Polarized Light from Stars and Galaxies

Magnetic fields have polarizing effects on light, and it is through this effect that we know that all stars, including our Sun, have strong magnetic fields.

These fields are generally explained as a feature of electric currents flowing in and out of stars. The overall flow passes through the rotational poles of these objects, and thus we end up with a simplified model of stars having magnetic north and a south poles that align with their rotation, and that we know to periodically flip through pole reversals.

All of this can be explained in terms of current flows. However, there's a secondary polarization that doesn't align with rotation, and this is harder to explain because it doesn't seem to be directly related to any current flow. This is pointed out in this YouTube lecture by Jean de Clemont.

The secondary polarization aligns with the axis of the galaxies that the stars are in, but the magnetic field of galaxies are too weak to explain the relatively strong spike in observed polarization of their stars. Something else appears to be at play, and Jean de Clemont suggests that the secondary polarization is not due to an electric current flow, but rather the flow of a dense and highly fluid aether.

The aether flows with the galaxy, and produces in this way its own polarizing effect, separate from the flow of electrons.

This idea aligns well with the aether proposed in my book, where space itself is an aether that latches onto all sorts of reference frames, ranging from entire galaxies down to stars, planets and even trees and buildings.

The Faraday effect, light getting polarized by a magnetic field

Photons and Time

It's well know that physical processes slow down at high speeds, and I propose an explanation for this in my chapter on kinetics. The faster something moves, the harder it is to transfer energy to it. When we approach the speed of light, it's virtually impossible to transfer energy onto the speeding object, and the consequence of this is that all physical processes slow down. Time grinds to a halt.

The reason for this is that the transfer of energy onto objects of inertial matter involves the aether. Particles in the aether communicate energy from one object to another. However, this can only happen when objects travel slower than the particles in the aether.

These particles are photons and neutrinos that move at the speed of light. Hence, no energy can be passed onto objects that reach this speed.

Energy transfers slow down for speeding objects

This is analogous to us trying to push energy onto a moving cart. We can only do this as long as the cart moves slower than us. Once the cart reaches a speed close to our own speed, it becomes time consuming and difficult to transfer more energy onto it. Should the cart reach our own speed, energy transfers become impossible.

However, it's incorrect to say that time stops at the speed of light, because no time implies no change. If time stopped at the speed of light, photons would be incapable of change. However, photons are characterized by their ability to change. They carry energy from one place to another. They can also change their polarity and direction.

Photon transferring energy onto a Neon atom

This poses a paradox. Time grinds to a halt for objects that approach the speed of light, yet this does not stop photons from changing in all sorts of ways even though they travel at the speed of light.

The key to unraveling this paradox is to keep in mind that time is an abstraction. Time is relative motion, and it can only be measured relative to inertial matter. When we say that time grinds to a halt when an object approaches the speed of light, we're referring to energy transfers onto inertial matter. We're talking about inertia.

But photons are not inertial. In contrast to inertial matter which require the help of the aether to change energy, photons require no help. Each photon is a self contained package of particle and pilot wave. Photons carry their own energy transferring mechanism with them.

Photon traversing a transparent medium

Photons, wrapped in their pilot waves, change through direct contact. This is unaffected by the fact that they move at the speed of light.

Without inertia, all changes are merely a matter of speed. Hence, photons change at the speed of light. However, with inertia, all changes are relative to the speed of particles in the aether. The closer we get to the speed of light, the slower things change, and this explains why time grinds to a halt for inertial matter at high speeds, but not for photons even thought they travel at the speed of light.

This demonstrates once again that time is a concept tied to inertia, and that time becomes a meaningless concept when applied directly to photons without any reference to something inertial like a clock or a ruler.

The Michelson-Morley Experiment

I received an e-mail from a man named Jean de Climont a few days ago. It was about the Michelson-Morley experiment and how it ought to be performed in space. He included a PDF and a YouTube video promoting this idea. The video includes a summary on the history of optics and how it relates to aether theory.

As noted in the video, the Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to test the aether as a motionless solid; a hypothesis that was abandoned soon after the discovery of the photon. The experiment served to disprove the solid aether hypothesis. However, it didn’t disprove the existence of an aether. A fluid aether that’s easily dragged by solid objects would be consistent with the experiment.

My proposed aether is of the highly fluid kind that adopts readily to all reference frames, including boxed compartments and rooms. The Michelson-Morley experiment, which compares the speed of light in one direction to that of another direction should therefore come up with a null result, especially in enclosed spaces. But, as noted in the video, recent measurements based on modern technology has picked up signals indicating drift. The speed of light appears to be dependent on direction, which would suggest the existence of a fluid aether if confirmed.

An experiment carried out in space would be one way to test this further. But if the aether is as fluid as I suspect, it must be carried out in free space, and not inside a spacecraft if it is to fully detect the aether as it relates to the solar system. Furthermore, the equipment must not be contained in a box. The laser beams must travel through space with nothing covering their path. Only then will we be able to detect the full effect of the spacecraft’s motion relative to the solar system.

A spacecraft traveling around the sun in the opposite direction to Earth should register a significant deviation in the speed of light because it will be traveling against the aether as it’s dragged around the sun.

The same experiment, performed inside the spacecraft should register a much smaller deviation. That would verify the fluid nature of the aether, and its tendency to latch onto whatever reference frame there happens to be in a given region of space.

The experiment performed outside the spacecraft should register the aether with the solar system as its reference frame. The experiment performed inside the spacecraft should register the aether with the spacecraft as its reference frame.

Modern optical resonator

By User:Stigmatella aurantiaca - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Memory in Nature

Memory is fundamental to nature. Everything we see around us is an image of the past. Everything that happens in the present is the result of something that happened in the past. This is due to the limit that the speed of light puts on things. With the exception of quantum entanglement, there's no way to communicate information faster than the speed of light. The electric force, gravity and magnetism are all limited by this factor.

This means that Earth is not orbiting around the Sun where it is in the present, but where it was 8 minutes and 20 seconds ago. We also see the Sun where it was at that time so there's no discrepancy between what we see and what we calculate. There's no mismatch between optical observation and gravitational position. However, it's all in the past by 8 minutes and 20 seconds. In a very real sense, we can say that Earth orbits a memory of our Sun and not its present position.

Sun

By DracoLumina17 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

A more direct type of memory is the energy states of electrons bouncing around the atomic nucleus. An exited electron is a memory of a past event, namely the impact of an energizing particle, such as a photon. The absorption of energy is a type of memory, and the release of energy in the form of light is equivalent to forgetting. Visible light is in other words produced by a process in which electrons first remember and then forget.

More permanent memories are often stored in structures. Everything organic contain records of past events. Tree rings are perfect examples of this. They can be used to reconstruct climate events many centuries back in time. Each tree ring corresponds to a year. They tell us how warm and humid it was at a given time in the place where the tree grew. Trace chemicals can also tell us about forest fires and volcanic eruptions. Everything organic is in this way a memory.

Tree rings

By Arpingstone - Own work, Public Domain, Link

On a more mysterious note, we have the strange ability of light to remember at what angle it entered a piece of glass. Contrary to popular belief, light does not diffract on entry into a prism. It refracts, but it doesn't split into multiple colours before on exit. This is such a mystery that many skip the issue all together when discussing physics. However, the issue can be resolved if we assume the existence of pilot waves. Such waves would be deformed on entry into a prism, functioning in this way as a memory of what happened. What happens at the exit can thus become a function of what happened on entry.

Diffraction

By D-Kuru - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0 at, Link

Equally mysterious, but ignored pretty much entirely by everyone is the fact that moving objects know that they are moving, and in which direction they are moving. We know this to be true because a moving object will change its energy in response to an impulse. A steel ball moving in a given direction will know that it must lose energy when hit against its direction of motion, while it must gain energy when hit along its direction of motion. However, a steel ball is in a state of rest when moving freely. It doesn't know anything about its motion. How then does it know why it must gain or lose energy? This too is a mystery, and this too can be explained in terms of pilot waves.

Newton's cradle

By DemonDeLuxe (Dominique Toussaint)

Image:Newtons cradle animation book.gif, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Memory is truly everywhere. Sometimes, it's easy to spot, like tree rings. Other times, it's a mystery. But for a work of physics to be complete, it must all be explained.

Physics as Correlation, Causation and Mechanism

What, how and why are questions constantly asked by enquiring minds. When we see things happen, we want to know the full scope of the events. This is the what part of our enquiry. Then, we want to know how one sub-event led to another sub-event. This is the how part. And finally, we want to know the mechanism behind the sub-events. In addition to knowing how sub-events are related, we want to know why they are related.

This is the essence of science. However, ever since Newton wrote his masterpiece on physics, the why part of our enquiry has often been skipped. Newton wrote his book without ever proposing an underlying mechanism for his equations. His equations describe in detail how things are related, but say nothing about why things are as they are. Newton made no secret of this. He was completely open about the fact that the why part was omitted from his book. This caused a stir at the time. Some went so far as to call his book unscientific. But it's now considered highly scientific to present equations with little to no explanation as to why the equations work. Causation is sufficient. Mechanism is irrelevant.

This line of thinking has gone so far now that many confuse causation with mechanism. When asked why a steel ball starts moving in the direction that it has been hit, the standard explanation will refer to the direction of energy. Equations are then used to illustrate the relationship. However, this is not an explanation. It's an additional causation that happens to correlate to the direction of motion. It says nothing about why the ball starts moving.

On closer analysis, hardly anything in physics is explained mechanically these days. There are all sorts of measurable quantities, including exact equations binding these quantities together. But there's hardly a mechanical explanation to be found anywhere, and this is why I decided to come up with my own mechanics. I wanted to find a simple mechanical model to explain the why part of our enquiry, and what I discovered was that a strict particle model will do the trick. Everything, including time and space can be reduced to particles and motion.

Putting this model to the test, I found it capable of explaining every aspect of physics, from kinetics and optics to field forces and nuclear physics. Even quantum entanglement fitted into this model.

This doesn't mean that I claim to have the one true answer to all questions related to physics. There may be other theories that fit the what and how of physics just as well as mine. But the fact remains that the theory contained in my book is a complete one, capable of explaining the entirety of the physical world we live in.

A particle

How Pink Floyd Corrupted the Optics Debate

Pink Floyd's famous album the Dark Side of the Moon has on its cover an illustration of a prism breaking white light into different colours. This iconic image is beautiful in its simplicity, attracting the attention of anyone curious about the nature of light. However, the image is also wrong. Light does not diffract on entry into a prism. It diffracts only on exit, as can be seen by careful observation of a real experiment.

Diffraction

By D-Kuru - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0 at, Link

This disconnect between Pink Floyd's cover and the real nature of light is unfortunate in that it has installed a false idea of reality in a lot of people's minds. Many students of physics go their entire lives assuming that diffraction happens both at the entry and at the exit of a prism. This in turn, leads to the assumption that light is a wave phenomenon. Snell's Law is frequently sited. Yet, all of this is incorrect. Light does not behave like waves. It behaves like particles wrapped inside pilot waves.

This would have been a trivial matter if it wasn't for the fact that the behaviour of light as it travels through a prism is the biggest mystery in optics. It's at the heart of an age long debate over the true nature of light. The wide distribution and general acceptance of Pink Floyd's cover as a correct representation of reality is therefore a big deal. It has confused an issue that is of great importance in physics.

A great deal of work has been done on optics, and much time has been wasted on the incorrect assumption that Pink Floyd was right. However, any text on optics can be immediately ignored if it uses illustrations in which light diffracts at both the entry and exit of a prism. Entire theories can be ignored as fiction. They answer questions that only exist in the minds of people but have no anchor in reality.

The damage done by Pink Floyd's cover is so wide reaching that most school books on optics give the impression that light diffract on entry as well as exit through a prism. Many students of physics are not only exposed to an iconic image on a record album. They are also told at school that the image is factually correct. A very important debate on the nature of light has thus been thoroughly corrupted.

Transparent media

Henry Berg's observations related to mirrors, apply just as much to transparent media. Without the help of pilot waves to smooth things out, photons would crash into electrons and atomic nuclei. They would scatter all over the place, and their energy would be absorbed. However, once we include pilot waves into our physics, things become a lot easier to explain.

The presence of a pilot wave around every photon helps smooth out minor irregularities that would otherwise lead to scatter. The pilot wave acts like a dynamic cushion around each photon, guiding them through the atomic lattice of the transparent medium.

Pilot wave guiding a photon through the atomic lattice of a transparent medium

This process greatly distort the shape of the pilot wave. It goes from being a fairly flat wave-front to an elongated sock-like shape. This process requires photons to have a minimum of energy. They have to be big enough to do this. Very small photons are too much affected by their pilot waves to assert this kind of control over them. As a result, low energy photons get reflected by glass.

On the other hand, high energy photons are so big that their pilot waves have too little control over them to get them through. High energy photons crash into atoms. They scatter, and their energy get absorbed.

This explains why glass is only transparent to photons in a certain range of energies. Glass is opaque to photons outside the visible spectrum, both to the high and low energy side.

Another thing to note is that the photons that are in the right energy interval for glass to let them through, all travel the same path. However, the smaller photons which are the most influenced by their pilot waves, travel in a more direct path than larger photons. Large photons veer off to the sides, almost smashing into things as they go, while small photons stay safely in the middle of their pilot wave cushion.

This is why small (red) photons get through transparent media in less time than large (blue) photons.

Finally, we should note that the path through the medium is in a different direction from the path through air. The density of atoms in the medium makes the overall path through it more acute than the path on entry and exit. This phenomenon is referred to as refraction, and the degree to which this happen is referred to as the refraction index.

To understand why a photon's angle of entry into a sheet of plane glass is exactly equal to its angle of exit, we must once again consider the pilot wave. In simple terms, we can say that the process of exit is an exact opposite of entry. Instead of being compressed, the pilot wave expands. The various parts that were compressed on entry expand in a complementary manner on exit.

However, this is only the case for plane glass, where the entry and exit surfaces are in parallel with each other. In the case of a prism, where the surface met by the photon on entry has a different angle from the one met on exit, we get diffraction where photons not only change their direction, but do so to a lesser or greater degree depending on their energy:

Diffraction of light

While all photons refract to the exact same degree, red photons diffract less than blue photons because red photons make smaller rolls into glass, and hence smaller rolls out of glass than blue photons. This is of no consequence when the roll into glass is equal and opposite to the roll out of glass, as is the case with plane glass. However, when the roll into glass is anything but equal and opposite to the roll out of glass, we get a situation in which we have to add the initial roll to the final roll. All photons end up redirected, but with big photons redirected more than small photons.

Path of photons through a plane glass sheet compared to a prism

This does not only explain why prisms diffract white light into all its different colours while plane glass sheets don't diffract light in any way. It also explains the curious fact that diffraction of light happens in its entirety at exit from a prism. There is no diffraction going on inside the prism.

Reflection

In one of his crime novels, Henry Berg makes the observation that there is something profoundly strange about mirrors. How is it that a surface made up of atoms can perfectly reflect photons that are many times smaller than even an electron? From the perspective of a photon, an atom is like a mountain. The surface of a mirror is anything but flat. Yet, all photons striking the mirror will leave at an equal and opposite angle, with no energy lost.

Using the physics laid out in this book, the answer to this riddle is that photons never strike the mirror. The pilot wave that accompanies every photon acts like a cushion, and it is off of this cushion that the photon bounces.

Photon with pilot wave striking a reflective surface of atoms

While photons are tiny, the pilot waves surrounding photons are big relative to atoms. They can easily even out a tolerably smooth surface without upsetting their host particle. In this way, each photon sees a perfectly smooth cushion. It bounces off of this, unaffected by any underlying irregularity in the surface of the mirror.

The phenomenon of reflection can in this way be seen as supporting evidence for the existence of pilot waves.

Polarization through reflection

Light reflecting off a mirror at an angle will end up polarized. This means that every photon must have some sort of axis along which it is oriented. Otherwise, no polarization could be possible.

Combining this fact with what we have so far concluded about photons, we must further conclude that the pilot wave has the ability to orient photons when compressed against a reflecting surface.

The simplest possible explanation for this is that photons are like little sticks. When hit against the compressed cushions of their pilot waves, they end up aligning in parallel with the underlying surface.

Note that the orientation of the aligned photons is random when polarized in this way. On average, there are just as many photons oriented left to right as right to left.

Photons, passing from left to right, being polarized on reflection

This fits well with what we have thus far concluded about the photon, namely that it is an assembly corresponding to an electron and a positron. Assuming that the arrangements of particle quanta in electrons and positrons are inherited directly from photons, we end up with a two orb model of the photon, making them in essence tiny sticks.

Pilot Waves and the Aether

The double slit experiment, when applied to single photons traveling one by one through a double slit barrier, proves that there is self interference going on. It also proves that photons manifest themselves as particles, rather than waves, and that the wave-phenomenon that causes the self interference is vastly larger than the photon itself.

Photon having passed through a double slit barrier

The two slits made in the barrier can be far enough apart for us to be seen as separate slits with our naked eye. Photons on the other hand, are far smaller than an electron, which is so small that we have never been able to see it, even with the most powerful microscope. The wave-phenomenon we are talking about is in other words something enormous relative to the photon.

We know that photons manifest themselves as particles by the way they appear on the receiving wall of the setup. Initially, no pattern can be seen. There are only random dots. Each dot represents a single photon, which burns a tiny mark in the light sensitive wall. Gradually, a pattern starts to appear. Certain areas get more hits than other areas. And finally, when we have a thousand dots on the screen, we see a smooth, uniform wave pattern.

Building up an interference pattern

All of this can be calculated from present theory which holds that all particles exist as both particle and wave. They can therefore interfere with themselves. But how exactly can this happen without breaking the speed limit of light? Nothing can travel faster than light, yet the wave aspect of photons can cross relatively vast distances, zip through barriers, and come back with the required information to make a change of direction in strict accordance to the dimensions of the double slit setup.

A more common objection to particle-wave duality is that it leads to all sorts of strange effect where things are in more than one place at the same time. This in turn leads to the weird hypothetical case of Schrödinger's cat, which finds itself neither dead nor alive. One way to get around this problem is to invoke an aether that has the properties of a standing wave. Another way to get around it is to invoke a pilot wave that accompanies all particles. We can also combine these ideas, making the pilot wave a disturbance in the standing wave of the aether. In this way, we separate the wave property of particles from the particles themselves. Things become more definite, and Schrödinger's cat dies or lives without us needing to check on it.

However, this still leaves us with the faster than light information problem. We still need to explain how a particle that travels at the speed of light can get information about things that are located at a relatively vast distance from itself.

One way to solve this problem is to use a strict particle model in which energetic particles are bigger than less energetic particles. When we combine this with an aether consisting of very low energy photons and neutrinos, we come to the conclusion that particles in the aether can travel in straighter lines than their more energetic counterparts. They can cross bigger distances in a shorter time, because they take fewer turns on their way.

This particular solution yields a pilot wave with attributes similar to a pressure wave in water. A photon traveling through one of two silts can be viewed as a boat, passing through one of two openings to a harbor. The boat is hit by its own waves, coming through both openings as it enters the bay. The smaller the boat, the more affected it is by its own waves, just like red photons are more affected by their pilot waves than blue photons. Red photons produce wider interference patterns than blue photons due to their smaller size.

This demonstrates that a strict particle model solves all the problems related to the double slit experiment. Things stay in a defined state throughout the process, and no information is traveling faster than light.

Photons and Static Electricity

Photons get polarized by magnetic fields. This has been known since Faraday made this discovery back in 1845. However, no similar effect occurs when photons travel through an electric field. At least, I've never come across any such findings.

This is strange, because all models of light include a directional electric element. There should be some detectable effect when static electricity is applied to light.

The conventional wave model of light suggests to us that the amplitude of the wave should be alternately stretched out and compressed as it travels through the static field. To avoid this, the wave should align in a polarized manner, vertical to the field.

A dielectric model of the photon, such as the one proposed in my book, also suggest that a polarizing effect should occur. Photons should align along the electric field in much the same way photons align along a magnetic field.

But static electricity has no polarizing effect on light. Nothing happens when a static electric field is applied to a vacuum. All that happens as we steadily increase the strength of the field is that we eventually get a discharge between the electrically charged plates. This happens when the electric field becomes so strong that electrons get pulled off of the negatively charged plate.

Perhaps the reason we see no polarizing effect of an electric field is that we get an electric discharge before the field is strong enough to cause measurable polarization. Furthermore, electric discharges in vacuum are frequently accompanied by the production of positrons and gamma rays. This suggests a break down of the aether. Instead of being polarized, photons get ripped apart. There is electron-positron production...

Photon in the aether, ripped apart into an electron-positron pair

... followed by gamma rays as the positrons recombine with electrons:

Positron recombining with an electron to produce a gamma-ray photon

It should be noted that electron-positron pairs constitute a highly conductive plasma, which allows for a very quick discharge between electrically charged plates. Positrons will rush towards the negatively charged plate, while electrons rush towards the positively charged plate.

In the brief period that the electron-positron pairs exist, a complete discharge can occur, and recent research into the nature of lightning strikes strongly suggest that this is exactly what happens in thunder storms.

Polarizing Filters

This post is in response to this YouTube video in which polarizing filters are explained based on principles from conventional quantum mechanics.

As we can see from the video, clear polarizing glass lets through a surprisingly large percentage of regular light, considering that it blocks out 100% of light polarized at exactly 90 degrees to the filter. From direct observation, it appears that more than 90 percent of regular light is let through the filter.

If we apply a second filter to the light shone through the first filter, we see that we can block out 100 percent by holding the second filter at a 90 degree angle to the first one. This second observation tells us that ordinary light shone through the first filter has become close to perfectly polarized.

These two facts together tell us that polarizing glass does not merely block out light of a certain polarization, it re-orients light that comes in at an angle less than 90 degree in such a way that all light passed through the polarizing glass becomes polarized.

This explains why a single pane of polarizing glass lets through more than 90 percent of regular light, while 100% of all light can be blocked by applying two such panes at 90 degree angle to each other.

It also explains the rather counter-intuitive fact that if we have three panes of polarizing glass laid on top of each other at 45 degree angles, light is let through even though the total polarization adds up to 90 degrees. This is because two panes at 45 degree angle to each other let through about 70 percent of all light. A further 45 degrees re-orientation will therefore let through 70 percent of the original 70 percent. In total, we get that such an arrangement lets through about 50 percent of all light.

All of this fits perfectly with the two orb model of the photon in that such a model gives the photon orientation. Photons are little sticks that can pass through polarizing filters whenever oriented sufficiently in line with the polarizing glass. Adding pilot wave theory to this, we get the additional help of an aether to guide the photons through the glass. We do not need to accept the inherent weirdness of conventional quantum mechanics in order to explain what we see.

Polarizing filter letting through more than 90 percent of regular light while filtering out close to 100 percent of reflected, polarized light.

By Sbittante at English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Two Types of Aether

James Maxwell modeled light as waves, and required for this an aether to propagate the waves. However, ever since the discovery of the photon, there has not been any need for such an aether.

Photons do not require a propagating aether. They can get from one place to another without an aether. However, there still is a need for an aether in order to explain certain optical phenomena like the double slit experiment, and there is a need for a reservoir of low energy photons that can be kicked up in energy.

These two needs are covered by the theory of the aether as a reservoir of zero-point particles. Such an aether would form a standing wave, and would act as a reservoir of readily available photons and neutrinos. It would also be extremely fluid due to the constant motion of its constituent parts. There would hardly be any drag associated with it.

An electron surrounded by zero-point particles

A strict particle model of physics does not require a propagating aether in order to explain electromagnetic phenomena. It requires an interfering aether and a reservoir of photons and neutrinos. Both of these requirements are covered by the model of the aether as low energy photons and neutrinos.

Pilot Waves vs. Wavelengths

The standard explanation for how Faraday cages work is that the metal mesh from which it is constructed will let through only those photons with sufficiently small wavelengths to fit through the openings.

If a photon has a very long wavelength, it will not fit through the holes in the metal mesh. Instead, it is reflected or absorbed. Low energy photons, which are associated with long wavelengths, are thereby prevented from entering the cage.

This sounds reasonable at first reading. However, it makes little sense on closer inspection. Why should the fact that a tiny particle is oscillating at a low frequency have anything to do with its ability to penetrate a metal mesh with holes vastly larger than itself?

The alternative explanation is that the penetration of photons through the metal mesh of a Faraday cage has nothing to do with wavelengths. It is rather a function of momentum.

All detectable photons have a pilot wave associated with them. This wave extends out far beyond each photon, and it is this pilot wave that prevents low energy photons from getting through the mesh of a Faraday cage.

Low energy photons have insufficient momentum to push themselves and their associated pilot wave through the mesh. These are either absorbed or reflected by the mesh.

Low energy photon about to be reflected by a mesh

Higher energy photons have little problem pushing their pilot waves through the mesh. To prevent these, the opening in the mesh have to be smaller. For visible light, the mesh has to be as fine as the lattice of atoms in order to prevent penetration.

High energy photon pushing itself and associated pilot wave through a mesh

The mechanisms behind reflection and refraction of visible light is the exact same as the mechanisms behind the Faraday cage. Visible light gets reflected, absorbed or refracted by the atomic lattice of glass depending on their momentum.

For radio waves, the mesh of the Faraday cage acts like the lattice of glass, letting high energy radio waves through, while absorbing or reflecting the lower energy ones.

In the case of barriers made out of bricks and mortar, we get the situation where visible light is incapable of penetration, while radio waves go through. The lattice of the atoms in these materials are ordered in such a way that they obscure the relatively straight path of visible light while allowing the much more meandering radio wave photons to find ways to penetrate.

Low energy radio wave bouncing its way through bricks and mortar

This reverses the situation described for the Faraday cage and glass. The low energy radio waves bounce their way through the atomic lattice while visible light gets absorbed or reflected.

Two Angstrom Towards the Blue End

The blues-shift of deuterium relative to hydrogen can be calculated from standard theory. It can also be confirmed in laboratory experiments.

What should be noted is that the deuterium spectrum comes out at about 2 angstrom towards the blue end of the spectrum as compared to hydrogen.

Heavy isotopes emit bluer light than lighter ones

It follows from this that an increase in mass of atomic nuclei will shift the light spectrum of the affected matter towards the blue end of the spectrum.

Homer's Wine Dark Sea

It was not until about 4500 years ago that humans first gave a name to the color blue. The first ones to do so were the Egyptians who knew how to produce blue dye.

The standard interpretation of this is that blue was seen as a special shade of green. Without a separate word for blue, people did not see it as all that different from green.

However, if this is true, then the sky and the sea should be described as green in ancient texts, and that is not the case.

The sea is described as wine dark by the ancient Greek poet Homer. He also describes oxen in the fields as red.

Roman illustration of Odysseus on a wine dark sea

By Giorcesderivative work: Habib M'henni - File:GiorcesBardo54.jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10353941

This indicates that the sky was not blue, but red. The light reflected off of the sea would then have been properly described as wine dark, especially if there were some threatening clouds hanging over it. Brown cattle would appear to be red.

With everything bathed in a red light, things would appear red or golden in color, and blue would be very difficult to distinguish from green.

If our Sun was redder in color in the past, blue would have been a very rare color to see. It would in truth have been a special shade of green.

It would also mean that there actually was a golden age before our age, and that we should take this quite literally. The golden age really was golden in the sense that everything was bathed in a pleasant golden light.

Pilot Waves and Refraction

Pilot wave theory can be used to explain the double slit experiment. It also helps explain how mirrors can reflect photons so perfectly.

The presence of a pilot wave around every particle helps smooth out minor irregularities that would otherwise lead to scatter. Tiny photons interacting with the lattice of atoms would scatter all over the place if it was not for the pilot wave.

Pilot wave smoothing out the interaction between a photon and a lattice of reflecting atoms

This ability of the pilot wave to smooth out interactions between photons and atoms can also be used to explain the behavior of light passing through a transparent medium.

The slalom analogy used in my book becomes a whole lot less eccentric once the pilot wave is taken into account.

From experience we know that light can either reflect off of a transparent surface, or pass through it. The effect we get depends on the angle of the light as it hits the surface.

Light hitting a transparent surface at a slant angle will reflect. The pilot waves provide enough resistance to send the incoming photons back out.

Light hitting a transparent surface at a more acute angle passes through the medium. The pilot wave breaks through the lattice.

Pilot waves guiding red photons through a transparent lattice

The pilot wave deforms in the process. However, it does not loose its ability to smooth out minor irregularities. Each photon slaloms through the lattice with a pilot wave to guide it.

Red photons have smaller pilot waves than blue ones. They can slalom more directly through the lattice than the blue photons. They get through the lattice quicker than blue photons due to their shorter paths.

This also explains why very low energy photons do not pass through glass. They do not have the momentum to push their pilot waves through the lattice, and are therefore reflected.

Very high energy photons, on the other hand, can be stopped by adding led to the lattice. The heavy led atoms stop the high energy photons as they try to crash their way through the lattice.

Once the pilot wave is taken into account, it becomes easier to explain the fact that glass is perfectly transparent only for photons in a specific energy range.

Polarization Through Reflection

When light hits a highly reflecting surface, like a mirror, no energy is lost. The bounce of the photons off the atoms that make up the mirror is perfectly elastic. The pilot waves that accompany each photon smooth out the irregularities of the mirror surface so that the bounce of the photon is perfect in every way.

Photon with pilot wave hitting a reflecting surface

So perfect is the reflection that we sometimes confuse it with the real thing. However, there is one telling difference between the light of the original, and the light of the mirror image.

Reflected light is polarized. Photons have an axis of spin which lines up with the surface from which it is bouncing.

Why this is so is simple to explain in terms of the two orb model of the photon.

Two orb photon as an assembly of six particle quanta

The two orb photon is not round. It is elongated along its axis of spin.

It follows from this that photons can be "slammed flat" against a surface. When bouncing off of a reflective surface, photons get their axis of spin oriented parallel to it.

Stream of photons hitting a reflective surface on their way from left to right

The polarization is not perfect. There will be plenty of photons at random orientations. However, there is an overall effect that can be quite pronounced. This is particularly noticeable when it comes to glare from a setting sun or other low light source. A pair of polarized sunglasses that blank out light with horizontal polarization can substantially reduce glare from sunlight reflected off of water.

It should be noted that this kind of optical polarization is not the same as the polarization produced by a magnetic field or electric current. Reflected photons are "slammed flat", but their orientation remains otherwise random. Their spin is not coordinated, nor is their plus-minus orientation.

Only when we have polarization, spin and plus-minus orientation, all coordinated, do we have magnetism.

Reflections

In one of his books, the author Henry Berg makes the observation that there is something profoundly strange about mirrors.

How is it that a surface made up of atoms can perfectly reflect photons that are many times smaller than even an electron?

From the perspective of a photon, an atom is like a mountain. The surface of a mirror is anything but flat. Yet, all photons striking the mirror will leave at an equal and opposite angle, with no energy lost.

The answer to this riddle, using the physics laid out in this book, is that the photons never strike the mirror. The pilot wave that accompanies every photon acts like a cushion, and it is off of this cushion that the photon bounces.

Photon with pilot wave striking a reflective surface of atoms

While photons are tiny, the pilot waves surrounding photons are big relative to atoms. They can easily even out a tolerably smooth surface without upsetting the photon side of the wave. Each photon sees a perfectly smooth cushion. It bounces off of this cushion, completely unaware of any minor irregularity in the surface of the mirror.

Mirrors can in other words be used as supporting evidence for the existence of pilot waves.

Ignored Facts

Contrary to popular belief, modern science is full of contradictions and unsolved puzzles, and it does not take more than mild curiosity to uncover these problems.

Reading about Snell's Law, we only need to take a quick look out of the window to determine that it does not apply to light. The textbook may say otherwise, but the evidence is right in front of us.

Nor does it take a genius to figure out that a solar system governed by gravity alone will be incredibly fragile. Some other force must be included to ensure stability.

All that is needed to realize that the Quetzalcoatlus could neither fly nor hunt with today's gravity and inertia, is a very basic understanding of torque and stress in materials.

Accepted truths about the dinosaurs are in direct conflict with Darwin's principle of evolution. No animal will evolve into a size and shape in conflict with its function. A sloth does not evolve into the shape of a speed monster. An animal that lives off of the foliage at the lowest branches of trees does not develop a long swan-like neck.

Taking a closer look at our planet, we discover that all the continents will fit nicely together on a globe with half the diameter of Earth today. No seafloor is more than 300 million years old, and the seafloor looks nothing like the continental crust. It is full of rifts and stretch marks. The natural conclusion from this should be that our planet is expanding. This is flatly denied without any good alternative explanation.

Looking out into space, we see a huge scar on the surface of Mars. There is an asteroid belt with supposedly left over building blocks. Gravity has somehow managed to compact a bunch of rocks, but failed to create a planet. No-one seems bothered by the fact that gravity does not work that way.

The list of things for which the official explanation makes no sense is very long. There's evidence everywhere we look. Yet, this is brushed lightly aside, as if it is all mere details. What really matters to scientists these days is the exact properties of the Higgs Boson, and the precise size of black holes.

The Emperor's New Clothes

By Vilhelm Pedersen (1820 - 1859) - English Wikipedia (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Emperor_Clothes_01.jpg ), Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4038625

Never mind the feeble explanations presented for all the things that are close and obvious. What's really important is the details of things that we have never directly observed.

This seems to be the mantra of modern science, and it is reminiscent of the tale of the emperor and his new clothes. No-one mentions the possibility that there might not in fact be anything produced in the emperor's basement. All discussions are centered around the details of the fabrics, their fine colors, their texture, and their sheer brilliance.

Understanding the Rainbow

The rainbow is fairly easy to understand in terms of particles. Many people have explained this phenomenon excellently before me, so I'm not going to pretend originality on this point. This is merely another rehash of an old and well established interpretation.

The first thing to note about the rainbow is that it is a reflection of light coming in from behind the observer.

Furthermore, in order to diffract into multiple colors, the light has to enter the medium that it is reflected from. The reflection is off of the inside of the medium, not its exterior surface.

In the case of the rainbow, the medium is water in the form of spherical droplets.

Only light that penetrates into the droplet before reflection can produce the rainbow effect. Light that reflects off of the exterior of a droplet will not diffract into multiple colors. Light that goes straight through the droplet is lost to the observer.

The type of reflection that is required in order to produce diffraction with the use of water droplets is very peculiar and rare. It only happens at two precise angles relative to the observer.

We have the rainbow and the double rainbow, but not a third or a fourth rainbow.

To illustrate why the reflections required are as rare as they are, we must consider the raindrop, and the refraction and reflections that are required for the light to make the path from behind the observer, through the raindrop, and then onto to the observer.

Observer, rainbow and light reflecting off the inside of a raindrop

For light to enter a raindrop, it has to hit it at a near perpendicular angle. However, for light to reflect, the angle has to be slant.

Light has to enter the raindrop, and subsequently make multiple slant reflections before leaving. Any other scenario will either see the light fail to reflect towards the observer, or fail to diffract.

This, in short, is how the rainbow works and why we only have two and not a multiple of them.