Critical Analysis on Physical Reality of Light

Abstract

The modern scientific concept of light started from Newton in his corpuscular theory of light. Newton’s particle theory though justified the rectilinear propagation, the reflection of light and colours of light from the mass property of light particles; but faced problems in explaining other phenomena of light such as refraction, diffraction, interference and polarization. A different school of thought suggested that light is communicated as waves in a medium like the propagation of waves on the surface of water. The wave concept of light lacking physical reality did not appeal to Newton and his followers. However, the unrealistic wave properties (wave-length and frequency) could justify the unexplained phenomena of light. On the other hand, the wave theory of light could not explain the rectilinear propagation of light precisely and the photoelectric effect of light. In the above circumstances both the particle concept and the wave concept were accepted for light even though the two concepts are of diverse nature and cannot supplement one another. Then, it was presumed that duality of light exists in nature. Thus, scientists exploring light would discover only the duality. Thereafter light was conceptualized as a particle associated with wave property although it is difficult to comprehend this unnatural physical concept. This author considers the reality is always one and not this way as well as that way. He considers the particle concept of light as the reality since it is functionally feasible and ignores the wave concept of light despite its merit in explaining many phenomena of light, because it is just not functionally feasible. A particle can associate only the properties which are inherent to a particle but not the wave properties which are inherent to a medium. It is possible to improve the particle model of light to justify all phenomena of light by identifying the less known intrinsic properties of light particles and by developing a deeper understanding of the fine structure of the space medium through which light particles move and interact in its path. This is possible by exploring into micro-micro domain structure (one domain below micro domain) of matter. If a new particle theory of light with new insight to the structures of particle and medium has scope of explaining all phenomena of light, there is no reason why it should not be pursued? In another view, light is an electromagnetic wave. In yet another quantum view, photons are the field quanta. In the new proposed concept light particles (photons) are particles of matter in the micro-micro domain. They are now reported to have mass, structure, non-electric charge and spin hence they have the ability to form fields in space by their physical presence as space matter particles. This is against the prevailing concept that the EM field, which is independent of particles. The new concept, in a way, supplements the quantum view by their direct physical presence. The new particle theory of light has scope of explaining all phenomena of light.

Keywords: Physical reality of light, Newton’s particle theory, Corpuscular motion, Wave concept, Space medium, Micro-micro-domain, Electromagnetic wave.

Historical and recent developments on concept of light

Man became curious to understand light right from the day he saw the sun and other objects during the day with the help of sunlight. Human consciousness-based spiritual knowledge formed the early philosophical conclusion on light. Due to lack of clear perception of light, the philosophical concept of light was described in many different ways during 15 century BCE to 15 century CE. Jyoti/Tejas (Divine Light or Energy), was first mentioned orally in Rig Veda and Atharva Veda (~1500–1200 BCE) and then appeared in written form (~1000 BCE) [1]. Rigveda describes the sun’s chariot being drawn by seven horses. This imagery, interpreted through a modern lens, can be seen as referring to the seven colours of light, each a distinct “particle” of energy. Approximately in 2nd century BCE, Vaiśeṣika Sūtra 5.1.6 authored by Acharya Kaṇāda (paraphrased):Tejas (light) is of the nature of particles, and its motion causes visibility and contact. This suggests that light is composed of minute particles that travel and interact with objects, allowing them to be seen. He also described, light reflects off of smooth surfaces. Democritus (460 BC–370 BC) believed that the visual image did not arise directly in the eyes but the air between the object and the eye is contracted and stamped by the object seen and the observing eyes [2]. Epicurus (341 BC–270 BC), proposed that atoms flow continuously from the body of the object into the eyes [3]. In 300 BCE, Euclid described light as rays that travel in straight lines from the eyes to objects [4]. Claudius Ptolemy developed theories of reflection and refraction from geometrical principles in 100 CE [5]. The ancient Indian text “Surya Siddhanta” narrates the optics and behaviour of light. Surya Siddhanta, implicitly assumed the rectilinear propagation of light and described the speed of sunlight which is close to the modern value [6]. The Surya Siddhanta is a treatise on astronomy that dates back to the 4th or 5th century AD. In 1000 CE – Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham) in his ‘Book of Optics’ proposed that light comes from luminous objects and enters the eyes—correcting the emission theory of vision [7]. He studied reflection, refraction, and camera obscura. Bhaskaracharya, is credited with describing the phenomenon of refraction of light in the 12th century. He wrote about it in his treatise, Siddhanta Shiromani, which was completed around 1150 CE [8].

The early modern theories were put up between 1600 and 1700. In the 1670s Isaac Newton proposed the corpuscular theory assuming light as tiny particles and explained reflection, refraction and dispersion of white light into colours thus making a strong foundation. In 1678 Christiaan Huygens described light as a wave in ether and explained the reflection and refraction. Thomas Young advocated the wave theory while questioning the particle concept of light. Young’s Double-Slit Experiment demonstrated interference, which supported the wave theory of light. During 1815-1820 Augustin-Jean Fresnel developed a mathematical wave theory of light and explained diffraction and polarization. Fresnel and Arago in 1821 showed that light is a transverse wave. In 1860 Jemes Clerk Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism in Maxwell’s equation where he predicted light as electromagnetic waves.

In 1900 Max Planck assumed that electromagnetic waves (light) is emitted or absorbed by matter in discrete packets (quanta) of energy which gave birth to the quantum theory. In 1905 Einstein proposed that light consists of photons to explain the photoelectric effect. This revived the particle concept of light in modern physics. Louis de Broglie in 1924 suggested that matter particles also have wave properties, thereby formally introducing the wave-particle duality of light which is also a foundational concept in quantum physics today. In 1927 Arthur Compton demonstrated that X-rays scatter off electrons with particle-like behaviour supporting photon theory. In the period between 1930s–1950s, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) was developed by a group of scientists (Dirac, Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga) which suggests light as the exchange of photons within quantum fields.

The Quantum Field Theory (QFT), though successful in predicting the behaviour of light through quantum electrodynamics (QED), also has limitations. Fundamentally, QFT describes light as quantized excitations of the electromagnetic field—photons—but it does not provide an ontological understanding of what a photon truly is. It operates within flat spacetime, thus making it incompatible with general relativity, hence fails under extreme gravitational conditions. The QFT also does not address the measurement problem: it can predict probabilities of outcomes but not how or why a specific outcome occurs when a photon is detected. Moreover, it lacks a clear explanation for nonlocal correlations between entangled photons, offering only mathematical descriptions without physical mechanisms. Renormalization, though effective, is mathematically artificial, hinting that QFT may be an effective rather than a fundamental theory. Thus, QFT remains incomplete in capturing the full physical reality of light. In view of the above incompleteness of QFT, the present author feels, only predicting the behaviour of light mathematically without a conceptually feasible mechanism describing the fundamental theory, QFT is not a complete understanding of light. The scope of a new discovery of the theory of light having compatibility with other theories cannot be ruled out. The standing theories of light during their era subsequently became the history of light. It would not be surprising, if a new comprehensive complete theory of light would replace the presently established QFT concept thereby relocating QFT in the history of light. The new theory of light can as well bring clarity in the understanding of Laser and light-matter interaction.

Introduction

Vedic science identifies Brahman as the supreme reality of the universe and beyond, implying theory of everything [9]. Different theories are developed to understand different aspects of nature in different domains. All of them can be considered as derivatives of the single supreme unchangeable reality. If the supreme reality is unchangeable then the derived laws are also unchangeable. The laws of nature being invariant successfully predict different happenings of nature. On the other hand, if the norms of nature would have been changing with time then no scientific law could have been feasible. The fact that the scientific laws are found valid reveals the norms of nature are invariant. Hence the scientific understanding of light involving duality does not correspond to the reality of nature. Thus, the duality of light is an outcome of improper understanding of reality. Interestingly enough, the man-made duality of light is imposed on nature, as if the duality is an inherent reality of nature itself. It is therefore, absolutely necessary to examine the feasibility of the two concepts of light for ascertaining the reality. Thereafter, the accepted concept is required to be upgraded for justifying different phenomena of light.

The wave theory of light is just not feasible since the space medium lacks the required modulus of elasticity for propagation of high frequency light waves. Hence, only the particle concept of light has the stand. The wave equations capable of producing results can otherwise be derived from an advanced particle theory by realizing the true significance of wave parameters in the particle model. This is possible only by furthering our understanding of the structure of light particles and the medium through which light passes. On the other hand, in promoting the unreal wave-particle dual theory of light we may have to assume additional unnatural assumptions to explain different phenomena of light. The present author emphasizes the importance of reality-based assumptions in developing a theory in any domain for a comprehensive unified understanding of nature without contradiction with common-sense and cause to effect analogy.

The new finding of rest mass of light particle [10], the new mass-space structure of light particle [11], the presence of non-electric charge in light particle [12], the physical spin state of light particle, the mass-space structure medium [13] and the presence of non-electric charge field in the medium, all play their roles in producing different phenomena of light. Because the tiny light particle with its structural features essentially moves through the physical space medium having structure and features in finer domain. The non-electric charge state of a photon (light particle) goes to explain the energy level of a photon [14]. One can visualize the limitations of the structure-less atom (Dalton’s atom) in explaining the atomic spectra without the extra-nuclear structure. These limitations of Dalton’s atom could have been otherwise resolved by incorporating wave-particle duality and considering the wave parameters (wave-length and frequency) of the atom to justify different atomic phenomena. The atomists, however, realized the reality, and developed the atomic structure to explain the atomic phenomena. Though the concept atom rightly changed from structureless hard ball to structural particle, the subatomic particles remained as structureless particles. The hard ball concept of fundamental and elementary particles could have been conceptualized with having an extra-nuclear space structure comprising space and space-matter-particles (light particles). Had it been the case then classical physics would have been enough to explain all phenomena in different domains. The unnatural assumptions made in modelling the atomic structure have deviated away from the reality of nature. The unnatural atomic model ignoring the structural features in finer domain (micro-micro domain) necessitated many hypothetical assumptions including the wave particle duality of electrons to proxy the role of fine structure composed of space matter particles (light particles) [15]. It is something like to protect one unreal statement. One needs many hypothetical deviations from reality to justify the primary statement. Since the present atomic model has deviated away from reality it fails to entertain the common-sense logic and cause to effect analogy. The common-sense knowledge comes from the impressions created by consciousness, the natural process of the brain, without the aid of any man-made model. Therefore, common-sense knowledge is free from manmade intervention causing deviation from the reality of nature. Thus, common-sense can be powerfully used as a tool to understand whether a manmade theory has deviated away from reality. Again, the cause-to-effect analogy is the primary basis of exploring nature. Further, uniformity of nature in respect of structure and feature is expected to exhibit similarity in different domains of nature. Developing any model in any domain by ignoring the similarity of structure and features leads to deviation from reality of nature. The mathematical models based on axioms deviate away from reality if the axioms lack feasibility. For example, the sand particles are of different sizes, which correspond to reality. If the sand particles are not observable, then one may make a mathematical axiom that the sand particles are identical and develop the following equation to establish his axiom as the reality.

M = Nm ———- 1

Where M is the mass of a sand packet, m is the mass of each sand particle by axiom/hypothesis and N is the number of sand particles in the packet

The above equation holds good for quantitative analysis. By knowing any two parameters the third parameter can be determined from the above equation. Hence the equation holds good. The mathematical axiom that the sand particles are identical has a stand because the quantitative analysis yields result. The misconception of identical sand particles gets established mathematically as a reality of nature though it is far from reality. It is well known that the sand particles are of different sizes. Following reality, one can as well develop a mathematical correlation for quantitative evaluation of parameters.

The mathematical qualitative analysis in equation-1 ignores the reality by assuming the sand particles are identical, however the mathematical quantitative analysis in equation-2 accepts the reality. The mathematical assumption that the sand particles are identical is successful in determining the mass of the sand packet but fails in justifying other aspects of the sand particles. The mathematical assumption of identical nature of sand particles fails in justifying the phenomenon observed in sieving operation. But the quantitative analysis following the qualitative reality does not face any problem to justify how some sand particles pass through the sieve while others do not. To justify the hypothesis of identical nature of sand particles one may require another unreal hypothesis like tunnelling of sand particles. Again, all sand particles projected vertically upward at a given velocity goes to the same height which apparently shows the sand particles are identical and they have the same energy. But in reality, all sand particles big or small go to the same height if their vertical velocity is the same which corresponds to energy level.

Hence, no mathematical science basing upon unrealistic axioms lacking feasibility, can describe the reality of nature. Thus, both qualitative and quantitative aspects of any phenomenon are required to be satisfied in understanding the reality. Science would remain close to reality by accommodating common-sense knowledge and cause-to-effect analogy in all its exploration of nature. This is a serious consideration in macro domain physics. If such a realization is kept in mind while developing different sciences then the sciences would have built-in harmony among themselves. The wave theory of light lacks feasibility therefore it is simply a mathematical axiomatic theory and it does not correspond to the reality of nature. Hence, the feasible particle-theory of light could have given importance and augmented to justify different phenomena of light in the natural manner.

We somehow carry a feeling, as if modern science has the complete knowledge of light which has been developed by working for a couple of decades. This feeling may change once one realizes that a couple of decades is too small compared to a couple of centuries spent in conceptualizing light in the long past. Even today we lack a clear concept of light for all its phenomena. Though light is considered as a particle of finer domain, yet, we have never gone ahead to look for its extra-nuclear structure. Observation to a distant star reveals only the structureless existence of the star. This concept changes drastically while observing our star, the solar system. We need to realize the structures of light particles and the space medium for a conceptual understanding of the reality of light and all its phenomena. The new understanding has scope to dispense with the erroneous concept of duality of light. Nature may be simple without duality and having consistency & uniformity in structure and feature of systems in different domains. In our understanding of nature, we have made different unnatural assumptions and mathematical axioms which have deviated away our understanding from reality. The scientific approach for light is no exception. Again, studying any system within the integrated universe without the boundary conditions promotes domain-based knowledge ignoring the universal linkage. By this domain-based study only local laws are established.

In Fizeau’s experiment, the observed speed change in moving water was significantly less than what classical physics predicted from the wave concept of light [16]. There are two ways of looking at the result. One way is to straightaway reject the wave concept of light because the result does not agree with the predicted value with wave nature of light and further the physical property of the space medium does not support the feasibility of the light wave. The second way is to accept the wave concept of light by associating a cause such as the partial dragging of ether within the moving water. The wave motion of light in ether medium is not feasible because transmission of high frequency light waves in ether requires very high elastic modulus which would prevent free motion of bodies through ether. The free motion of celestial bodies is also not feasible with such property of ether. Hence the drag concept in wave motion is purely hypothetical. On the other hand, partial drag is a common phenomenon for moving particles in a stationary or moving medium. Thus, the result of Fizeau’s experiment is a confirmation to the particle nature of light.

Discussion

Simply identifying any kind of medium is not enough for propagation of energy-wave since the medium is required to have the essential functional properties to propagate a definite energy wave. Lack of perception to the structure of vacuum (space medium) doesn’t reveal the physical reality of the functional property of the medium required for a wave propagation. Thus, it is difficult to perceive the physical nature of the reality of electromagnetic waves without the knowledge of the constituents and the structure of space in finer domain (micro-micro domain). Therefore, we are made to accept the electromagnetic (EM) field itself as a fundamental entity in physics where the fields in space does not require the existence of particles. But in the quantum view the photons are field quanta and the field is mediated by photons. The quantum view is relatively more fundamental as it has scope to explain the cause of the field. However, the quantum assumptions are questionable. The following example shows how particles contribute towards the formation of a field.

Macroscopic examination of the atmosphere of the earth reveals the presence of a pressure field in vertical (radial) direction. But, the pressure field is caused by the gradient of number density of atomic and molecular particles. Understanding the field from variation of number density of micro constituents is more scientific than simply noting down the pressure field as a fundamental entity. One can find the pressure at a point in the atmospheric pressure-field using the pressure field equation as well as obtain the spatial pressure from the number density of micro particles (quantum concept). Thus, the quantum concept of the EM field perceived through mediation of photons appears realistic. The new consideration of the rest existence of light particles (photons) having rest mass in photonic mass unit [10] and non-electric charge of photon in photonic charge unit [12] promotes similarity between the structure of atmospheric air comprising atoms and the structure of space medium comprising photons. Like the neutral atoms and molecules forming neutral gas, the neutral photons in their rest existence forms a neutral space pocket. And again, like the assembly of unequal positive and negative charge developing electric charge state of the gas, the assembly of photons carrying unequal photonic charge produces photonic and electric charge in the space pocket due to inter-conversion of charge [17]. A macro space pocket composed of photons carrying photonic charge would exhibit electric charge property without the presence of electric charge bearing particles. In the existing concept the mass of photons is considered zero in atomic mass units and charge of photons is zero in electronic charge units but in the new concept photons carry tiny mass in the photonic mass unit and carry non-electric charge in the photonic charge unit.

In light of the existence of the extranuclear space structure of the galaxy, star system, planet system, asteroid system and atomic system, the subatomic particles and photon particles also have their extra nuclear space structures for the uniformity of nature. Irrespective of domain, charge appears in matter (mass-space integral system) due to the non-equilibrium state of mass-space ratio of the matter relative to that of matter in the locality [18]. However, the range and strength of charge interaction being different for matters of different domains the light particles and celestial bodies carry non-electric charge. In the new concept, the light particles have mass, hence they are particles of matter of micro-micro domain and they have extra nuclear space structure. The photon particles also carry photonic charge in the mass-space non-equilibrium state in a locality.

Any matter of the macro domain is known to have micro structure and again the microstructure has less known micro-micro structure. Hence, a macro body has three-domain-structure comprising macro structure, microstructure and micro-micro structure [10]. Any pocket of vacuum or space medium devoid of matters of macro and micro domain have structure composed of particles of micro-micro domain. The spatial variation of mass and charge in a medium occurs through variation of number densities of neutral and charge particles of different domains thereby having scope of forming different fields. One can formulate a mathematical expression for any phenomenon of nature by making axioms without looking into its feasibility. Alternatively, he can formulate a mathematical expression by making such assumptions which are feasible. The new science accounting the matters of micro-micro domain deals with reality and at the same time entertains common sense knowledge and cause-to-effect analogy. The new structural understanding of light particles and the new perception of the fine structure of the medium has scope of explaining all phenomena of light.

New interpretation of light for a unified understanding of nature

The particle concept of light is feasible therefore it is a reality. On the other hand, the wave concept of light is not feasible due to inadequate structural properties of the space medium therefore is not a reality. If the unnatural wave concept of light has scope to explain the phenomena of light by some unnatural means then there is no reason why the particle concept of light being a reality would fail to explain the natural phenomena of light? Obviously, there is something wrong in our perception of light particles and the medium. The corpuscular theory of light proposed by Newton did not go deep into the existence of mass, structure, charge and spin of light particles. Newton, however, suggested variations in sizes or momenta of light particles to explain different colours of light which may be loosely interpreted as different “masses”. Further, he considered space to be devoid of matter (empty-space) without having any influence on the movement of objects. Thus, Newton could explain the rectilinear propagation of light and reflection of light successfully with his prevailing concept of light particle and space medium. This further supported him for the free motion of celestial bodies in space. The new structure and properties of light particles and the medium are discussed below which helps to promote the new particle theory of light enabling to explain all phenomena of light to be discussed in subsequent publications. It is also necessary to understand how the velocity of light remains constant in a given medium and how the velocity is less in denser medium. This question has not been addressed yet. If the denser medium offers greater resistance then it would go on lowering the speed of light. Why does this not happen? Obviously there exists a motive force to counter the resistive force for maintaining constant speed of light in a denser medium and we need to discover the same.

Identification of structure and properties of light particle

Structure: The galaxies, the star systems, planet systems, atomic systems and hopefully the subatomic particle systems and light particle systems are centrally organized mass-space systems in different domains having nucleus and extra-nuclear space structure exhibiting uniformity of nature [19]. Thus, the light particles are not structureless particles as they have nuclei and extra-nuclear space structure in the new concept. The extra-nuclear space structure has a space density gradient and contains space matter particles that form the shell features [19]. The extra-nuclear space structure also contains orbital particles. The extra nuclear space structure of light particles deforms directionally in motion which produces a self-generating motive force by mass-space interaction (attraction) that overcomes the resistance to motion resulting in a constant velocity in a medium. The motive force is caused by the mass-space interaction of the particle and the compressed space at the leading end of the light particle.

Charge: The light particles carry photonic charge in the non-equilibrium state of mass-space association relative to the equilibrium mass-space association of particles in its locality. Light particles having the same charge potential state (same space holding per unit of mass) produce monochromatic light. Again, monochromatic light with the same spin direction produces LASER. The light particles carrying photonic charge while moving in a photonic charge field are subject to field-particle interaction.

Spin: Like the celestial bodies, micro particles, the light particles can have clockwise or anticlockwise spin with respect to the direction of motion. The unidirectional spin property of light explains the polarization of light.

Surface structure of object: The reflection and refraction of light occurs at the interface of two different mediums. The surface of a solid is also the interface of the solid and gas or space medium. Thus, it is important to understand the fine structure of the interface or the surface and the nature of the field present in it. Any object has three domain structures (macro structure, microstructure and micro-micro structure) [10]. The surface of an object in macro domain scale has zero thickness, but it has definite thickness in micro domain scale and a magnified thickness in micro-micro scale. The surface is formed by the array of atoms of the denser medium therefore it is very rough in micro domain scale with ups and downs. One can visualize the roughness of the surface of a macro body formed by packing solid balls. Hence, light falling on the micro surface with microscopic unevenness is expected to reflect in all directions violating the law of reflection. The micro-micro domain structure composed of micro-micro domain particles has a plane surface in micro domain scale but again the surface is highly uneven in micro-micro domain scale. The light particles (micro-micro domain particles) recognize the surface roughness of the micro-micro structure, therefore are expected to reflect in different directions. For obeying the law of reflection, we need an optically plane surface. This is provided by the polarized photonic charge fields in micro-micro domain scale. Every interface/surface though has zero thickness in macro scale; it has definite thickness in micro-micro scale. The thick surface in micro-micro domain scale stands as a barrier between the two different photonic potentials of the interfacing mediums thereby forming a strong photonic field within the thick surface. There exists a stiff photonic potential gradient within every thick surface in micro-micro domain scale which promotes the charge polarized field features. The charged polarized planes are optically flat for a flat macro surface and the optically flat surfaces respond to reflection and refraction. This will be discussed in detail with figures while explaining the reflection and refraction of light from the new particle concept of light.

The light particles entering a transparent denser medium essentially pass through the surface of the medium where the light particles interact with the photonic charge field within the surface and experience a pull towards the normal to the surface. After crossing the surface, the light particles proceed straight within the body structure of the denser medium where the field is zero. Thus, light travels unaffected while passing through the body structure till it meets again the surface on the opposite side. This time the field is negative where the light particles are pushed away from the normal. The refracted ray leaving the surface goes parallel to the incident ray.

A thin layer of fluid remains attached to the surface of the solid due to mass-space attraction which remains associated even when the body moves in the fluid or the fluid moves over the surface of the solid. This phenomenon is well known to thermal equipment designers who consider the presence of a stationary layer of fluid on the surface of the heat exchanger pipes. The photonic charge polarized field extends to this stationary fluid layer and beyond. Light passing near the corners and edges of a solid travels along equipotential planes within the polarized photonic charge field, resulting in diffraction.

When a pebble is dropped onto the water it forms ripples on the surface that spread outward from the point where the pebble hits the surface. This is a reality. If the pebble hits a multi layered immiscible liquid then ripples would form on the interfaces of the composite fluid system. At no instant the ripples on the water surface disappear instantly forming a pebble. The pebble thrown on to a multi-layered immiscible liquid progressively goes on producing ripples on successive interfaces and finally reaches the bottom of the liquid. Thus, the pebble existed before it was thrown, was existing in its transit and after coming to rest. Therefore, the pebble did not disappear any instant. Hence, the ripples (wave) caused by the particle is not a substitution of the particle. Therefore, both particle and wave exist simultaneously at every instance and not the wave exists at the cost of the particle and vice versa. Where is the question of duality? However, the waves formed in the medium during transit of the particle are only short lived. Waves in its propagation spreads and extends to larger and larger volumes of the medium thereby dissipating energy resulting in decrease of amplitude and increase of wavelength.

The state property of the particle is localized within the premises particle therefore cannot be found in the medium and the wave property of the medium with spread out nature cannot be localized within a particle. The motion of pebble and the motion of ripple/wave in the above example are interlinked in transit but are different from one another. Hence, we can’t say, ‘light particles are associated with wave properties and vice versa because the wave cannot be found within the particle and vice versa. Hence, it is difficult to conceptualize the accepted notion of ‘particle associated with wave’ as a reality of nature. Therefore, the wave-particle duality is not a reality of nature even though it is productive in explaining some phenomena of light.

Transverse waves are formed at the surface of the water when a pebble is thrown into the water. The formation of a wave requires energy which the pebble provides from its possessed kinetic energy thereby the velocity of the pebble drops. Again, waves in a medium have short-range activity and the amplitude of the wave goes on decreasing in forward direction, ultimately approaching zero. The wavelength goes on increasing as the wave spreads outwardly. Hence, the assumptions of wave theory of light and sound that the frequency and amplitude remain constant are questionable. On the other hand, the state property of a particle being intrinsic to the particle doesn’t change appreciably in its transit where the energy and the energy level of the particle can be assumed almost constant. However, some loss of energy from particle to medium is inevitable. This loss of energy of the particle is made up by a self-generated motive force due to the new mass-space attraction in the deformed state of the extra-nuclear structure of the light particle. On the other hand, it is not possible to maintain the constant amplitude and wavelength in spreading of waves. Thus, the wave concept of light and sound is a deviation from reality. The author has shown elsewhere [20] that the particle concept of sound is more appropriate. It is also possible to explain all phenomena of light from the particle concept of light.

Conclusion

Light has been conceptualized as a particle, as a wave, as a particle associated with waves and as a quantum of electromagnetic field to explain different phenomena of light. Except the particle concept all other concepts of light lack feasibility. The wave theory was accepted when the particle theory had limitations to explain some phenomena of light. Again, the particle theory revived when Einstein explained the photoelectric effect of light. Since particle theory of light is the only feasible concept and productive in explaining rectilinear propagation, reflection and photo electric effect of light, it is close to reality. The new particle concept of light has scope of explaining all phenomena of light with improved understanding of the structure and features of light particles and the medium through which light particles move.

Critical Analysis on Physical Reality of Light

Abstract

Historical and recent developments on concept of light

Introduction

Discussion

New interpretation of light for a unified understanding of nature

Identification of structure and properties of light particle

Conclusion

Reference

Bishnu Charanarbinda Mohanty

Leave a ReplyCancel Reply

Abstract

Historical and recent developments on concept of light

Introduction

Discussion

New interpretation of light for a unified understanding of nature

Identification of structure and properties of light particle

Conclusion

Reference

Bishnu Charanarbinda Mohanty

Leave a ReplyCancel Reply

Trending now