The Nature Of Electromagnetic Waves

THE RADIO PROOF OF THE THEORY OF STATIONARY SPACE

If there is still any doubts about my Theory of Stationary Space that I have been discussing in this blog, let's lay them to rest today. There is a very simple way to prove that there must be dimensions that we cannot see, that time must really be space through which our consciousness is moving and, that the particles composing matter must actually be strings running along a dimension that we cannot see.

Consider the antenna of a radio transmitter. An electron made to move between the top and bottom of the antenna will radiate an electromagnetic wave out into space. Has anyone stopped to ask how an electron moving back and forth in one dimension can produce a wave that is two-dimensional?

This seems to violate the laws of physical motion. No matter what we do, it is impossible to generate momentum in a dimension by momentum that does not include that dimension. If the electron moving from top to bottom in the antenna is producing a two-dimensional wave, it must have momentum in another dimension somewhere. There is simply no way around this.

Time is a vital function of radio waves. These waves, as well as alternating current, are described in hertz, which is one cycle per second. Since the electron which we perceive as moving in only one dimension produces a two-dimensional wave over time, which radiates out into space at right angles to the antenna, we can safely conclude that what we perceive as time must actually be a dimension of space that we cannot see into. There is no other way to explain how an electron moving in one dimension can produce a wave that radiates in two dimensions at right angles to the radio antenna.

Now if time is really space and we are moving forward in time, what could possibly be propelling us? It would require a near-infinite source of energy but we can detect nothing of the kind. The reason that it requires no physical energy to propel us forward in the space that we perceive as time is because we are already in the future. Our bodies are composed of strings that we perceive as particles because we can only see in three dimensions of space. These strings run from our past direction in space to our future.

Besides, if there has to be another dimension of space for a one-dimensional electron motion to produce a two-dimensional wave, why can't we see into this other dimension? The answer can only be that light is really stationary ripples in space and that our consciousness is moving forward along the strings composing our bodies at what we percieve as the speed of light. This causes us to perceive that light is moving at the speed at which our consciousness is actually moving.

What is actually happening is that the electron is a string bent by the alternating voltage of the transmitter into a zig-zag in the four dimensional space that includes time. A one-dimensional electron string that is bent now involves two dimensions, which explains how an electron that we perceive as moving in one dimension produces a two-dimensional wave. The electron affects the alternating negative and positive charges composing the sorrounding space so that it creates a right-angle mirror impression of itself in space.

We are able to see three of the four dimensions involved so that we perceive the wave as two-dimensional even though the electron seems to be only moving in one dimension. The bent zig-zag shape of an electron string in four dimensions, including the one that we perceive as time, creates a perpendicular mirror image of itself in the surrounding space that we perceive as a two-dimensional wave.

The so-called "doppler effect" with electromagnetic waves when the source of light is moving rapidly either toward or away from us is caused by the fact that it's bundle of strings is not exactly parallel to ours and so we see fewer waves if it points away from us into our future (redshifted) or more waves if it is tilted toward us into our future (blueshifted).

THE AMPLITUDE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES

The common picture of electromagnetic waves is that they can vary by wavelength, and thus frequency, and amplitude. The amplitude of a wave is supposedly the strength of it and consists of the height of the crest and the depth of the trough of the wave from the normal of dark space.

However, I find that this cannot possibly be correct. I have determined that the intensity or "amplitude" of light or other electromagnetic waves consists only in the number of individual waves, otherwise known as photons, and that each individual wave of a given wavelength is identical in brightness or intensity.

Keep in mind that our eyes are much too large in scope to discern the true nature of light. The pupils of our eyes are many, many times wider than the wavelength of the light that we see. We can no more discern the true nature of light by looking at a source of it then we can discern the nature of atoms by merely looking at an object composed of atoms.

To describe why I have concluded that the supposed variations of amplitude in electromagnetic waves do not exist, let's go back to the electron in the antenna producing a radio wave. The electron moves between the top and bottom of the antenna producing a radio wave that propagatates out into space.

But let's look at this carefully. Suppose we wanted to increase the amplitude of the wave, how could we do it? If we made the electron move faster or slower in the antenna, it would not change the amplitude, it would only change the wavelength.

The only way to increase the output of the antenna would be to increase the number of electrons moving in the antenna. But each electron would then produce it's own wave moving out into space. This means that the only factors in the generation of electromagnetic waves are the number of the entity producing the wave, such as electrons, and the distance it travels in the production of each wave.

We must remember that the entities that produce electromagnetic waves, such as electrons in the case of radio waves, come in standard sizes. Every electron has the same charge as every other electron. This means that there is no way to increase the amplitude of a radio wave by using the same number of electrons in the antenna. The only way to increase the output of the antenna would be to get more electrons to move and produce waves.

Thus, I think I can safely conclude that our traditional of electromagnetic waves being variable in amplitude is incorrect.

As another example of how the existing concept of the amplitude of electromagnetic waves must be incorrect is the reception of AM radio by a receiver. The AM antenna in a transistor radio consists of a small coil of wire inside the radio (the whip antenna is for FM). AM radio waves are of around 1 mhz in frequency and are thus many meters in wavelength.

Now, if the "amplitude" of the AM wave is increased, the small coil antenna in the radio will not even notice. The amplitude of the AM signal can only be increased if more waves are produced.

If you are outside North America and do not use the terms AM (for amplitude modulation) and FM (for frequency modulation), AM is longwave signals of around 1 mhz and FM is much shorter, around 100 mhz.

The reason that waves of higher frequency seem to us to have more energy is that electrons must necessarily move further to produce waves of longer wavelength, and thus lower frequency. Thus, the same amount of energy that it took to generate the wave is spread over a wider area. Suppose that an identical amount of energy is applied to a light and to a radio transmitter. The light source is more compact and thus it's output is more concentrated than the radio wave and so we will perceive it to contain more energy.

TWO-DIMENSIONAL WAVES

Not only must the popular conception of electromagnetic waves being variable in amplitude be wrong, each wave must be two-dimensional rather than three. It is well-known in physics that light applied to the right surface will knock electrons in atoms out of their orbits. This is known as the "photoelectric effect".

But it is noted that light of a higher frequency will push each electron with more force than light of lower frequency but will not push more electrons. While light of more brightness will push more electrons than dimmer light but will not push each electron with more force.

What this tells us is that, contrary to our perception, light does not completely fill space. Looking at a source of light, we receive a vast number of two-dimensional waves that seem to fill space. All electromagnetic waves must be two-dimensional in nature, as seen on an oscilloscope, with the dimensional set at right angles to that of the source. Only if the brightness or amplitude of a wave filling three-dimensional space actually consists of a multitude of two-dimensional waves can it be explained why brighter light moves more electrons but with no more force than dimmer light.

We have made the mistake of comparing light to water waves, which are three-dimensional from the point of view of the sorrounding space. Einstein's model of space as a fabric was an excellent model to explain gravity but not to explain the nature of light. It has led us to believe that light waves are three-dimensional in nature when they cannot be. We perceive a source of light as filling an entire three-dimensional space but that is only because our eyes are so vastly larger in scale than the wavelengths of light that we are observing.

Imagine a tunnel filled halfway with water. Now suppose a wave is generated in the water. The amplitude of the wave, being represented by the height of the wave crest and the depth of it's trough, has a definite possible maximum. The highest the wave can possibly get is the top of the tunnel.

So, if light consisted of a three-dimensional wave like water waves, it should have a maximum possible brightness. However, no indication has ever been found that it does.

This must mean that light, and other electromagnetic waves like radio, are two-dimensional in nature. Light can get brighter and brighter with no apparent maximum possible amplitude. This can only mean that light is composed of a multitude of individual waves that do not completely fill space but seem to us to do so because of the vastness of our eyes compared with the wavelengths of light. This also explains why physicists and astronomers have long noticed that light behaves as both a wave and individual packets, called photons. Each photon is actually an individual wave.

Astronomers have sensitive electronic light detectors that can collect individual photons in very dim light from distant objects in the universe. Telescopes show that a certain minimum of light is necessary for a distant object to become visible. This would not be so if light filled three-dimensional space but would be if light consisted of individual waves. At least one wave, a photon, would be required for visibility.

With telescopes, the size of the objective lens or mirror is more important in making an extremely distant object visible than the magnification power of the telescope. This would not be true if light was a continuous wave that filled three-dimensional space but does make sense if individual waves emanated from a very distant star and the objective lens or mirror had to capture a certain number of them before the object could be visible to the observer.

Light can only appear as packets, as well as waves, if it did not fill three-dimensional space. And it can only not fill three-dimensional space if it appears to us to do so if it actually consists of two-dimensional waves (or packets) that are much shorter in wavelength than the size of the pupils of our eyes. When astronomical detectors can only receive an occasional photon from a very distant object, it is because individual waves move out in straight lines from that object, getting further apart as they get further from the source and the movement of the earth occasionally brings the detector into line with one such wave.

The number of individual electromagnetic waves radiating from a source is determined simply by the number of entities in the source producing the wave. For example, the number of individual radio waves emanating from a transmitter antenna is the same as the number of electrons in the antenna producing the waves. One appropriately moving electron will send out one wave. A stronger signal does not mean that each such wave is higher in amplitude. It means that more such individual waves are being received. The further from the transmission antenna, the fewer waves are received in accordance with the Inverse Square Law.

Light gets dimmer and radio waves get weaker at a distance for a simple reason. The individual waves, moving in straight lines, get further and further apart. Just as the numbers are further apart on a clock than on a watch. The waves have not actually gotten weaker at a distance, it is just that an eye or an antenna is receiving fewer of them and there is fewer radio waves at the desired frequency to compete with background noise.

A fundamental difference between two-dimensional electromagnetic waves and three-dimensional waves like water is that both must weaken with distance because they are spread over a wider area. Water waves decrease in amplitude if they spread in a circular pattern from the source, such as a stone thrown into a pond. Electromagnetic waves do not weaken with distance, their amplitude remains the same. It is just that the individual waves move out in straight lines from the source and fewer are received by an antenna of the same size at a distance. An object cannot be visible unless, at the very least, one such wave is detected.

As final proof that light must be two-dimensional in nature, even though we perceive it as filling three-dimensional space, consider lasers. These devices operate by taking waves of light of a single wavelength and lining up the wave crests so that they strike an object all at once. In this way the laser can exert a force that ordinary light cannot because it's waves are random and it's crests meet a surface at uncoordinated times.

If ordinary light can be compared with a group of people walking, lasers can be compared with soldiers lined up and marching in step. A laser beam must thus consist of light waves of exactly the same wavelength. You may have noticed that there is no such thing as a white laser because white is a mixture of all the other colors (colours).

A notable property of lasers is that, unlike a conventional light source such as a flashlight, the light spreads very little over a distance. Lasers can even be pointed at a special laser shield that was put on the moon. My claim is that the only way this lack of spreading is possible is if light is two-dimensional, rather than three-dimensional. If light was three-dimensional in nature, it could not be prevented from spreading out in three-dimensional space.

To achieve the so-called "laser effect" and prevent a beam of light from spreading, it is necessary that light be one dimension lower in nature than the sorrounding space. The same effect cannot be achieved with sound or water waves, which are three-dimensional waves in three-dimensional space.

PROOF OF THE THEORY OF STATIONARY SPACE

Now that we have established that electromagnetic waves must be two-dimensional in nature, what does this tell us about the nature of the space that such waves travel through? It must mean that space consists of particles, as I have described in my Theory of Stationary Space instead of a continuous fabric, as is generally believed. If the consistency of space was continuous, the existence of a two-dimensional wave in multi-dimensional space would not be possible. And since it is electric charges, such as electrons in an antenna, that produce waves in space, it is logical to believe that space consists of the alternating negative and positive charges that I described.

THE MINIMUM WAVELENGTH AND ELECTRON ORBITALS

I would like to explain what I have been thinking concerning what must be a primary relationship between matter and energy in the universe. We know that the internal structure of an atom is mostly empty space and that electrons are assembled in orbitals a certain distance from the nucleus of the atom. But what exactly is it that causes electrons to orbit at a certain fixed distance from the nucleus, and for electrons in outer orbitals to continue in this pattern?

My cosmology theory explains the structure of atoms in relation to the infinitesimal alternating negative and positive electric charges that comprise space. Picture the formation of an atom, with a negatively-charged electron going into orbit around the positively-charged nucleus.

As the electron nears the nucleus, drawn by the attraction of opposite electric charges, the alternating checkerboard pattern of electric charges in space is disrupted somewhat by the presence of the two charged bodies. The positive charges in space shift away from the like-charged nucleus and toward the negatively-charged electron. Meanwhile, the negative charges in the space between the two shift in the opposite direction, toward the nucleus.

This shift, however, is resisted by the tension between the charged in space and it reaches an equilibrium. When this equilibrium of charge balance is reached the approach of the electron to the nucleus is halted and the electron thus remains at a certain distance from the nucleus.

In the posting on this blog, "Atoms And String Theory", there are several ways in which the nature of atoms relates to the cosmology theory. In the first section, "Electric Charges Within Atoms And String Theory", this push and pull of like and opposite charges in space when the electron approaches the nucleus is described. In the third section, "Electric Neutralization And String Theory", explains why the charge imbalance within atoms, between protons and electrons, cannot be neutralized in the same way that it can between matter by such methods as electron transfer or electric sparks.

As for electromagnetic waves in space, produced by the disruption in the alternating checkerboard of infinitesimal alternating negative and positive charges, it is nothing about space which causes such a wave cycle but movement of concentrated charge in the source of the wave, such as electrons moving in an antenna. The waves are referred to as electromagnetic because they disturb the electric charge balance of the underlying space.

There is thus energy in electromagnetic waves through space, because it took energy to create the wave. The energy in waves can be compared to a coiled spring. The shorter the wavelength, the more coiled the spring and the more energy it contains. The energy contained in electromagnetic waves is expressed by the formula: e = hv, where e is the energy, v is the frequency and h is Planck's Constant. Remember that the frequency of a wave is the inverse of it's wavelength. The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength.

A wave has an electrical component, and also a magnetic component at right angles to it. This theory explains it neatly, the electric component is a pushing force (in electrical wires, it is referred to as the electromotive force), and magnetism is a pulling force. This is a reflection of my theory's model of a charge in space, such as an electron or a nucleus, pushing like charges away and drawing opposite charges in.

Then, the displacement of these charges changed the attraction and repulsion relationship between those and other charges in space in a lateral direction, and so the electric pushing wave had to be balanced by a magnetic pulling wave in a perpendicular direction. The electric and magnetic fields of the wave, known as the E and B fields, are always synchronized so that they reach the maximum and minimum of the sine wave together.

When an electron approaches near a nucleus, an electric (pushing) displacement wave sets the distance from the nucleus by attaining the charge equilibrium in space. The perpendicular magnetic (pulling) displacement wave pulls the electron along in orbit around the nucleus. Such pulling could operate in either direction, which results in a balance of electron pairs with one in orbit in each direction.

So, it is actually the wave created by the displacement of electric charges in space that both sets the distance of the electron from the nucleus and also causes the electron to orbit the nucleus. Put another way, the electric component of the charge displacement wave sets the distance of the electron from the nucleus and the magnetic component of the wave causes it to orbit the nucleus. Remember that there is essentially no such thing as energy inefficiency at the sub-atomic scale, all energy has to accomplish something.

My theory explains space as an alternating checkerboard of infinitesimal electric charges in multiple dimensions. This explains the extremely short distance known as Planck's length as the size of these charges which comprise space. My theory is not the only one that explains space as particles the size of Planck's Length, there is another theory known as Loop Quantum Gravity.

The posting "Atoms And String Theory" describes how particles of space can be displaced by the presence of concentrated electric charges, such as electrons or protons in the nucleus, to create a wave in space. Presuming that the size of a charge is equal to Planck's Length, there should be about a trillion trillion electric charges between the electron and the nucleus.

The fact that space is composed of alternating negative and positive electric charges in multiple dimensions, and electromagnetic waves are disturbances in that space brought about by the application of energy, is why space can accommodate waves of all different wavelengths, from all different directions, at the same time. The usual displacement of the electric charges must be relatively slight, and the charges must be near-infinitesimal, or space would not be able to accommodate such a vast range of wavelengths in the same space.

Now, here is an inevitable conclusion that I have come to with regard to electromagnetic waves. If waves are disturbances in the alternating checkerboard of electric charges comprising empty space, and those charges are of a certain finite size, then there must be some minimum wavelength for electromagnetic waves. I cannot see any such minimum referred to anywhere. Imagine a model of an electromagnetic wave created with coins on a table, there would be a minimum possible wavelength due to the size of the coins.

Since the energy in a wave is in inverse proportion to the wavelength, this imposes an upper limit on the amount of energy that a wave can carry. Electromagnetic waves affect, and are affected by, objects that are of about the same size as the wavelength of the wave. This is why long wave radio waves, such as AM radio in North America, tend to fade when you drive under a bridge which is of roughly the same scale as the wavelength.

There are no ordinary electromagnetic waves of around the wavelength of the diameter of a nucleus, or it would have a devastating effect on matter. Gamma rays, the electromagnetic waves with the shortest wavelength, are produced by decay of a nucleus. But the waves which result are much longer than the width of the nucleus due to the stricture of the minimum wavelength.

Gamma Ray Bursts are the most powerful explosions there are. They occur at an average rate of about one a day, across the universe. A Gamma Ray Burst is hundreds of times as powerful as the most powerful supernova. There is a posting by that name, on this blog, which explains them as miniature repetitions of the Big Bang which began the universe as we know it.

The energy given off by a Gamma Ray Burst is, as the name implies, all in the form of electromagnetic waves rather than in the kinetic energy of any particles. But the energy given off is not infinite and is not, as far as we can tell, concentrated enough to destroy matter at a distance. The most logical reason for this limit in the energy that the wave possesses is the limit of the minimum wavelength, since the shorter the wavelength the greater the energy of the wave.

I have long been convinced that there must be more connection between the nature of electromagnetic radiation and the structure of atoms. The fact remains that the electron pairs in orbitals around an atomic nucleus must produce opposing waves that cancel out, just as electrons moving in a radio circuit produce radio waves. The entire atom represents a full wave, with the nucleus at the center, so that opposite sides of the waves produced by an electron pair in orbitals cancels out. This opposite wave cancellation was described in detail in "The Electronic Wave Model Of Electron Orbitals" on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com .

This is why the waves which must be generated by each electron in a pair must be cancelled by the other, and why there is a principle in physics that an electron can be described as either a wave or a particle. When an atom forms, an electron positions itself a minimum wavelength distance from the nucleus. The wave cycle meeting the origin at the nucleus from one direction is positive, and from the other direction is negative. This positive and negative component of a wave simply means that, if the wave were depicted on graph paper with the origin line at zero, the positive component is in the positive numbers and the negative component in the negative numbers.

So, what I am stating here is that the minimum wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, due to the nature of the alternating electric charges comprising space, is also the distance at which an electron orbits an atomic nucleus.

Abundant proof of this is found in the resonance between  gamma rays and electron orbitals. So many processes that involve electron orbitals seem to produce gamma rays, which are the electromagnetic waves of shortest wavelength..

Upon electron capture, where an electron is crunched into a proton to form a neutron, a gamma ray is produced.

Upon the mutual annihilation of an electron and it's antimatter equivalent, a positron, a gamma ray is produced.

Gamma rays are produced by lightning, which is the mass movement of electrons between a cloud and the ground, or between two clouds.

The Photoelectric and Compton Effects are the result of the ready interchangeability of energy between electrons in orbitals and electromagnetic radiation in space. The Photoelectric Effect is displayed when an electron in an orbit has energy added to it by an electromagnetic wave, so that it breaks out of the orbit. The Compton Effect is the lengthening of the wavelength of an electromagnetic wave, as it loses energy to an electron that it encounters. Neither of these common effects would be possible except for a very close relationship between electrons and electromagnetic radiation.

Electrons are involved in both ends of the electromagnetic spectrum. If we move electrons in an antenna, it produces the radio waves which are of the longest wavelength of all electromagnetic waves. But if the process removes electrons from their atomic orbitals, it releases the wave which the electron had been producing during the orbit and which would have been cancelled by the other electron in the pair. This is related to the minimum wavelength of electromagnetic radiation related to the primary charges of space.

Atoms and electromagnetic waves are both electromagnetic in structure, revolving around the principle that opposite charges attract and like charges repel. There has got to be more connection between the two, and this is it.