of a gluon or are gluons ubiquitous in the universe? In fact, are the gluons and “dark energy” the same? Or is the “ocean of dark matter” an ocean of gluons? I am proposing that the universe is an ocean of gluons – the infamous and maligned aether. Dark matter and/or dark energy are the aether permeating our universe in its entirety.

Further, with an ocean of gluons, the gluons might only attach to each other, not to "particles". These gluons might also be inseparable from each other and form a "stretchy net". Particles getting caught in this "net" would be like billiard balls placed into a nylon mesh net. The balls would collect together, not because they stick to each other, but because the stretch of the netting forces them together. With particles as the billiard balls in a gluon netting, they, too, would collect, the more particles, the deeper the “pit” in the netting. Thus, galaxies would be a deep pit in the curvature of space, in the gluon netting.

If this is true, then I believe gravity can be explained as the slope of stretching of the gluon fabric. A gentle slope is considered “gravity”. A steeper slope is called the “weak force”. The deepest slope is a deep pit of highly stretched gluons which do not break but tightly clutch the particles they surround. This is the “strong force”.

If these expressions are true, then I believe that gravitons and the Higgs-Boson can be eliminated. The tension of the gluon net would perform the function of both of those "particles" which have never been found. The Higgs-Boson has been postulated as “stretchy” being almost infinitesimally small at times and also capable of being as big as all outdoors. The gluon fabric is ubiquitous and functions at the smallest measurements as well as on an astronomical scale. Thus, the Higgs-Boson will never be found unless it is equated to the gluon. Similarly, the graviton, another hypothesized and elusive particle, can be shed from our universe. Once again, the gluon fabric does the work of the graviton mediating not only gravity but the weak force and the strong force as well.

For the electromagnetic forces (positive and negative attraction), I rely upon the dual wave approach. If the two waves are not of the same frequency, then a “beat wave ensues” with one wave overtaking the other wave creating peaks of constructive interference followed by valleys of destructive interference, hallmarks of the “beat” wave. Because there is the approaching (crescendo) and then ebbing (decrescendo) of the “peak and valley” aspect of the waves, the approach or crescendo may be the root of repulsion while the decrescendo may be the root of the attraction. Alternatively, the reverse may be the true phenomena.

The final assumption is that the two waves have a core pulling the waves back to a central attractor. This would be the “clothes washer” factor. Just as an unbalanced clothes washer begins to “thump” while spinning, the bulging of an unbalanced beat wave may be the “thump, thump, thump”. And just as the washer has a central spindle pulling back against the unbalanced state, the unbalanced photon would also be coaxed back to a central core. Thus, “dark energy” would be “balanced” – equal frequency and 180 degrees out of phase.

All of this brings the discussion back to the interesting possibility that gluons are also "strings". To that end, if "time" is 3-dimensional on the physical plane as well as 3-dimensional on a mental plane (as most sci-fi movies assume), and perhaps 3-dimensional on a spiritual plane, then 9 dimensions for strings might be accounted for. If a 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional root is added, I'm up to 11 or 12 dimensions depending upon the "root" dimensions. But the "string" aspect of this hypothesis needs LOTS of work for which I am ill-prepared at the moment.

Dear JAK,
I can certainly appreciate your efforts.

I do believe however there has been a very basic and fundamental oversight?

To begin;
Noumenon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Numina.
"Noumena" redirects here. For the band, see Noumena (band).The noumenon /ˈnuːmɨnɒn/ is a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of the senses.[1] The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to "phenomenon", which refers to anything that appears to, or is an object of, the senses. In Ancient philosophy, the noumenal realm was equated with the world of ideas known to the philosophical mind, in contrast to the phenomenal realm, which was equated with the world of sensory reality, known to the uneducated mind.[2] Modern philosophy has generally denied the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses, and Immanuel Kant gave this point of view its classical version, saying that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable to humans. In Kantian philosophy the unknowable noumenon is often linked to the unknowable "thing-in-itself" (Ding an sich), although how to characterize the nature of the relationship is a question yet open to some controversy.
Noumenon does not refer to "numinous", a term coined by Rudolf Otto who, though well versed in Kant, drew the term from the Latin word numen which means deity, divine will or divine presence.


IAm not 'a scientist', I read [sometimes..., the unseen].

I do agree with your essay.

Thanks for sharing.
d.