Most people think of light, or any electromagnetic wave, as a two-dimensional squiggle. Only in the last few years has it started to become common knowledge that light actually manifests along two perpendicular planes as it propagates, giving rise to a three-dimensional wave form.
The conventional idea of this three-dimensional wave is that a wave will crest at the same time at related points on both of the planes, as shown in figure 1 (visible at http://www.windows.ucar.edu/cool_stuff/light_wave.gif). However, new information has come to light that allows us to refine this view of light into an even more precise picture. This is the new model of 3-D light.
To begin, let us consider a seemingly unrelated question: does light have mass? The best inquiries of the last several decades have left us with the bitter taste of inconclusiveness in our collective mouths. Under some circumstances, light does seem to have mass, but under others, it does not.
The most troubling aspect of the whole predicament stems from General Relativity: any object with mass requires an infinite amount of force to be accelerated to the speed of light. However, any energy can be said to have mass, as Einstein showed in his paper, An Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy (1946), which gave us the famous formula Energy equal Mass times the speed of light, squared.
Assuming that Einstein did not contradict himself, how can both of these things be true for any photon at the same time? To answer that question, let us look at some of the recent developments in the field of particle physics.
CERN, Fermilab, and other facilities that have powerful particle accelerators have been able to create bits of antimatter. It has been found that antimatter production is something of a two-way street: whenever any particle of antimatter comes into contact with its normal matter counterpart, they both annihilate, transforming into a burst of electromagnetic energy. Amazingly, and seemingly in refutation of the laws of thermodynamics, the reverse of one of the methods used to produce antimatter works equally well – if photons are smashed together in a very precise way, they split into electrons and positrons, or other paired bits of matter and antimatter.
Now, it has been theorized that gravity, a function of the existence of mass, according to General Relativity, is a phenomenon of a particle’s ‘lopsided’ electromagnetic charge. Accordingly, if a Neutron has a “north” magnetic spin, which generates conventional gravity, then an Antineutron would have a “south” magnetic spin, which would generate the opposite curvature in space-time.
In simple language, antimatter has an equal but opposite gravitational effect. It’s still gravity, but the direction of the slope in space-time is reversed, just as the particle’s electromagnetic charge is reversed. Thus, it would, relative to ‘normal’ matter, seems to posses a negative mass.
If a particle of mass 1 annihilates with a particle of mass -1, the result would be a mass 0 energy wave. Thus, a transverse wave would, strictly speaking, have mass, but the sum of that mass would be zero. Further, because the result is an object (a photon) of mass 0, it would, by definition, have to propagate at the speed of light – it requires zero force to accelerate to that velocity.
To clarify, let us borrow Quantum Physics’s concept of wave-particle duality for a moment. Consider two particles, one of matter, the other of anitmatter. Smash them together to create two photons. If the masses negate, then each of the two photons would be composed of one-half of each particle (0.5 + -0.5 = 0). These half-particles, locked together to form the photon, would at once be attracted to, and repelled by each other (in much the same way that Quarks inside a Proton are both conjoined and distinct). They are electromagnetically bound together, but also repel away from each other. To put it simply, they are forced to orbit each other from some central point. These individually unstable distortions in space-time create the rotation we recognize as the pendulum-like motion of a light wave when viewed in profile.
Because of constant attraction-repulsion of the two half-particles, they remain locked together, in opposite positions, as they spin around their mutual center. They create a path resembling a double helix, giving rise to a positive or negative maximum on one plane while the other plane is at neutral, and, a quarter step later, both planes at 50% of a maximum value (the maximum is determined by amplitude, as the more energy each half-particle has, the further away from the center point it orbits, and thus the more energy the wave exhibits).
Thus, we get a picture of a light wave like that seen in figure 2 (visible at http://www.belraduniverse.com/images/light.jpg), with the electric and magnetic planes each displaced; the wave form corresponds to the orbital motion of the composite particulates through the planar fields around the common center.
To draw a distinction between the two models, let us consider the following:
It is mathematically impossible for any field to change from full energy, to zero energy, to full energy, but negative, and back again. Momentum does not apply to changes in energy, as momentum is a function of energy itself. Thus, it is impossible for light to have ‘zero’ energy at any point in time (see figure 1), or to gain energy, positive or negative, from that zero point, all on its own. The new model of light resolves this issue by having a constant sum energy value.
At any crest, the wave has an energy value of 0.5 – -0.5 = 1 (due to the negative mass/energy of the half-antiparticle). Midway between crests, it has a sum value of (0.25 – -0.25) + (0.25 – -0.25) = 1. Whether the energy presently has a positive or negative charge depends entirely on where the particulates are in their progress of rotation through the planar fields their interaction generates.
Because this new model of light possesses a constant energy level, as opposed to the conventional model, which periodically possesses a zero energy level, this distinction can be tested experimentally.
For one, it should be noted that since energy has equivalency to mass (even if the mass sum is zero), a wave of constant energy would be affected by both gravitational and electromagnetic fields differently than one that periodically possesses a zero energy value. Since the conventional model of light periodically possesses a zero energy level, it cannot, at those points, posses any mass equivalent. The difference is the same, mathematically, as that between zero (a value) and ‘none’ (no value). Further, since a photon will follow the same track as an electron (which has a constant energy value) through a gravitational field, it seems likely that experimental confirmation will favor the new model of light over the old.
Confirmation of the new model of light will, in turn, confirm both the theories of opposed gravitational curves for opposed particles, as well as opposed masses. That, in turn, would confirm the postulate that mass and gravitational distortions in time-space are a manifestation of the electromagnetic fields of particles, rather than the byproduct of some particular kind of particle. The implications of these aspects will be discussed in Part II: The Eternal Universe.
*Post-Script: many readers have pointed out that, at times, the new model of light will possess a composite positive charge, and at others a negative, and suggest that this might alter the photon’s mass equivalence. It should be noted that values of +1 and values of -1 are both values of 1. A negative aspect does not indicate a ‘less than zero’ state, but is only a relative term with respect to the other. What we call a ‘positive’ charge is arbitrary, and is labeled so only for the purpose of being able to make a distinction between these two otherwise equal charges. We could have just as easily labeled the charges in the reverse fashion, or called them ‘left’ and ‘right’, for that matter. This is the same as two cars traveling in opposite directions at the same speed (charge). If one were said to be heading in a ‘positive’ direction, then the other would be heading in a ‘negative’ direction. If they happened to meet, they would negate (rather, their ‘charges’ would).
