Does light/photon exist?
Does light, or photon, even exist?
Let’s begin from Maxwell’s wave equation for Electromagnetism:
So, this is the equation:
Now, Physics is basically about the motion or dynamics of things in this basic structure called space-time, as things move in space and in time. Well, that should not be surprising, as dynamics, by definition and basically, is things happening in space and time.
Now, the speed of this wave is only dependent on the constants, called permittivity and permeability of space. So the dynamics of this wave, i.e. the EM wave, depends only on fundamental properties of space, or rather space-time, and therefore is a constant.
Light is not about just, … you know, light in a not so fundamental sense. It’s about something fundamental. It’s about the very basic thing that defines and constructs reality. It’s about space and time. Light is about the fundamental nature of Nature or reality. It is about the relation between space and time that defines reality.
Now, the next step is the theory of Relativity. It starts from this fact about space, time and light, mentioned before. Based on the findings of Electromagnetic theory, Einstein understood what fundamental information Electromagnetic theory was pointing towards, and came up with the understanding that we refer to as the Relativity. So, it was all about space and time, matter, energy. You know the fundamental stuff. It, and by that I mean Electromagnetism and light, was all about space-time and the reality that it defines.
But there’s more to the story. Light, basically, defines the limit of this construct called space-time, which defines the basis of space-time reality. So light, and the speed that we associate with it, defines something about this space-time basis itself. No wonder why it is one of the postulates of this space-time construct we call theory of Relativity. It’s not about light as something different and something in itself. It is about the basis/foundation of this space-time reality, about observer and this space-time reality being relative.
Light is about and is, basically, the relation between space and time. It’s telling us that space and time are fundamentally the same thing, and about how and what the fundamental/basis of reality, i.e. space-time, is.
So this thing, light, and this constancy of its so called “speed” is pointing towards nothing but, and is nothing but, the flexibility of this space-time basis (i.e. fabric) and the constraint/limit to that flexibility. It’s just telling us what space-time state or chunks/coordinates/points/bits – what is referred to as events in relativity – exist, and what space-time chunks do not, for any given space-time chunk – called the observer/origin/present.
So, for example, in this figure showing the space-time … umm … space, this structure in yellow, called the light cone, defines the limit and constraint on the possible events that can exist for or with respect to this origin O. [Add Image]
So, this thing called light and its speed is nothing but how flexibly can this space-time fabric mold, i.e. stretch and contract.
This is about how far the two points, i.e. events, that constitute this space-time ‘space’ are, and how far can they be.
But then, space-time or space and time is what defines the distance and things and terms like ‘far’ or ‘near’, and ‘between’ and between ‘things’. And events being the smallest entities constituting this space-time space, and thus everything, what could be out or external to the events and thus to space-time, or more fundamental than these, to define the distance between and for them? Well, nothing right, because space-time is what defines distance or interval.
So, the “far” in the question, ‘how far any two events are’, is actually about how ‘different’ the two spatio-temporal states, i.e. events, are. Now what defines this difference, if space-time is the ultimate basis of reality, and if there is nothing more fundamental or “basic” , and nothing external that defines their basis but themselves?
The answer, I propose, is the events – that is these space-time states/points, that constitute this space-time space, themselves. These events/states themselves define the difference, because they’re the ultimate basis/foundations i.e. definers or definitions. So, it’s obvious, that they are by definition, being the basis, that provide the ultimate definition. Therefore, the difference between the two events is encoded in those events. There is nothing external that link them up, as they are the ultimate constituents of reality. They are all there is, so the notion something being exterior and thus underlying them and linking them and defining them is non-existent, is undefined.
They are the ultimate definers, so by that definition, there can be no definers further down the layer. This is similar to, “what came before God” situation. There is no basis defining and can be no basis that defines the “ultimate” basis of this space-time verse, or spatio-temporal-verse, and that’s obvious.
Now returning to the idea of light and space-time: All light and maximum speed is about how the events – points in space-time – are related, or rather how they are different. The difference or relation that defines what two events can be called cause and effect, and what difference or relation can be called causal link/connection i.e. causality. It defines, and is, the limit or call it constraint to the space-time structure. It basically informs about this basis of reality, this limit to reality. And that’s why space-time disappears when we deal with light, because it speaks and is the “limit” to/of this structure called space-time. What else would you expect at the limit of something other than that something vanishing out of existence? What else would you expect at the limit of something, not that something, right? What else would you expect at the limit of everything, nothing, right?
There is nothing more to it, there can be nothing more to it. Light, speaks of space-time –the very basis and limit of reality, what could be more to it?
So, light is basically nothing, as it defines the limit to space-time – i.e. everything.
The picture that is often depicted in which light, as something, is travelling through space and time, is wrong. The picture in which light is shown as something travelling from one point in space-time, called the cause, to the other point and influencing it, called the effect, is wrong.
The first thing is, nobody can verify this. Nobody can ‘see’, that is observe, light travelling through space-time. This is because to observe is to measure/interact, and measurement is, simply put, comparison. But the only ultimate basis to define and differentiate is space-time. Comparison requires scale, as comparing is to be done with respect to some scale. And space-time being the ultimate basis, it is what is to be measured to define something. And that requires its scale, i.e. a frame of reference, which every observer is by the way.
Now, for light, because it defines and is the limit of space-time, there is no space-time and therefore no space-time frame/scale exists at the limit, by definition. As I said earlier, the picture of light as some kind of small particle like, for example, grain-like thing, is misleading. Light is not about that, it’s about the limit of space-time, where the space-time is not defined, and the usual, familiar sense of space-time frame of reference exists no more. So, light’s frame of reference is no frame of reference. And therefore, nothing exists there. Nothing can be defined in that frame, as that’s the limit and there is no frame. There is no space-time basis to define anything. It’s absolute indefinition.
So to define light as something other than space-time limit, which basically is no definition and nothing, would be incorrect.
So the picture in which light is shown as something travelling through space-time does not.
To observe light in that sense is to interact with it. But then light is with or through which interaction occurs. Light defines and is interaction. How can you interact with interaction via something else? How can something else define interaction other than interaction itself? That’s weird! How can there be interaction with interaction itself? You don’t interact with interaction, interaction just ‘is’. Interaction is interaction.
So this picture of light where its particle – photon – is depicted moving through space-time, is mere assumption. The other thing is that in the picture of light where its particle – photon – is depicted moving through space-time, and this picture of cause and effect and causality, and establishing causal connection between events is just an extra assumption. This is unnecessary, as the events in space-time already have this difference that’s encoded in them, and can be just left so without requiring any such particle motion or dynamics through the sheet/space of space-time. Occam’s razor or not, why require extra unnecessary improvable element when the space-time picture is already complete without requiring such?
Therefore, the picture of light and/or light as such particle-like entity, i.e. photon, or light as waves, in space-time, travelling through space, and/or time, and/or space-time and establishing ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ and ‘causality’ as such, does not exist.
Light, and the speed limit that it entails is merely nothing but the limit and constraint on the events, that constitute this space/fabric of space-time, and the difference in events encoded in the events themselves.
Comments
Post a Comment