Light Isn't a Particle, It's a Flexing Atomic Web - LIVE! Drs. Bendebury & DeLay (DemystifySci +448)

0:00Welcome back to DMS2PySci, Saturday morning live stream series where we are searching for material explanations for fundamental physics. And today we are getting to the best topic in all fundamental physics, which is the vast, vast array of phenomena associated with electromagnetic radiation, otherwise known as light. And we are going to be reading a section from our book called Paradox Lost Material Principles of Natural Philosophy, where we crack open light for the first time. About half of this book is focused on light, and we need to introduce the basic mechanics. So just through everybody who's shown up for the first time, we have a very different approach to physics than the one you've heard about in textbooks. And how is it different? Well. How was this approach different from all other approaches, Tyler? Well, that's the thing. That's why we have spent the first half of this book really building out the case that

1:02physics even needs a new approach. Physics does a lot of great things right now. It's extraordinarily precise. It makes incredible predictions. But it's lost the philosophy that allows it to give interpretive explanations for what's actually happening. And as a result, we end up with all sorts of crazy paradoxes. Very particle dualities, entanglement, particles being in different places at the same time. I think it's possible to put it simply. You all of that is correct. All of that is correct. All that is true. It may document a brief. Physics has lost the physical at its foundations. It has lost the sense that when we try to understand something like light, what we need to understand is we need to understand the actions of the material bodies involved. Right now, the only approach that is available to us is purely mathematical. And from where we're sitting, that approach is not the best approach because while you do

2:03have mathematics, they're incredibly accurate, incredibly predictive, very, very solid for helping people design circuits and machines and whatever else they need to. It is not a tool that allows people to have a really solid functional model inside of their head of what is actually happening when atoms produce an exchange light. And that is what we want. That is for us the basis of physics. Physics needs to be able to have these visual frames that we can put around phenomena in order to be able to understand. Yeah, by the way, I just point out that this is already common knowledge in every single other science, at least all the other hard sciences. So if you spend any time around biology or chemistry, they already think about structures that are acting, and they call it a mechanism. So physics, to my knowledge, is the only discipline in the hard sciences where a mathematical formula counts as a theory. And all of the disciplines, the theory has some sort of mechanical chain of events that

3:07lead directly from the observed backwards to the cause. And we're trying to do the same thing for fundamental physics. We've been told our whole lives can't be done. We're not buying it. We have done it. Well, I think, you know, you know, judge yourselves. We have done it. We shine on our always talking about this. Maybe you will do it through the, in your own way. Perhaps, but I really think that it's important that we really do plant the flag. I am not 100% certain that these ideas will survive for the next 10,000 years, but I think that based off of everything that we know about light, electricity, charge, gravity, magnetism, the model that we have presented as a model that is number one physical, it's made of material bodies. And number two, it actually fits how all of these phenomena work. And so I'm really proud of it. I think that it is a unique attempt in the history of physics, in the history of modern physics.

4:07I'm not going to say all physics, people of material obsessed. I think there's like, at least one or two little survive 10,000 years. So maybe we should catch people at the speed very briefly on what's happened in this live stream series where we're out in the book. Maybe the first place we should start this, telling them the rules by which we play this game, the axioms of the philosophy. Yeah. Okay, well, so we have three rules. Every system for searching for knowledge has to have a set of rules. And that set of rules can be enormous. That set of rules can be very small. Our set of rules is just three rules. And we've kind of laid out the beginning of these rules already. The first is that if we're going to be doing physics, we have to be talking about the actions of material bodies. That immediately forces us to ask, okay, that's fine. Well enough and good with the hell's material body. Okay, well, material body is an object, a surface bound volume with location and inward extension, meaning that it is real.

5:09It is, it has some kind of place in the universe relative to all other bodies. It is not solely in the mind. It is not some mathematical abstraction. It is a tangible material body that is in the world and has a relationship to all others. So this is our fundamental actor for physics. And then the last one is the fact that if something happens, if some sort of situation unfolds where material bodies are moving or you see some kind of action at a distance, like gravity or light or electricity, magnetism, that can only be accomplished through displacement. And so if there are bodies that we can see, that's simple enough. These two bodies cannot be in the same place at the same time. My hands are mutually exclusive. They will never, they will never be able to be in the same place. One hand will push the other one out of the way. And if I was to suddenly be able to take my hands and have one effect the other from a distance, I would have to figure out what are the material bodies that are in between

6:13these two hands that allow them to influence each other because all action comes down to displacement. His material body is doing stuff all the way. That's it. That's the game we're playing. I just want to remind people that as we get deeper into this, we're going to take Q and A at the end after we read the chapter on light today. So please write your questions down and we answer everybody's questions. That's the cool thing about this livestream business. We can answer your question. I see some questions about mass and matter. Did that last week I'm happy to answer questions about it. But yes, these are the rules. These are rules. Nosty, you've laid them out perfectly. So what we did next was we started searching for what sort of material bodies could do all of this invisible phenomena that we were tackling. And the way that we ended up solving that problem was by really refining the given structure of the atom itself.

7:13So like I said, DeKemis already understand that atoms mesh together in interesting ways. By the way, if things mesh together, you might say, oh, well, they're not displacing each other. They deform. They have substructure. There's some sort of basic subunit of the atom that allows it to do all of these things. We call that fiber. We call it atomic fiber. It's a hypothetical set of subunits that construct the atom and all of its substructure. And then nucleus, the shell, its extended shell, which you might have heard of before as an electron cloud. We actually think of the atom more as a furry thing so that its extended structure can do tensile processes and pull on its neighbors. So we built an atom out and we started with the electron because the electron is widely regarded to be the outer part of the atom. It's what you sense when you touch an atom, right? Nobody argues with that. Nobody argues with that. We spend a great deal of time. There's several live streams where we're just building out the structure of the atom. We're looking at what an electron is and we make this somewhat inflammatory statement

8:16that, hey, an electron's not a little point charge that you just break off of an atom and pass to another atom. It's actually a motion that that surface fiber is doing, a particular motion that it does, the circulation of that surface material through the atom that gives rise to the ability to transmit that motion from one atom to the next. And this is one of those places where I think that the material atomics model really simplifies things because if the electron is the motion at the surface of the atom, then all of the sudden, if it's the circulation of this toroidal structure, we have a mechanism by which the various atomic orbitals arise. Like in quantum mechanics, the atomic orbitals are just, they're just kind of, yeah, they're solutions of the wave function, but why are they solutions of the wave function? Like why do they look like this? Why don't they look like something else? And we're like, oh, these must come as a product of the circulation of the atomic surface.

9:16And so as you get different atomic, or as you get different orbitals on the surfaces, you get these different shapes, that reflects differences in the rate at which the surface of the atom is circulating. So you have these two pieces that kind of click together and all of the sudden you're like, whoa, those two things aren't just incidental properties. It's not this little like probability distribution bleb that gets added and produces this weirdly shaped shelf. These two things are deeply related to one another and they can only be related to one another through the circulation of the surface. Absolutely. Maybe we should pull up a picture, just to really speedily walk people up to wherever at because wherever it going today with light, obviously, it's all about different deformations of those atomic structures. And so you need to be on the same page with us about the shape of the atom. Otherwise, it's going to be very difficult for us to make sense of light. I like that the setup of the bottom of the screen here kind of looks like we're slowly

10:20drowning a little bit. Maybe I can lift it up a little bit. So on the screen right now, we've got a picture of this circulation of the shell material. Also, we have a beautiful atom at the center of the pictures. Well, look at that. We do. It looks like it's doing some sort of light like stuff that we're going to get into you. So as you can see, there is this particular circulation. We developed the actual motion responsible for what is called the electron. We developed that off of a understanding of many different features. But in particular, this circulation pattern is defined by a strange rotational symmetry called spin one half. You can go back and understand how we both out if you want to go check out the other live streams. You'll also notice that there's these little furry projections of the surface of the atom here. And that they are obeying the same dynamics as the shell proper. They're getting dragged along. We talked about gravity and inertia last week. How there are these transient static tensile connections that form to neighbors.

11:23And so I think of gravity as a kind of unpaterned background static tension where the filaments, those are the hairs. The filaments are tugging on their neighbors. And then when we look at electricity and marinades, we're actually talking about a very patterned tension applied to these filaments. There's filaments that break loose and are swinging around, brushing against their neighbors, leading to reattractive and repulsive processes. So again, we've built all that out. That's a whirlwind. I know this sounds crazy because you've never heard of filaments before. You're like, this isn't in my textbook. You would be surprised how close it is to what's in your textbook. Like I said, everybody already understands the electron shell of the atom extends to extraordinary distances. Problem is they give it this cloudy structure. And clouds don't really have the material properties we need to pull off the processes. We're going to be talking about, especially when we start thinking about this handshake called light. I think that it is worth stopping here just for a second to really emphasize this.

12:25So Shadows, it's something really profound, which is that the cloud doesn't have the properties we need in order to be able to accomplish the phenomenon that is observed, which is pull or push at a distance. Like push, you can kind of imagine a cloud being able to do, but pull gets really, really difficult. What kind of clouds have you been walking through? I don't know. I can imagine, I mean, like this is this relates to what I was talking about where it comes to optical thickness. Where it's like when something is when a cloud of gas is sufficiently dense to push on you, it's probably not a cloud of gas anymore. It's probably something closer to water. It's raining. Yeah, but I can imagine you know, like a fire hose of, or like a wind tunnel. Yeah, like a candle. Yeah. Like a wind tunnel pushes on you. All right, let's stop beating the opposition here. But the, I think that the centerpiece is all of everything that we do here is always this question of if we see something happening, what is the structure that we would need to

13:28have in order to accomplish the phenomenon as it is observed? In some sense, this is a deeply empirical project because we're not trying to say that there's some kind of yet undiscovered physics, even though there might be, you know, there's lots of people in the chat that, you know, are very amenable to the like modern esoteric engineering physics. There's like the Malcolm Bendall world. There's the Bob Green your world. There's like low energy nuclear reactions. There's a lot of like very, really described phenomena that were like, okay, maybe once those are well described, once those are well characterized, we'll have to fold them in. They will get the exact same material atomic treatment as everything else. Everything that we do in the book here though is like based on well characterized observations, things that nobody is arguing with. Yeah, like we're sticking to the ground right now. You can experience that. Yeah, what? Obviously, like going on in this room, this whole life she wouldn't work without electricity

14:28and magnetism, we're picking the absolute bare bones minimum set of unexplained phenomena. Right? There's plenty of mathematical equations for all these things, right? And fantastically productive in terms of engineering, the technologies that we're using to do this livestream right now. And fields do not cut it. And why do fields not cut it, Shiloh? Well, field sounds strikingly material when you first step into the river of physics. I feel like we should just have that David Tongue, like 30 second bit on speed dial. We should just be able to process it. You just sound good. Yeah. I mean, look, when you start looking into it, despite the fact that it sounds strikingly material, fields are really just a map of essentially measurements. It's a quantity that varies with some region in space, right? Some location within a region in space. And so a field is a very beautiful quantitative map of a fact, ultimately.

15:29It's what you're going to feel if you stick your magic probe here or there. Or even your regular probe. You're sorry, it doesn't have to be magic. I was going to say magic wand and then it turned into a probe. Yeah, if you go in and place your measurement by somewhere, what do you expect to find? And that's great because we learn a lot in those field effects. We learn a lot about the extended structure of the atom from that actually. But yeah, field doesn't cut it. It's close, but it's no cigar because we have to actually imagine what the structures are doing to give rise to those field effects. And I would go one step farther and say that not only does the field not cut it, but neither do forces. And this is a somewhat unpopular opinion, even on our esoteric corner of physics on the internet. There is a sense right now in most people's minds that a force is somehow the actor. Like there is a force that does something. It creates action in the world. And what I'm trying to say is that the force is not the primary reference in any situation.

16:33If there is a force, there is a material body that you may or may not see that is generating the force. And if you're trying to explain where the force comes from, that's where you have to look. Because if you just stick to the level of forces and you're like, well, we have this like, we have this electromagnetic force and we've described the field strength of the force and we know how it behaves really close to the source and we know how it behaves really far away from the source. You're never going to get at the question of what causes the force. And that is what we want to understand. We started this project with trying to understand charge. We ended it with resolving a bunch of quantum paradoxes because we were like, the force cannot be the fundamental. Something must be causing the force. Something must be generating the appearance of the field. What is? Well, put and it's worth pointing out that there's ample precedent for this, right? So science is actually a pretty young project, maybe a few hundred years old. But there have been a few of these moments across the history of science that we love to

17:39point to where people were observing things that seemed to be happening through some invisible means. There was just some flow of some magical substance that must be behind these that just couldn't be seen. And a lot of these basic ideas were eventually reconciled to be the action of some sort of material bodies. I think he eats my favorite example in physics. You know, how is it that something is warming something else up? It has to touch as it transferring up fluid. Turns out it's just the jittering motion of the atoms themselves knocking into each other. You know, life itself is a really good example before they had microscopes. And even after they were able to observe tiny little cells moving around, nobody could believe it. They weren't used to the idea that there was things that were alive that were so tiny that you couldn't even realize them in your everyday life. That was really, really hard for people to swallow. But time and time again, these invisible phenomena are given material forms.

18:40So what we're doing may sound completely radical. I think that it's normal parfid course. We just got stuck with incredibly precise mathematics and fell in love with them at the exclusion of everything else for the last 100 years or so. So should we dive into light? We're going to, like I said, read this first chapter on light. The whole back half of the book is about light. So all we're going to do is set up the basic mechanism by which light happens today. Downstream of this, the next few weeks, we're going to be applying it to everything. You know, why is it that some substances are transparent? Why is it some substances reflect? How does all this work? What are the actual mechanics of refraction? And it gets quite technical pretty quick after this. So we're going to have to make sure that we really, really hone on the basics of light today and understand the model that we're proposing because it is not one you've heard before. And despite that, it has everything in common with everything that you've read in the textbooks.

19:43So what do you think, Dr. Bennibary? Do we dive into this thing? I think so. So again, hold your questions, guys. We're going to circle back and do Q&A for the whole back half of this podcast. So yeah, I think that we should just dive into it. Let's see. Somebody was asking about like the difference between light and radio waves and by the end of this short 20-ish pages, you will see the relationship between them loud and clear. And then the optics chapter, which I think, you know, the paradox last chapter is also really good. But I feel like in terms of just dealing with the large scale properties of light, the optics chapter is kind of the crown jewel of this. So the next couple of weeks are going to be on. They're going to be real good. Yeah, yeah, drink your coffee before these are going to wrap up in complexity. But also take away a lot of confusion and mystery.

20:44So don't worry. I can. So yeah, this is chapter nine from paradox lost, which is by the way, finally on sale for the public. If you want to get a copy, get an e copy all over there, you can go to demistpice.com or go to Amazon. Please leave us a review of tell us what you think. And yeah, do leave a review. Like when we when the book came out, we had so many pre sales that it was at the top of the history of physics category. If you guys can help us get it to the top of any of these like history of physics, quantum theory, physics in general, by buying the book, I think the Kindle versions like 999 or something. If you can do that for us, then I think we really have the opportunity to get these ideas in front of people because yeah, we can have a podcast where we talk about this. But as soon as we actually have the book out in the world and it is contending with, you know, Sean Carroll and Steve Strogoff and all of these other big shots, I think that

21:46that makes it something that they really have to wrestle with and they have to deal with. And that's the best thing that you can do for us right now. Make the book on Amazon, go buy a copy of it. We will be forever grateful. Absolutely. And Alpha Doug asked about the audiobook version. I'm working on the audiobook version right now. I am like 100 pages in out of 400. So we're getting there. No, she's got to take over voice. Ready? Yeah, let's do it. Go ahead. Chapter nine, light. The opening quote. I'm going to make the contrary assumption that an atom never emits light except to another atom and to claim that it is as absurd to think of as light emitted by one atom regardless of the existence of a receiving atom as it would be to think of an atom absorbing light without the existence of light to be absorbed by G and Lewis in 1926.

22:48And G and Lewis is kind of the less known super boss of the history of physical science. He is the guy who gives us the Lewis bearing into a lot of the fundamental work with the electron that we talked about previously. Mm hmm. Back to the book. As a student, you probably came away from physics 102 with a little more than a description of light. One that told you that light is a self-propagating transverse oscillation of coupled electric and magnetic fields. Somewhere in there, we're probably a few other facts that light behaves as both a wave and a particle, but it does not have mass but can transfer momentum. That observation seems to change its properties and so on. Since this modern conception of light was introduced at the start of the 20th century, vanishingly few people have attempted to produce a mechanistic model for light, we can explain how it's produced, how it travels, and why it has the properties that it does. Even those with the 99th percentile familiarity with the mathematics of electromagnetic radiation

23:48can't offer mechanistic explanations for the odd behavior, repolarizers placed in a series, why prisms separate light according to wavelength, and how single photon particles interfere with each other like their waves, and why placing it a texture at one of the slits breaks that effect. So in this chapter, we'll offer a mechanistic model of light that can provide explanations for these phenomena. We will use the same filamentary hypothesis that we have used to explain electricity, magnetism, and gravity. It has with all these other phenomena, atoms, and their extensions are at the heart of light. From corpuscle to wave and back again. Throughout history, models through the nature of light have swung between two extremes, the continuous and the discrete. The evolution of these explanations is convoluted, folded up on itself across thousands of years of thought. It's not as if light was first apprehended as the emanation of particles and then slowly transitioned into some kind of wave and then blended into the dualistic picture we have

24:51today. For some reason, the two extremes have always lived side by side. More than 2,000 years ago, the Greek atomists argued that vision had to be caused by a particular emanation that's streamed from all objects. When these particles fell into our eyes, we were able to see. At around the same time, Plato argued for an extramission model of light, where the eyes emanated a gentle fire that blended with the light of the world into a single continuous emission. An Aristotle argued that it was the action of some kind of transparent, continuous medium that produced light. Some 1400 years later, the scholars of the Islamic Golden Age produced an updated version of the same argument. Astronomer and mathematician Ibn Al-Hayyatham rejected Plato's theory of extramission and instead argued for intramission that vision was the product of rays emanating from objects, transmitted through some kind of continuous medium. In the theological science of the time, Calam Autonism, it was argued that light, color,

25:56and motion were temporary properties of objects called accents produced by a divine prime mover that organized the universe into distinct action. More than 600 years after Arabic scholars took a track at the bottom of light, the first modern models of light started to emerge in Europe. Yet, proposals of the 1600s got no closer to settling the tension between the particulate and the continuous. The big player of this era is obviously Newton. He argued vehemently that light was made of little corpuscles that followed rectilinear paths. But even as Newton dazzled the world with his quantitative talents, a Dutch mathematician named Christian Huggins made a headway on one of the first modern wave theories of light. The heart of Huggins' argument was the phenomenon of diffraction, illustrated on the left panel of his illustrations on the next page. When light passes through a small aperture at the point labeled A, it spreads out onto

26:58a panicking shape instead of remaining a narrow beam. The slit small enough, the light also produces a strange pattern of light and dark bands on a screen placed between point C and E. Huggins did not have a complete explanation for the phenomenon, but he argued it was indicative of the wave behavior of light. Where each wave front was made from many smaller spherical waves as shown in the right panel, Huggins then set drawing. But maybe we can check out that drawing. You want to read the caption for it? Huggins theory of light on the left. Huggins deduced that light diffracted at apertures because it was a wave whose fronts were the product of many different spherical waves, each of which followed a spreading path. When summed together, they gave the illusion of a single unified front. On the right, Huggins modeled for the production of many spherical wavelengths by a single source that summed to produce the larger wave front. Reproduced from a 1690 treaties on optics, Tret de la Lumière.

28:00It took more than a hundred years for Huggins theory of a theory of waves to gain ground against Newton's core possible. Major staff in this transition was led by Thomas Young, the cocious polymath, whose work has had the foundation of everything from law, to medicine, to a theory of color vision, to the physics of elasticity to the translation of the Rosetta stone. In 1801, Young developed an experiment. The double slit, it was a slight modification of the single aperture experiment that had been known Huggins' system. The double slit experiment is the same as those done with a single slit in every way, except for the fact that the beam of light is passed through too closely spaced apertures instead of just one. In both kinds of slit experiments, the light forms a pattern of light and dark bands on the screen rather than a simple geometric shadow, as shown in figure 12. But Young noticed something quite strange when he added a second slit.

29:05Suddenly, parts of the screen illuminated by the first slit went dark. If light was a stream of corpuscles, adding another slit could only increase the amount of light on the screen. Bright bands becoming dark could only be explained by a wave theory of light that allowed for interference. And Young wrote extensively on his experiments with these double slits and even presented demonstrations at the Royal Society that showed water waves passed through two slits, produced the same kind of patterns that light did. His principled insistence on a wave theory of light set him against Newton, earned him widespread reproach from other members of the Royal Society, and eventually light him to turn away from physics. But within 60 years, his view of light was nearly universally accepted. Here we check out the figure caption for figure 12 really quick. So figure 12 is called the wave nature of light. On the left you see the diffraction of light in a single slit and the resultant interference pattern represented by the line at the top that gives the intensity of light for each

30:09point on the screen. A single slit gives a bright central band with alternating bands of darkness and light on either side. On the right, Young's double slit experiment where the envelope of the single slit interference is interrupted with bands of darkness. Back to the book. Even like the debate had finally settled for the first time in history, but instead of slowing, pace of vacillations between continuous and discrete models of light only accelerated. Took less than 50 years for the pendulum to shift back to a corpuscular perspective, driven by a paxed postulate that energy was exchanged at discrete bits of quanta. Einstein threw his weight behind the particulate view and in 1905, he showed quantization extended into the relationship between light and charge and the photoelectric effect. But then, just four years later, Einstein chimed in again with a radical reframing of the tension between waves and quanta. Light isn't just one or the other set of Einstein with both.

31:14Einstein's dualistic model of light, where it is both particulate and wave-like, was far more quantitatively accurate than any previous description. But the problem was that with this turn, light became an incomprehensible feature of the universe. A massless quantum with no physical extent that even without any material properties could transfer momentum. Sometimes it acted like a corpuscle, sometimes it acted like a wave, but never did it act like something that could be understood. Today, physicists try to soften our inability to explain light by referring to it as a wave particle unit called a photon. There is an excitecation of an underlying electromagnetic field, as if that statement explains what light is. But fields are not explanations. They're quantitative models that describe the dynamic strength of an electric and magnetic force at a given location that we happen to call a photon, and when it occurs in a specific pattern.

32:14This is the heart of the fundamental limitation of a field-based approach to physics. It produces a schematic map, a list of quantities that vary with time and location. But despite the map's accuracy, it only ever remains a parameterized description of what is apparent. If we are to actually explain the observations, if we are to accurately model the material of cause of light, we have to go deeper than the fields, deeper than the formless ether. We have to go into the realm of atomic structures in action. I just want to step aside from the book for once. I'm going to just reiterate that because fields are limited, that does not mean that they're not powerful. It does not mean that it's not a really, really useful way to approach engineering for us to learn about the behavior of the atom and try to actually find ourselves closer than ever before to making material sense of it. Just because something as a limitation does not in any way devalue it on its place. You can't have a trumpet player in the orchestra doesn't know how to play the flute.

33:18It's a limitation. That doesn't mean he's not an incredible trumpet player, super valuable to the orchestra. Anyway, back to the book. I want to do that. What exactly is waiting? As with electricity, magnetism and gravity, we must build a material model for light based on the experimental record. Only now, we add in the molecular theories of material science, which are required for us to understand how atoms behave inside a substance. This approach leads us to the same conclusion we've found elsewhere. The apparently paradoxical nature of light is resolved once we treat it as an action rather than a body. With this assumption, we can suddenly start to understand a lot more about the hidden world of light because its dynamic descriptions reveal quite a lot about the physical system that's doing the wave. The macroscopic properties of waves inside of a physical medium tell us a lot of information about the substance that hosts the waves. The frequency at which a string vibrates tells us about its stiffness, tension and length. The wave that waves move across the surface of the ocean can tell us about the depth and

34:21density of the water that's waving. Therefore, if there is a medium that hosts light, then we should be able to derive some of its physical characteristics by starting with a well-known feature of electromagnetic radiation. It's speed limit. The idea that light even has a speed limit rather than being some kind of instantaneous action has a convoluted history that spans thousands of years. Aristotle thought of light as an instantaneous phenomenon that illuminated its medium all at once. Even Al-Hayatham wrote that light is a movement and as such is it one instant in one place and another instant in another place, hence the transmission cannot be instantaneous. This was an insight ahead of its time given that it took 500 years before anyone proposed a way to test his prediction. In 1638 Galileo put forth an experiment that he felt could settle the question. It required two lantern operators set some distance apart.

35:23The first operator would open his lantern up for a moment to let some light out and the second operator would turn his lantern on as soon as the light reached them. As the operators moved further and further apart, eventually so far apart that the experiment needed the assistance of a telescope, the speed of light could be read from the delay between the first operator sending the pulse of light and the second operator receiving it. The Florentine Academy eventually attempted this task and reported that they quote, try it at a miles distance, which in the going forward and return of the light must be reckoned too and could not observe any delay. This negative result led the skeptics from the School of Instantaneous Transmission that included a card, who argued the results proved that light was instantaneous and so the discussion went round and round and round. It is fitting, then, that the first real clue about the speed of light came in the form of orbital mechanics. Many years before proposing his lantern operator experiment, Galileo peered through his telescope and found four moons of Jupiter.

36:25He noted that the innermost of these moons, IO, out of regular orbital period, where it would disappear behind Jupiter every 42 hours or so. In earlier eras, this might have remained a curiosity, but this was there of colonial expansion across the world and everyone was searching for some mechanism by which to tell time in places where a sundial pendulum or hourglass would not do. Galileo proposed that this celestial motion, if carefully charted, would act as the clock that finally allowed sailors to track their longitude as they sailed across the Atlantic Ocean. The problem, of course, was that tracking the moons of Jupiter from rolling deck of a ship at sea was nearly impossible. And that Galileo's charts for the periodicity of the eclipse were less than precise. A lack of utility at sea, though, did not mean a lack of utility overall, and the French Academy of Sciences seized on the celestial clock as the path to making more accurate maps of France. But first, someone had to make a chart of observations, known as a femurid, that were

37:29more accurate than Galileo's. Parisian astronomer Giovanni Domenico Cassini was tasked with the celestial study and was assisted by the astronomer's Jean Picard and Ole Romer. As they assembled the affemardies for Io, they noticed a strange feature in the timing of the eclipse. As Earth approached to Jupiter, the period between the eclipses got smaller and smaller. As Earth moved away, the periods got longer and longer. In August of 1675, Cassini wrote that this deviation could, perhaps, be attributed to the fact that light takes some time to travel between Jupiter and Earth. But this was more of a passing thought than it was a real theory. It felt a Romer, Cassini's assistant at the observatory to actually make the argument. He drew on observations of the cycles of Io that span almost a decade to show the effect was real. The ticking of Io's celestial clock truly did depend on the relative motion between Earth and Jupiter. The Romer seemed like the only possible explanation was that the eclipses were a celestial

38:35version of Galileo's lantern operators, whose deviations from the expected time of the eclipse were the fingerprints of the time that it took for light to cross the distance between Earth and Jupiter. When he published his work, even Cassini rejected the proposal. But Romer was taken with the strength of his conviction. Instead of sulking away at other pastures, Romer struck back by getting an endorsement from Boygans and by publicly announcing the exact timing of the coming eclipse. It happened right on schedule and proved Romer's claims about the speed of light. Century of further observations narrowed the speed of light down to 300,000 kilometers per second. Another 200 years of effort brought it to 299,792.458 kilometers per second. Quite fast, no matter how you slice it. But why not slower? Why not faster? No one knows because no one has derived it from first principles.

39:35Nothing in quantum theory predicts the speed of light, and even worse, there's no reason for mathematical particle or a wave to have a speed limit of any kind in a field there. A material science approach to light, on the other hand, is immediately fruitful. It tells us that the speed of a wave is defined by the physical parameters of the medium in which it travels. The speed with which a wave travels through its material medium is defined by the ratio between two parameters, stiffness and density. This is because wave transmission is a physical process that depends on the displacement interactions between the subunits of the medium and stiffness and density scale the speed at which these interactions occur. Stiffer a material, faster a wave will travel through it, because in stiff substances, each subunit is held so tightly in place that it's displaced less per unit of applied pressure or tension. This means that the momentum of a passing wave is directed mostly towards forward motion rather than getting lost and trying to wrangle a bunch of floppy subunits.

40:38Waves travel slower through denser materials because each cycle of the wave needs to temporarily to displace a certain quantity of material work moved through the medium. And so the more subunits there are to move per unit volume, the more time is spent overcoming their inertia, slower the wave propagates. This exact relationship between stiffness, density, and wave speed and fluids is set by the Newton Laplace equation, which has the following generic form. Here we have the wave speed, which is equal to the square root of the stiffness over the density. We didn't pull a picture of that equation for you guys, I'm very sorry. But you can picture in your head because they are letters. All right, back to the book. Here. This is a new is the speed of the wave. Up to case, capa is stiffness coefficient and row is the density of the material. Other versions of this equation are sometimes used, but even as more terms are added,

41:39the fundamental structure stays the same. Increases in stiffness and decreases in density results in faster wave propagation. And I think we should check out this footnote here because it's important for the filamentary coefficient of wave speed dynamics. And so for instance, the term capa in this equation, and so we basically have new is equal to the square root of capa over row. So capa can be substituted for tension and a string. So if you're talking about the speed of a wave and a string, it doesn't totally make sense to think of stiffness. It makes much more sense to think of tension because a guitar string has one wave speed when it's totally loose. And then as you turn it around the tuning peg, you increase the stiffness, you change the speed of the wave, you change the pitch of the string. And when you move into a tensile system, instead of using just pure density, you use mu, which is linear mass density.

42:40And so that tells you that for every unit of distance that the wave has to travel through the tensile system, what is the mass density for that specific region that it's moving through? If you're also talking about elasticity and elastic materials, you can use young modulus why inside of those cells. And so when we talk about this equation, we substitute linear density because we've defined mass in terms of the number of filamentary connections that a material body can make to the network. And so we can't talk about mass within the film. Only the number of fiber subunits per unit length. Yeah, I think in this case, the concept mass is a standard for quantity of material. We can go back to the last live stream if you want, but the squared mass has been terribly confused. Basically, there's given force equivalent for anything below the size of that. And then we've made the case the word mass as it was defined in Newton's day can only apply to atomic groupings. All right.

43:41So yeah, the main point here is that you can pop tension into this equation where you were used to seeing stiffness. Let's think about a guitar string, think about a bow, very, very hard to displace that bow string despite the fact that it's quite floppy when on tensioned. All right. Back to the book. Sure. Well, we cannot provide an exact estimate for the stiffness of our hypothesized filaments because we have two unknowns, stiffness and density and just one equation. It seems reasonable to expect that the filaments will both be exceedingly stiff and exceedingly rarefied given the speed of life. As to the source of this stiffness, we mentioned in a previous section on mass and gravity that atoms pull on their film and do the circulation of fiber throughout their shells. This leads tension onto the system, which when it comes to the physics of strings is directly related to stiffness. This is easiest to visualize in the context of changing a guitar string.

44:41When you take the new string out of its envelope, the wound metal cable is flexible and compliant. Stiffness of the string only emerges when it is under tension, after it is threaded through the machine head and the tuning peg is cranked tight. A similar relationship between stiffness and tension is at work in the filamentary network that connects atoms to each other, where the tension applied to the filaments by the atoms produces an apparent stiffness. The same equation that was used for determining wave speed and liquids can also be used for waves in a string, except there stiffness is replaced with tension and density is replaced with linear density. The amount of substance per unit of length. Therefore the speed of light is determined by the ratio between these two material properties of the filaments, but further study will be necessary to derive their exact values. And so in some ways it is amusing that we must satisfy ourselves for now, with the same kind of ratio metric conclusion about the properties of the medium-most light. But JJ Thompson resorted to when he reported the charge to mass ratio of the electron particles

45:44in his cathode ray experiments. This is a golden opportunity to experience some epistemic humility at how difficult figuring out the details it really is. But despite our lack of certainty on the exact values of tension and linear density in the filaments, the idea of attention to filamentary network that projects from the surface of all atoms and weaves them into a cosmic web is a sufficient architectural and material foundation for the next step in our journey. A physical mechanism for light. And before we get into the physical mechanism for light that we're posing, I want to just recap on this and maybe clarify a little bit of why we can't say anything more about it. Basically what we've done here is we're assigning the speed of light to the material properties of the bulk medium. That is all of the filaments involved in the network. And to some extent we could substantiate this with calculations about gravitational strength

46:45as well. But we're talking about something that is very, very stiff and very, very rarefied. The problem with being able to say anything definite about that in terms of each individual fibers strength and stiffness is that we don't know how many filaments or fibers are comprising those filaments. We don't know, we don't have an actual number. All we know is that when there's more atoms, there's more filaments that bigger atoms, let's say more massive atoms have more filaments. In terms of nailing down the exact number, we don't know. And that's something that I think can be deduced or figured out experimentally in the future. And once we have that, then we can actually break down this bulk material properties assignments and figure out the individual filamentary tension stiffness and mass density or whatever you want to call it substance density. Yeah, absolutely. All right, so let's get into the actual mechanism of light which we are proposing here.

47:47This section is called twist and tumble. All waves, waves in the ocean, stadium crowd doing the wave, and the amber waves of grain as the wind passes over, require a medium with subunits. It is a self-evident axiom of the physical world. In the previous section, we proposed that the material that waves, when light propagates, is the electron filaments that stretch between atoms. Soon, we'll explore the specific atomic motions capable of producing the electromagnetic oscillations of light. But before we get there, we must take a moment to define what we mean by the word light. And how we know that it must be produced by a very specific kind of atomic action. In a recent poll conducted on one of our social media accounts, we discovered that 50% of the respondents believed that, quote, all light is electromagnetic radiation, not all electromagnetic radiation is light. This reflects a colloquial meaning for the word light, which only refers to the visible

48:49part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and perhaps a little bit in stulcher violet and infrared. The linguistic constructions that we use to talk about light further support this confusion as light in infrared, microwave, and gamma part of the spectrum is more commonly called radiation. And the micro and radio portion of the spectrum is referred to as waves. And the convention of x-rays seems to reflect our continued amazement that their illumination allows us to see through flesh and bone. With this kind of inconsistent language surrounding the electromagnetic spectrum, it's no surprise that many people are confused about what the word light really means. Here we plant a flag. The entire flag. We plant our flag. But I think there's a lot of other people holding this flag up to you. Well, anyway, it's a textbook. The entire electromagnetic spectrum, from the many thousand kilometer wavelengths of radio waves to the peak of meter wavelengths of gamma rays, is light.

49:49This way of looking at the electromagnetic spectrum is vital for understanding it because it underscores that all light is fundamentally the same phenomenon differentiated only by the wavelength of the signal. Therefore, we can understand the mechanism by which any kind of electromagnetic radiation is produced. We can inductively unlock the secrets of all light. All light, no matter its wavelength, is some kind of matched electric and magnetic impulse, a transverse wave that occurs in discrete units of action called photons. Many will quibble with the use of impulse and action here because these are the words used for the description of dynamic events, but this is exactly the point. The photon is not a material body localized in space. It is an event, an exchange of some kind of motion between atoms. This follows from both the maxwellian picture of a self-propagating oscillation of the electric and magnetic fields and from the quantum model of the photon as a point particle with

50:50inherent momentum that in both resolves to maxwellian dynamics. This coupled electric and magnetic nature of light as well as the photons inherent momentum are the foundation on which we build our physical model of light. We have previously made the case that the relationship between electricity and magnetism results from the spin-1 half circulation of the atomic surface. To explain light, we need to add just one more component, a new oscillation in the motion of this surface. Fiat looks. There's no easier way to understand how the motion of atoms boosts light and through the study of antennas, technology right at the interface between electricity, magnetism, and electromagnetic radiation. Twenty years ago, the antenna, most familiar to people, would have been those of television aerials and radios. The world we were born into no longer exists and the antennas that surround us today are nearly invisible ones inside of our computers, cell phones, and tap to take credit card

51:51readers. Despite this change in form factor, the material principles that allow these antennas to produce and attack the light from magnetic radiation are still fundamentally the same. Even more importantly, the same principles that allow antennas to produce radio light are the same ones that underpin all other light. This means if we can understand how radio antennas work at the atomic level, then we can resolve the mystery of light along the entire electromagnetic spectrum. In its simplest form, radio antenna is nothing more than a piece of metal attached to a source of alternating current. As current in the wire alternates, it flips the polarity of the wire and causes the electromagnetic waves of the same frequency to radiate away from the transmitter in all directions. The detector plays some distance away and can receive these waves, amplify them, and then transform the incoming electromagnetic signal into a song on the radio or a series of changing images on a television screen. Do you want to read that footnote maybe? Yes, and so the footnote is on the sentence where we say that it's current in the wire alternates, it flips the polarity of the wire and causes electromagnetic

52:55waves of the same frequency to radiate away from the transmitter in all directions. The footnote says that the word all is doing a lot of work here. Antenna design is quite complicated and it is the geometry of the transmitter that decides how close this pattern is to truly radio versus any other shape. If you want to know more, check out the art and science of ultra-wideband antennas by Hans G. Schanz for proper deep dive on the subject. Antenna design is one of the wildest topics in physics, I think, and it really reveals a lot about the nature of light. Anyone that really wants to understand light, I think, has to first and foremost understand antennas and Hans is the absolute boss of this. Yeah, we did a podcast because of you guys can go check it out. Hans Schanz is really fascinating, dude. I think we'll try to get him back again soon because we've been shines through a lot of time. I'm tangles in this district through this near versus far field effect and I love the feeling that it's not. But back to the book.

53:58This exchange is quite difficult to explain in the absence of a material model for electromagnetic radiation. Field models say that this entire process is due to the oscillations in the electromagnetic field that underlies the universe, but such field-based descriptions are not explanations. They're maps of what field looks like at each point in space. If we're to really understand why a steady direct current does not create radio waves and an alternating current does, then we have to think about what's happening to the atoms inside the antenna that allows them to produce that light. To generate alternating current, it is enough to rotate a loop of wire between the north and south poles of two fixed magnets. From our model of magnetism, we know that the apparently empty space between these magnets is filled with a sea of filaments that impart motion on the electron shells of the atoms they interact with. And so when we first place the loop of wire between the magnets, their filaments apply, the filaments of the magnet apply a consistent directional pressure on the surfaces of the

54:59atoms in the wire. This forces their electron shells into a conductive alignment where they are all whirling in the same direction and their central axes lie along the long axis of the wire. We can pause here and pull up that figure from earlier in the book that just shows the current current current wire where we have drawn a really simple single atom wire as a thought experiment so that people can visualize the motion we're going to be talking about. So again, what happens? These atoms are bound together when you start driving that motion at one end. Maybe you're some electrochemical or mechanical process. You start to align the other shells to conduct the same motion. This is what we mean by conduction inside of a wire. It is a surface-to-surface phenomenon where there's a transmission of circulatory action from on out to the next. So here you have a figure from quite a bit earlier in the book and you can visualize how

56:00this action unfolds. Exactly. So basically, once the loop of wire is inside of the sea of filaments that stretches between the poles of the magnet, what that does is it takes all of the s-shelves of the atoms in the wire and it aligns them in the proper direction. This is why the wire for this generator has to be aligned in a specific way to the magnet. You can't have the magnet that's like along the long axis of the wire. You have to have it be perpendicular to the loop of wire when it lies flat because as you rotate the loop of wire, you get these different effects that we're going to be talking about. Yeah, maybe we just remind them real quick what we mean by magnetism and magnets and all this stuff too. So as you can see in this diagram, the B field, that's the magnetic action. It's really just referring to the equatorial components of this whipping action of these filaments that have been broken loose in this case and are actually organized.

57:01So you basically just have aligned action. So when you think about a magnet, you've made a superstructure, a macro material that has very, very well aligned equators. So the outer surface of a solenoid or of a magnet actually has perfectly aligned equatorial regions. You can just think of these tubes stacking on top of each other. You have really good alignment. You have concerted action, which is kicking back against the wire. And so that's what we mean with magnets. So with that, if you want to learn more about that, we did magnetism a couple of livestreams ago and you can go and check that one out. And so when we rotate the loop one, when we rotate the loop one half turn, the relative direction of the pressure applied by the magnets, filaments, reverses, the shells that were forced to rotate in one direction are now forced to reverse their equatorial motion. This new direction of equatorial rotation requires the polarity of the shells to also flip so that their poles point along the wire and the opposite direction from before. And so if we're looking at this figure that's up here, what we actually have is we basically

58:05have two loops of wire in which the current is running in opposite directions. And so different polarities and so in the first instance, the wire is working. So that the current flows in one direction because the invaluting and evaluting poles of the atoms are oriented in one direction. And then as you keep rotating the loop of wire through the magnet, through between these two poles of the magnet, as once you've turned it just by its natural geometric relationship to the pressure from the magnet, it forces the shells of the atom to reverse polarity. And so now current flows in the opposite direction. That's right. And so when we turn the loop of the wire between the poles of the magnet at some steady rate, the electron shells inside the wire tumble at a corresponding frequency. Each half turn of the loop corresponds to a half cycle of the alternating current's oscillation, and each full rotation of the loop corresponds to a full cycle oscillation

59:06current. And here we have a physical basis for the oscillations of alternating current, a regular realignment of the electron shells inside the wire caused by the pressure exerted by the filaments emanating from the poles of the magnet. Now that we have a source for AC current, we can hook it up to a length of wire that will act as our video antenna so that we don't have to keep track of the rotating loop while we think about mechanics of light. As the shells in the wire tumble, we propose that they deform the tensioned filaments coupled to their surfaces as shown in figure 13. Each tumble of the shell changes the direction in which the filament's left tension. So that over repeated tumbles, the filament is deformed into a series of transverse waves as shown in panels time point 1, time point 2. We'll go through this figure in about a second. The rate at which the shell tumble sets the wavelength of the light signal, slow tumbles give long wavelengths, fast tumbles give short ones.

1:00:07This matches the classical and quantum mechanical descriptions of light as a transverse lecture magnetic oscillation, but now offers a defined medium, the extended filamentary surface of the atom, and a clear physical cause for light, the tumbling of the atom's electron shell. All right, so why don't we deal with figure 13 right now? So we have figure 13 on the screen. And this is kind of a really simplified picture of our model for light. We don't have orbital rearrangements here, we're not representing charge. All that we're showing is we're showing that as you flip the polarity of one atom that forces it to deform the filament that stretches between them, and we have a time series here. So that's only have one filament here, but you can imagine the suffering for all the filament. Exactly. And that becomes important later for our discussion of the photon. Exactly. You can see behind us. So this is, we should have a high res picture of that, we could show that we could show that we could show. But so basically on the figure we have a time series, time point one, time point two,

1:01:10time point three, time point four. And figure 13 represents light as a transverse filamentary deformation. Electromagnetic action at the surface of one atom is conveyed to a neighbor through transverse deformation in the tensioned filaments that connect them. A T1, the emitter atom on the left deforms the interconnecting filament in one direction or polarization. At time two, the emitter's shallow polarity has flipped and so deforms the filament in the opposite direction. And this is what we were talking about in terms of the loop of wire rotating through the poles of the magnet. So once the atoms have been aligned in one direction, that serves to produce this deformation the first half of the deformation cycle. Once you complete the first half turn, the atoms are pushed into the other direction. And so now you have the full up and down of the oscillating current. At time three, the shell again is repolarized to its original alignment. And the full transverse wave is then within the interconnecting filament.

1:02:11And so now time three would represent where the loop has gone from its starting point. It has flipped once. And now it has flipped. I can't actually turn my hand that way. It has flipped all the way back around to its starting point. And so now the cycle begins again. This wave of deformation travels down the filament until it forces the surface of a harmonically compatible partner atom into commensurate motion, as shown in panel time four. If that atom begins to oscillate in resonance with the incoming waves, it will receive a consistent forward motion to its shell as it tumbles in lockstep with each incoming wave. This resonance will eventually lead to a build up of charge, surface architecture rearrangement, and eventual ejection of a new light signal as that surface relaxes. A receiving atom that cannot resonate with the motion of the filament would transmit the light without changing it through the simple twist of its shell. Again, guys, this is a highly simplified schematic. We're trying to focus on exactly what the shell is doing during the production of a single

1:03:16light wave in a single filament. We're going to be able to do a very, very reduced picture, but we're going to get into all the specifics, all the details, all the details of what a photon is versus a light wave. That's all coming downstream. Remember, the whole back half of this book is about those details. We are just introducing the basic blur plan. All right, back to the book. When the emitting atoms oscillations are transmitted into tensioned filaments, this wave of deformation travels through the filament to a neighboring atom some distance away, induces its shell called oscillating kind as shown in panels T3 and T4. This is the most basic story that we can tell about what light really is. The exchange of oscillatory electron shell motions between atoms mediated by the filaments that connect them. For light to be productively exchanged between atoms, they do have to be harmonically compatible. The mechanism of radio waves is, once again relevant here. Imagine it's 1972. You just sat down behind the wheel of your brand's spanking new Triumph TR6 convertible.

1:04:20You want to hear its playing on your favorite radio station and flip the dial. At first, there's nothing but static. And as you twist the tuning knob, crackles, snaps, and resolves into the first bars of Van Morrison's Astral Weeks. Here is harmonic resonance in action. When you first turn on the radio, it's not tuned to any particular frequency, so cannot differentiate the hundreds of different radio signals that are invisibly bouncing around you. In order to actually hear Van Morrison coming through on your speakers, the circuit inside the radio has to be tuned so that it's resonant with the frequency of the radio station transmitting Van saxophone rather than the one reading the morning traffic report. This resonance between transmitter and receiver is the foundation of all radio communication and all other light. At the atomic scale, resonance between atoms, exchanging light is also necessary for the light signal to be productively absorbed by the receiving atom. This resonance can be thought of as the ability of the electron shells of two different

1:05:22atoms to easily oscillate at the same rate, and must be matched with the momentum of the emitting atom to be fully transferred to the shell of the receiving atom during the transaction of the light. There's a footnote here that says non-resident interactions explain transparent and reflective transmissions, which we will return to in the later section on optics, and from here on out we will refer to these as non-productive light relays. Without this resonance, the receiving atom simply relays the light without being changed by it, which makes it transparent. And we will deal with the specific mechanisms of transparency and related phenomenon on the next chapter. But here, let us take a closer look at the dynamics of the electron shell during the exchange of light, so that we can make sense of why resonance is so important. We previously proposed the electron shell of the atom circulates with an intrinsic momentum of spin one half. This is an identity property of electrons that can be visualized using the right hand rule. I want you to thumb up and loosely curl your fingers.

1:06:24Your thumb points at the evoluting pole of the shell, and your fingers point in the direction of the shell's equatorial rotation. In alternating current, the direction in which your thumb points changes every half cycle, first it points along the wire in one direction, and then along the wire in the other direction. But the helicity of the shell, the relative direction of its equatorial and longitudinal rotations, always stays the same. As the atom is split, the direction that their shell appears to rotate from our perspective changes, but this is just their extrinsic momentum. Their intrinsic angular momentum, the helicity of the shell, remains constant. No matter the orientation of the electron shell, pointing the thumb of your right hand in the direction of the evoluting pole, always tells you the direction of its equatorial rotation. So when the electron shells of two atoms can flip their polarity at the same rate, this ensures that all of the momentum transmitted into the filament at the first atom can be used to accelerate the circulation of the surface for the receiving atom. By flipping its polarity in time with the wave of deformation in the filament, the receiving

1:07:25atom ensures that the filament always accelerates the flow of fiber in the same direction. And maybe we can just pause on that for a second. This is really, really important. Remember, we're talking about atoms being able to accelerate each other's shells at a distance. How is this done with the back and forth motion? Well, the back and forth whipping of the partner atom has to correspond in time with the polar oscillation. And so the reason for that is because if you think about it, so if the filament arrives and it's forcing the surface of the atom to rotate in one direction, that works for half cycle of the wave. But then all of a sudden you have this grand problem, which is that the filament now is going to sweep back in the other direction. And if the polarity of the atom that's receiving the light stays the same, then you have a really insane clash because the surface is circulating in one direction.

1:08:25The surface is a ton of momentum. Now you have this filament that's trying to drag it in the opposite direction. But if you flip the polarity of the atom, and so instead of its pole pointing up, now the pole points down, the apparent motion at the surface has changed direction. Like the velocity stays the same, the relative direction of the evolution of the pole and the rotation of the equator stays the same. But you can see that here when my hand is like this, the surface looks like it's pointed to the right. And then if I flip my hand, the surface is going in the opposite direction. So it goes clockwise in one direction and it goes counterclockwise in the other direction. And so the second half of that filament can now sweep across the surface and deposit all of its momentum without clashing. And so you can spool up the atoms if they're resonant, right? And that's why there's a lot of phenomenon that isn't resonant where you don't really change the material, right? You're not driving it into a new charge state. It's not doing anything. It's not making a new kind of light.

1:09:25It's just transparent. It gets kicked and kicked back. And it just affects that same motion out the other side. And that's it because it's feeling the same thing. But yeah, it hasn't been productively activated. It's not just getting kicked continually. It's not accelerating the surface because it's not tumbling and locked step with the wave of light coming in. So that's really, really important. We're going to keep coming back that it has been investigated, particularly phenomena in the optics section. And so we kind of deal with this in the text because we say that the idea of this flip and the acceleration of the fiber constantly in the same direction by a filament that's technically supposed to be pushing the surface in opposite directions is a little counterintuitive since you'd think that a transverse wave would first rotate the surface in one direction for the first half of the cycle. And then in the other direction for the second half of the cycle with a full back and forth motion of the surface for every full cycle of the wave. But if the poles of the atom tumble every time the film in motion switches direction,

1:10:26this redirects the tension of the filament in such a way that it allows it to continue accelerating the circulation of the fiber in the same intrinsic direction even as the extrinsic rotation of the shell has flipped. This is why resonance is so important for the absorption of light. If the receiving atom's shell cannot oscillate in time to the wave in the filament, it cannot perform the perfectly timed tumble that allows the filmage to constantly accelerate the circulation of its shell. Once the flow of fiber on the receiving atom's electron shells accelerated past a certain threshold, the shell will be over driven into a new charge state which is the physical meaning of productive exchange light in which the motion of the emitting atom has been fully transferred to the receiving atom by wave filament. If two atoms cannot resonate with each other and the fate of this exchange depends on the material conditions of the atom, which we're going to explore fully in our discussion of transparency and opacity in the next chapter. In this material view of light, photons are not merely mathematical point particles,

1:11:29and light is not something that can be shot into the void. It's an oscillatory transaction between atoms mediated by the film and stick in action. The transactionalists. The idea that all of light is the resonant exchange of electromagnetic momentum between compatible atoms is codified in the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Championed by several theorists we have personally gotten to know over the years. John Kramer, Ruth Casner, and Carver Mead, a Caltech electrical engineer and physicist who is once a colleague of Richard Feynman. In Mead's collective electrodynamics, a work he affectionately refers to as his little green book. He describes the mechanism of light using a language of harmonic exchange that's very similar to what we've used here. He writes that, quote, any energy leaving one resonator is transferred to some other resonator somewhere in the universe. That transfer is experienced as a damping of the oscillation in the source resonant. In other words, for the energy of light to leave one resonator or atom, it has to have

1:12:34a destination in mind. In this view, light is not some kind of paradoxical wave particle that gets shot off of an atom. It is the transaction, the equilibration of motion between two atoms, evidenced by the decrease of motion of one atom and an increase in motion of the other. The language that Mead uses for describing the specifics of this transaction parallels what we have written here. And this is a selection from Mead's collective electrodynamics from page 111. In the beginning of a transition, some perturbation couples two atoms and puts both in a mixed state with exactly the same difference of energies and exactly the right phase. One of these atoms must start in the upper energy level and the other in the lower energy level. Once the coupled mixed state starts to develop, it becomes self reinforcing. The energy transferred from one atom to the other causes an increase in the minority state of the superposition, thus increasing the dipole moment of both states and thereby increasing

1:13:35the coupling and hence the rate of energy transfer. Once the transition has run its course, each atom settles into its final eigenstate. And the electron eigenstate, put note here, literally means the orbital shape, informed by the energy level of the atom. Which we dealt with in depth in our discussion of electricity earlier in the electrons, so you can go back and check that out. And we will deal with much more in depth in the coming optics chapter where we deal first and foremost with the atomic spectra. Alright, so back to the book. The transactionalists then are unwitting sympathizers of our interpretation on emphysics. For them, just like for us, light is the exchange of momentum between atoms. Difference between our offering and that of mead and colleagues is subtle but important. The transactionalist model describes light using a framework borrowed from Richard Feynman who requires the absorbing atom to reach back in time. So the emitting atom knows where to send its motion.

1:14:38Transactionalists had to invoke time travel because they needed a way for two atoms to decide to exchange light before the exchange actually happened. Without a material mediator for light, there's only two options. Either the negotiation signal traveled faster than light, or it traveled backwards in time. But it's much easier in physics to propose time travel than faster than light travel, so receiving out of the transactionalist has to reach backwards in time, set up the connection, and then accept the signal in the future. But our discussion of the importance of resonance in the exchange of light reveals an alternate possible. If all atoms are connected to their partners with physical, film and tree connections, then their ability to collaborate in the production of light is trivial. The transmitting atom simply directs its momentum along the path of least resistance, at the end of which is an atom that is already from the very start resonant with it. The resonance here is not decided by a tuning knob that changes the electrical properties of a circuit like in the radio receiver. It is decided by the frequency dependent resistance, the impedance of the receiving atom.

1:15:44The atoms that end up exchanging light are the ones connected by a film that offers the least resistance to the signal. Therefore, atoms do not have to reach back in time to negotiate their transaction of light. They simply have to encode their readiness to resonantly oscillate in the film entry network next to them. And now that we have a material model for light, all of the main pieces of our presentation are in place. We can now start to explore the way that the world around us comes into focus. This means mapping the material mechanism for mechanisms for everything from rainbows to mirrors. We can also finally understand why the strange class of experimental objects called black bodies allow us to bridge the gap between the quantum and classical world and finally, finally resolve some of the greatest paradoxes of quantum mechanics. So there you have it. That is the introduction to the material mechanics of light we are posing in paradox loss.

1:16:48I would love to get questions from you guys about what we've covered so far. We will get into all the specific applications of this mechanism. But for today, let's try to focus on just the barebone mechanism. So is the cat dead or not asks George to pop the fourth? The cat is the cat. So it's really funny about Shreddinger's cat because he actually invented the thought experiment as a demonstration of the absurdity of quantum mechanics and the idea that there is this super position of states and you don't know the outcome until you open the box where the conventional thought it's obvious that even before you know, there is some state that the cat is in. There is no question that if the cat has stepped on the cyanide capsule, it is dead. If it has not, it is still alive. And so I think that when we get to the paradox loss chapter, so we have to get through all

1:17:50of the optics first and optics deals with a ton of stuff. It, let me read to you the headings for optics, the longest chapter in the book. So we deal with atomic spectrum, the transmission of light, transparency and relay of light, interference, refraction, reflection, and black body absorption. And so these are the basic topics that we're like, if we're going to understand how light works in all of these paradoxical quantum experiments, we need to have physical models for all of these features because without them, when we get to the question of like, ooo, does entanglement prove spooky action at a distance? Or is light really a wave particle dualistic thing that changes depending on how you look at it? We cannot actually explain those experiments because we wouldn't know what light is and we wouldn't know the difference between transparency and relay and reflection and like double slit stuff. And so the resolution of all of the paradoxes that this book promises to resolve depends

1:18:54on having these material models for light. And so we will get there, I promise, by the end of this, you will understand if the cat is alive or dead. I think that that is a classical like, you know, people usually use beg the question to mean that it like asks the question, but the real meaning of begging the question is setting up this philosophical argument that leads you to a question that's not actually a question. And so this is the like quantum paradox of whether or not the cat is alive or dead. Is a classical example of begging the question because it is all of the stuff upstream of that question that leads you to even ask that question. And we're like, no, no, you don't have to think about it this way. It's far more confusing to think about it in the way that leads you to the cat that's both dead and alive than it is to understand what's actually happening. And we can demonstrate that the experiments that report to show that the cat being both dead and alive don't actually show that.

1:19:55That's the craziest part of this because you can go through these experiments and you can reinterpret them with a material model and you can suddenly see what's actually happening. It's not weird. It's not spooky. It's not paradox. It's very, very understandable. And that's the peak of the mountain. That's where we get to by the end of this book. We're going to take apart some of these very famous quantum paradoxes, but we have to make it through a lot more nuance about light before we get there. Absolutely. So let's take some questions. I think this is a good question from Matt's DNI. I would Rachel just sent us a super chat. Thanks Rachel. It wouldn't be quite as intellectually stimulating time without you. Rachel is our absolute rock star of nailing everything about everything and bringing us new insights all the time. So thank you Rachel. Thanks Rachel. So the first question here that I pulled is the filament attached to both atoms. If so, then the filament needs to detach after they're seeded, it's even out of blips

1:20:57and then reattached to deposit. So the way we think about it in the case of photo gravitational phenomena is that yes, it is attached to both atoms. However, there is a transient attachment with all of these effects, right? The filament definitely can disconnect. We think of them as being kind of dragged across the surface again. Since the subunits that comprise the filament are the same as that of the surface of the atom, this is more like a melted polymer, which is taking place. And so you're applying pressures in one direction. As the surface flips, the filament is dragged. But remember, it's dragging in lock step with the waves of deformation. So you're actually, if you have a harmonizing tumble at place in that material where the atomic lattice is tumbling properly or at least free to do so due to its bonding character, then that material might be able to resonate with those incoming signals such that that forward motion is always spinning the merry-go-round in the same direction.

1:21:57Absolutely. So that's how it redirects its momentum forward without reattaching. Otherwise you're just whipping the filament back and forth. You're applying this sort of back and forth motion to the surface of the atom. It's not really tumbling in that case. It's just kind of jiggling back and forth. And that would be a transparent relay, which we will get into great depth to distinguish different types of optical phenomena as we move forward next week. I got another one. Dylan and space says, why does this ontology contain so many identical bodies and subunits? Is their repetition explained by something deeper? Is it root-backed? Well, subunits are interesting. They are the bedrock of understanding material processes. So one of our first axioms is that you can't have two bodies in the same place. There's some nuance to that. So you can actually jam two composite bodies together and smush them into one place.

1:23:00But guess what? The only way it deforms is by relocating those subunits. They have to move out of the way. And so the action of the subunits is extraordinarily important when we're talking about deformations, like inside of the filaments. So it is both a root-backed of reality that bodies can't be in the same place at the same time unless their subunits are displaced, leading to deformation. But it is also critical to understanding a mechanism, right? Understanding how it is that light does the things it does at each end of the atom. And what happens along the way? And why the speed of light is the way that it is. So it is really critical. And we'll keep hearing that all over the place with our work because the subunit processes, displacement processes, are at the heart of everything. Absolutely. So I'm going to keep shamelessly promoting this book of ours. And so if you guys are interested at all in the ideas here and you really want to allow

1:24:03us to grow, I think the best, most incredible thing that you can do right now is buy a copy of this on Amazon. It feels so contrary to everything. I want for your mom too. Your mom's love for your mom. They do. Well, because the first, you know, 100 pages of it or so are written for moms. The written for the regular person who wants to understand the mysteries of the universe and be intrigued by them. It is contrary to every fiber of my being to keep shilling the book. But I really do think that if we can get this book to rank on Amazon in these categories of quantum physics, history of physics, general physics, that the people who write the other books that are popular there will have to wrestle with the ideas that we are presenting. And that's the only way that we are going to be able to get a world that actually makes sense. Because if we don't have a world that makes sense, then we're totally hosed for all of future time. And I genuinely believe that you can if you can help us get this book up on the rankings

1:25:07that we will be able to change the world. And you will have had a hand in doing that. Yeah. Brown and Wood says buy one for your high school and university physics teachers. That's a great idea. Absolutely. I got to look up my high school physics teacher who is still alive and would copy this. All right. So more questions. So Jack smokes keeps asking where does gravity come from? We have a live stream about gravity. It's actually last Saturday. It was last Saturday. So gravity is interesting because we have reasons to believe that the same population of elements involved in light is also the same population involved in gravity. So this tensioned static elements set, right? We've talked just now about, oh, yes, these atoms are connected to each other by these statically tensioned elements, which are deforming as the pressures are being varied at either end of their anchor point. Gravity is also a sort of backdrop chaotic arrangement where you really just have the emerging

1:26:09effect of atoms that are all tethered together in groups. And their connectivity is scaled by this radial architecture. Remember, if you're closer to an atom, you have more connections available to your per-unit surface area. So you're going to be more anchored to the dock when you're close to it. And that is the key to understanding gravity. Of course, the inverse square law falls out from just pure structural geometry of this radial distribution of the elements. And so Jack asked a follow-up question. So it's a reaction. I mean, it's action reaction. If you have a film entry network that is tensioned in a certain way and you move an atom into this network, it loads more tension onto its surface. And the tension that's loaded onto its surface pulls it closer, allows it to form even more connections, and those connections produce a feedback loop that pulls it towards the ground. And so it is, in some ways, a reaction. But I'm not exactly sure if you mean like chemical reaction or what do you mean?

1:27:09I think that everything is action and reaction. It would be hard to. Yeah, it's one of the main criticisms of the film mentoring network is that everything should be a tangled mess. And our response is always, yeah, it absolutely is a tangled mess. It's very rare that you have patterned alignments of these tensions being applied, right? In the case of magnets, yes, you do. In radio antennas, you're actually patterning the alignment. You're setting up inductors that have a particular alignment so that they can act in a concerted way. And so, you're actually speaking though, it is a chaotic mess and everything does get tangled. And that's why we're stuck with the floor right now. So ladies still dreaming, asking an interesting question that I think allows us to talk about some interesting parts of how it fits into the rest of physics, which is that the model suggests that filmants are parts of the atom that stretch through space to other atoms. And appears to exclude the idea that space time itself is made of these filmants. Is that true? Well, you know, there's a couple of ways to bite this apple.

1:28:10So, space time, first of all, is a map. It's a concept, right? Not a physical body, not a material, even. Space time is just a coordinate system for describing events to stay on both and the locations of bodies within that event structure. So you got to be really careful about saying things like space time is made of anything material. It is not made of anything material because it is not a material itself. So, it doesn't have material substructure to it. Now, what we're proposing is that the gravitational dynamics that are generally described using space time result from the networking of these filmants. The networked atoms depending on their particular connectivity at some location in space. So what space time is describing the map that it's drawing reflects the actual physical connectome of these atoms with their extended architecture.

1:29:11But in terms of space time and trying to make generalizable material statements about what it could represent, we actually struggled with this and we had a whole section in the book originally where we tried to look at a number of reconstructions of what the stiffness of space time was allegedly reported to be. The problem is that space time is used so willingly and so many different cosmological theories. It's not just applied to say the gravitation with respect to the earth and the sun or something like that. That's a very low hanging fruit way of looking at it. How is it used for everything from the expansion of space time to redshift analyses about the universe? And you end up with very different material properties depending on which one of those esoteric mathematical, astrophysical theories you point at when you're trying to reference space time as if it were a material. If you wanted to say this is a pseudo material, it doesn't have the right dimensions, but like if it was how it sort of stiff would it be?

1:30:11Of course, you do come down in either case with the answer that it's extraordinarily stiff because it's of course able to bear the tension of gravity to swing this massive earth around the sun. But it's extremely stiff and strong and it's under great tension, but the answer you come up with really depends on which aspect application of space time to which cosmological theory you're pointing at. And personally, don't put a ton of faith in a lot of those cosmological theories. They are just so far at the edge of what is observable and known that we just find it easier to look at basic gravitation. Why are we sticking to the floor right now? Well, I also think that the idea of space time also comes back to this idea of fields. I was dealing with the chat. Did you deal with that? The fact that the field is a set of measurements? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so I think that in an ideal world, what we would be able to do is we would be able to find a way to map the dynamics of the filmants onto the predictions of space time.

1:31:16And so that's kind of for me that the gold standard, which is that if we have these theories that are actually predictive and functional and space time and general relativity, do seem to be relatively well predictive. The model that we have needs to be mapped onto that framework in order for it to be legitimate. If somebody can prove that space time is just something that's completely nonsensical and we need to get rid of it and it doesn't need to be accounted for, okay, great. We can deal with that then. But until that point, I think that the filmants are representing some aspect of the mathematics of space time despite the fact that we don't talk about it in that language. Yeah, well, it's very easy for us to apply over basic ideas about space time to local things which are observable like wires sticking to the floor, that kind of stuff. We can even talk about atomic clocks later. But when you start getting into space time as a generalizable concept, like I said, a lot of it is defended on the basis of somewhat suspect cosmological theories, which are all

1:32:21in tension with each other. And so you got to be careful about talking on space time in general. I'm more comfortable talking about gravity. And in fact, the predictions for the gravity nearby are really not that different than the Newtonian stuff that we've covered so far. All right, we got a super chat. Hi, Glenn. Thank you. Thank you. Glenn is one of our strongest superchutters. Okay, so Glenn asks, if light is being passed through atomic filmants, wouldn't it get darker when light moves through an increasing vacuum? It's a good question. And no, go ahead. Well, I think that, well, we've talked about Caltharate 2 as we talked about vacuums. When we talk about vacuums, we're actually saying that the atoms have been evacuated from the chamber. Right? And even the most extraordinary vacuums on Earth still have thousands of atoms inside of them. When we're talking about filaments occupying regions of space, right? Basically extended filaments, they're not contributing to that balance, right? They're not atoms.

1:33:23So they're not part of the equation. Filaments may very well exist inside of a vacuum and not be accounted for by anything to do with the atomic pressure, which we are referring to as the vacuum. But I also think that there's a different way to answer this question, which is that, okay, so when we get into the optics chapter, the very first thing that we wrestle with is we wrestle with atomic spectra. And so, atomic spectra are the fingerprint of the kind of light that individual atoms can produce, and we can learn an astonishing amount about the nature of light from the source of these individual atomic fingerprints. And everything that we have learned and studied so far seems to suggest that once the atom has released light into its filaments, that motion is there. And yes, some of it will be lost over great distances to regular friction.

1:34:25We didn't get this into the book, but I think that you can probably model cosmological red shift as being caused by this kind of gradual dissipation of energy as light travels through the medium over very long distances. There's probably other explanations for red shift that come out of this material model that we haven't really wrestled with. Like we didn't. What we did in this book is we stuck with super, super basic ideas because we need to get the amount into the world. We need to get people to wrestle with them, show us if we're wrong about anything. And then once we have a model that everybody's like, okay, this holds water, there's not any obvious problems with it, then we can use it to apply to the next level. Because this is fundamentally like what peer review is supposed to be. It's that you put your ideas in front of people. They stressed hast of them. They show you where you haven't gotten it completely right. You update it and then you can move on to the next phase of whatever it is you're doing. And in some ways, you guys are our peers. So you were the last five years of this podcast talking about the things trying these ideas on. I mean, in some sense, by the time you're publishing an

1:35:29article in a high ranking journal, you've worked out all the kanks, right? And so we had a lot of peer review behind the scenes as we were getting this ready. And we stripped the book down to only the most dependable points that we could make. We got a lot of thoughts in between which are going to start to emerge. But what we put into this is the absolutely most dependable bare bones version of the model that we believe could be applied over the subsequent years towards answering all these specifics. Absolutely. And so the question about light fading out, like I think that once the deformation is in the filament, the thing that makes it fade is just frictional interaction inside the film and that's going to take time to figure out what the dynamics of that are. But once it's produced and it's in the filament, it doesn't seem like it would grow dimmer over time. It would just redden. There's an interesting question from earlier. I just wanted to just point out. I think we're

1:36:29going to answer this right the second, but the question from Jack's moaks was, can you explain to me how to manipulate gravity? I don't want to take this on right now, but I will tell you this. Our buddy Chris Lito over at Lito's file, Lito files, leto files, leto files. Chris is having us on his podcast sometime the next week or two. And we are going to analyze that exact proposal. If you were going to manipulate gravity technologically, how would you do it using this material approach to physics? So we got ideas and we got ideas for days. To tune into that because we're going to answer that question in full. Is it absolutely interesting question, especially on the who cares and of what we're doing here? Okay, so Joe Brewer asks, so I'm attached to filaments and some filaments are reaching through me? Yeah, dude. Yeah, I think it's I think the way to think about filaments is sort of like attention polymer,

1:37:30right? And since the atoms themselves, that's you made out of atoms, are made out of the same basic polymeric scoop. They blend very neatly with atoms and they transact atoms while still bearing the tension. And there's some there's some precedent for this in the world of polymeric sciences. I'm still searching for a really good video or something to point to with this effect. But yes, that is what happens. I know it's astounding and bizarre. But if you think about the atoms and their filaments, it's all being made out of the same stuff. You can really just think about the whole thing as being a structural rearrangement rather than some magical transaction business. And we write up we write on this a bit in the objections your own intersection at the end of the book. Yeah, and I also think that it gives us a sense for why it's so hard to move around, right? Because if you're just I mean, yes, you have the field descriptions of the fact that it is hard to move around. But again, the field doesn't give you like a really deep intuitive sense for why that is. And if you think about the fact that you in order to

1:38:36move, have to actually perform this rearrangement of your atoms relative to the filamentary network that extends out from the earth, then all of the sudden it makes sense because each and every single movement that you take requires you to push through this sea of invisible filaments to load new ones onto the front of your atoms and detach old ones from the back of the atoms. And that's an energetically expensive process. And so the difficulty of motion emerges from your interaction with the filamentary network. It's the same reason why objects that are weightless in deep space still have a inertia because yes, they're not inside of a gravitational field that's accelerating them. They're not inside of like they're not experiencing the the tension of a filamentary network produced by a huge number of atoms. And yet they are still connected to their network. And that connection is what makes it so hard to move even in the absence of

1:39:37a large mass nearby. Somebody else asked is we got a super chat? Let's see the super chat. A super chat was can you see the link to G-R? We were talking a little bit of circles around that. Thank you Chandler. I really appreciate it. Yeah, I look, there are obvious correspondences. So what we've done with this book is we've taken the math, right? We've taken these mathematical theories that describe the motions and pressures applied to bodies. And we've mapped it onto materials doing things. And I think what you're getting out is that G-R is constructed in a language of tensors, which are obviously developed in the film, maybe not so obvious. But they were developed to model stresses and shears and tensions applied within a substance, right? They come from material science. It's a very good way to model the actual stresses inside of a material. So yes, there's an obvious overlap there because what we're talking about is where

1:40:38there's a region with great mass where there's a huge body comprised of lots of different atoms. That means that the filamentary density is extremely high there. That means there are more tensions being applied to anything that comes in that vicinity, right? There's more connectivity available. So yeah, there's a one-to-one map between the math of general relativity and what we are proposing here. The difference is it's not this isotropic goup. It's a very structured tensile medium. It's more like an actual fabric than the fabric of spacetime itself. It really is a polymeric mesh, right? This is a world that is much closer to, I don't know, rayon or something that's quite hot still. Then it is to just a big squishy block of ether, which is what most of these atoms have looked like in the past, even with reconciling material based on general relativity. And that leads us to Eric Red's question about the ether in the parallel realm. Is the ether

1:41:41parallel realm or layer or is it something bigger? Okay, let's connect this question about GR from Chandler to Eric's question about the ether. One of the ways in which I think that we do deal with GR is that we start with trying to understand the equivalent principle from a filamentary landscape. And so we're like, there's got to be a reason that the hammer and the feather fall the exact same rate in a vacuum. There also has to be a reason why acceleration seems to be so important for defining what an inertial reference frame really is. And so all of these features in form are understanding of how the filamentary network is formed, how atoms move through it, why gravitational mass and inertial mass appear to be perfect symmetries of one another. And the reason that this like ether model, the ether world overlaps with what we're doing here is

1:42:47that we're saying that the only way to understand these mathematical equivalences is to create a physical material system that gives rise to the equivalence. And one of the reasons that we're not big fans of traditional ether models is that they do not seem to have substructure. They do not seem to have mechanisms by which tension can be applied. And so this leads to really strange outcomes. So one of the popular models for explaining gravity that is kind of a quasi ether model is push gravity. And so push gravity is basically that there's some kind of like stream of substance coming from all directions at all times and places where that stream is shadowed creates less, basically creates less ability to push those objects apart. And so because they're getting pushed together by the streams that are outside of the shadow, they draw together. And

1:43:50there's problems with the push gravity models. First of all, like, how is it possible that every single point in space has perfectly radial pressure on it from all directions? Where is it arising from? How do the material objects that are getting inundated by all of these pushing particles not just explode from the thermodynamic pressure about? And it also asks, it doesn't really leave you with a model that then helps you explain like electricity and magnetism. So it's like push ether models are unsatisfying on that level because they can't do tension. They can only do push. Then we have the kind of jello ether models. And the jello ether models also don't really deal with push or they don't deal with tension. They don't allow you to have a structure that allows you to actually pull on something from a distance, which in the realm of magnetism you have to deal with. And they also don't let you deal with transverse waves because transverse waves have to happen at surfaces. It's very, very difficult to produce transverse waves like deep inside of a uniform

1:44:55substance. And so we cannot like we cannot throw away pieces of what we know about the physical universe in an attempt to produce a model that we think feels good or right. We have to wrestle with everything that we know. And so like pure undifferentiated ether gup models don't let us actually deal with what we see. And so our film entry model is fundamentally in the category of ether models. If we define ether models as being physical models that underpin the forces and fields. Yeah, the material models of light gravity. I would just add for me the most important piece that we're offering here is that we're structuring the ether and we're structuring a way that makes a lot of experiments start to click together. The density of that medium of light and gravity is directly proportional to where the atoms are because it is the atom. It is the extended structure of the atoms. It is their electron surface. The electron shell, the extended

1:46:00electron shell, whatever you want to call it, the surface of the atom is the filaments. And so we're actually providing a way that you can use, you can add a new grain of resolution to your ether ideas. Yes, there's a medium in between things that are apparently separated in outer space. It is the atoms themselves. Remember, there are quadrillions of atoms stacked between the sky and the sun. It is not as empty as it looks. There's plenty of atoms to do the work that we need for all the processes. Absolutely. Okay, so let's see. We try to cap these at two hours. And so let's see if we can do a lightning round. How would you design experiments to detect and characterize filaments? That is a great question. I think that we need something that is as decisive as the Brownian motion experiments that Einstein did in order to demonstrate the existence of atoms. My intuition is that the experiments have already been done because there's so much data already available on like single photon measurements. And when you read the papers, you discover

1:47:02something stunning, which is that there is a level at which they filtered data. And so I think that in the filtering of the data, we probably have a lot of information already encoded about the way that the filaments were. But right now is being thrown away as just noise. And so if we can get access to that raw data, especially for some of these like single photon entanglement experiments in the modern age, I think that we would have an absolute field day with what's in there. Yeah, the bedrock of this project is that there are a lot of experiments that are plastic. And you can do them at home. A lot of them, you have experience falling off of falling out of bed every morning. There's a lot of things that need to be explained for which there's plenty and plenty and plenty of data. But if somebody has an experiment that they think would be worthwhile or they think would be good, like let us let us know we can join the discord. There's tons of people on there that are working through some of these ideas. And I think that would be really amazing,

1:48:03an amazing contribution that you can make to this. Somebody asked if the filaments are entanglement. No, but they play a really important role in understanding how entanglement works. And so the filaments also really help us understand the difference between like photons and light signals. And that's going to be really, really important in the next two chapters. Yeah, I think everything we could just like preview it. Like the light signals, these individual deformations in the filaments, these transverse oscillations, those we are differentiating, those are the light signals, those are the waves in the filaments. There are many of these generated when an atom goes through a transition when it's shape rearranges and gives us the thing, which is called the photon. And we will break that down for you very soon. Probably starting next week. Absolutely. What else to be got at like time for a couple more? Rick asked if we agree with the tired light model for redshift. I think that accident models all have issues and we haven't

1:49:03applied the filamentary model to it yet. There's like 20 different tired light models too. They keep getting shot down every time somebody publishes one. I don't think we're going to, like the difference between us and the accidently light models is that they're going to be trying to involve atomic means by which like gets threatened. We're saying that no over extraordinary, extraordinary distances you are actually losing energy to the actual vibris interactions that are happening. You actually have a form of heat going into the atoms, but it's not the same kind of atomic motion heat that you use to with ultimate and all of that. So that's going to require pretty serious mathematical investigation for us to defend that. But that's the basic intuition we have at this point. Yeah. And in Discord actually, Luis Mourmet posted, he runs a site where he's collected a ton of these papers on the mechanisms for redshift and I was looking through them. And

1:50:03there's actually some really interesting ones about the interaction of light with hydrogen as it travels really long distances. And so I think that we're probably closer to that school of thought though not exactly perfectly in it because even those papers kind of end with this immaterial idea of like fields doing stuff. And so it's not a perfect fit, but I think that Luis has done a really incredible job of assembling the papers that all point in the right direction. Yankee asks, there's no void in this model I gather. I love that every single time we're, we always end up at matter and void discourse. There absolutely is void. Yeah. So just like the Adamists before us, we understand that you can't move a body if there's another body there. And so there's always got to be a vacant spot where things can relocate even when filaments transact. One another, Adam's the subunits have to be able to be displaced. There's pressure is applied in those

1:51:05displacement phenomena. And so yeah, there's absolutely regions where there are materials and regions where there aren't just like in the room with us today. There are places I can walk, there are places I cannot walk because there's a table or a chair or something in the way. And like in general, I just want to reemphasize a lot of our work is rooted in the idea that there's a lot of physics happening all around us all day every day. And you can learn a lot about scales you can't see just by examining the ones around you. And material scientists already understand this, biologists already understand this. The invisible world is not radically different from the one that you experience everywhere you go. And trying to make it so just complicates things and confuses matters. And worst case scenario misdivise our understanding of nature. Absolutely. Ladies still dreaming asks, could there be filaments that exist that are not connected to atoms? I think that there's filaments that are connected to only one atom at a time. And I think that if there are filaments that are not connected to any atoms, they're probably deep polymerized

1:52:09to atomic fiber. And so when we've been thinking about this, we've kind of been thinking about there being atomic fiber that's organized into the vortex circulation of atoms, atomic fiber that is organized into these tensioned photogravital filaments. And we have loose filaments on the surfaces that they're electromagnetic filaments. And there also has to be deep polymerized filaments that are the raw materials from which all of this is arranged, right? We don't know for sure, but it would be a good guess if you look at the way that the next scale-up subunits that we operate with in this world, atoms, organize themselves. Do they organize individually? Yeah, we call them gases. Do they organize into little pairs? Yeah, we call them molecules. They're pairings. And then they organize into large scale macro structures like our bodies, for instance, right? And fluids and everything in between. So I think it would be an unwise to rule out the possibility that there's a lot of phases of atomic fiber in the universe. We are focused on the solid fluid phases of this, the polymeric forms, but I am with the Anastasia. I have a hard

1:53:13time imagining that there aren't some sort of gas analog where there's individual monomers and polymer chunks and everything in between. And perhaps the place to find evidence for that is an extraordinarily energetic place in the universe like the center of galaxies or these active blockade nuclei. Stuff where things are being ripped and shredded apart. So we can probably, there's a lot of work to be done, a lot of subject matter in the coming year decades, centuries. Okay, economic freedom 8591. What empirical phenomena are explained by the filament model that are not explained by the photon model? I would say that's the paradoxes. So you have the wave particle duality of light. You have the apparent entanglement of photons at a distance where they communicate faster than light. You have the three polarizer paradox. You have the observer dependent double slit interference as well. So these four things are kind of

1:54:14heralded as the central paradoxes of the current photonic model of light. And what we're saying is that if you actually think about this in filamentary terms, this goes away. What empirical phenomena are ruled out by adopting the filament model? Oh man. What do you mean ruling out empirical phenomena? Well, I would say the existence of the free electron is ruled out. Like the filamentary model forces us to really carefully differentiate between bodies and events. And so this confusion inside of modern physics where events are treated as bodies. So like, they even call them particle, which sounds like a material body. But unlike every other science, the word particle in fun metaphysics does not mean material body. Is this theory? Mathematician doctors says, is this theory purely qualitative or have you mathematically modeled something? Well, what we're doing is we're actually giving form to a lot of the

1:55:14ext and mathematics. That's the basis of the project. There are a few little quantitative additions that we will bring in, especially as we get into the boss fights of entanglement. When we start looking at the aspect experiments, you're going to see that there is maybe one or two little adjustments quantitatively that are necessary. But in general, what we're saying is what we're doing is complementing the mathematics. We're not trying to cripple with the mathematics. In fact, we find most of them to be quite empirically defended. We're just trying to give physical form to what could be happening down there. Exactly. Ecliptic current asks another excellent question, how can light be material at all? How light is generated? Does not clarify the material nature of light itself? Does it? And this ties back to the economic freedom question about what things are ruled out. And so what we're saying is that light is not a material. It is not a body. It is the action of the underlying substance. And so in the atomic spectra chapter, or section of optics that we get to next Saturday, you'll see exactly what I mean by this,

1:56:17because we really lay out what it means for an atom to be able to produce light. And what we can learn about the action that is light and how to differentiate between photons and light signals. Absolutely. We just got one last super chat here again. This is just a very kind donation from Chandler, who says, good luck with your new car. Yeah, our car died. That's really screwed up our travel plans for this fall. So yeah, all the help really, really, really is appreciated. But let's keep the focus where it belongs. The real place where we can do heavy lifting is on getting this book up on the rankings of Amazon. I feel this is so funny. I feel so, I feel so shilly doing this. But like I said, hey, you're not selling a boner pill. You're selling a book. You wrote an osteo. It's true. It's a, but artists without an audience is a very sad situation. This is true. Okay. So we have two more minutes. Do we have any?

1:57:19Mickey Yankees upset because that's not what he meant by the void. Okay, we'll ask the better question. How much can each of us bench press? It's a great question. Next time we go to the gym, we will see. We'll have a little bench press competition. Should we do a live stream of us bench pressing? Yeah, I'm known for my, I'm known for my arm wrestling abilities. That's mainly because I have extraordinarily long arms. Yeah, he does have the best lover arm. I do not arm wrestle well. Okay. We've still got some issues that people have with the idea of the light as a flexing atomic web. And so economic freedom is like, well, how is that different from the ossified model of Maxwell Dave's that are that say that EM phenomena perturbations in a super rigid yet elastic ether? It's different in structure. It's different in kind. It's different in the specifics. Structures the key. The structures the key. Like you got you got to remember that like Maxwell was working at a time where like atomic theory was born, but people were still really suspicious about the certainty with which they could treat atoms. And so we're working in a much more modern paradigm

1:58:26that is informed by the last 120 years of experiments on everything from atoms to light to electricity. Like we have a lot more data to work with. And so I think we can do a lot better. Got there's so many more questions, but I think we have to go. Yeah, guys, we're going to be doing light for a few weeks. So, okay. Save your questions. All of these, I think a lot of this is going to get more clear when we start looking at specific examples. Why does one substance look and act differently in optical phenomena versus another? And it comes down to all of these specific atomic interactions, all these elements, re interactions, the way that the elements work productively and non-productively. It's all going to make sense. So we will go there next Saturday. We'll do this all again, but we love you guys for being here. We really appreciate all your support. And this has been so much fun starting this live stream series. So thank you all, especially the people who have been there since beginning. Absolutely. Thank you to our patrons for keeping food on our table. We could not do this without our patrons. Our patrons are the absolute life

1:59:30blood and the highlight of the week is that we get to meet with them on Sunday mornings. Yes, we'll see all you guys who are patrons tomorrow morning. You're not yet a patron, and you want to hang out and talk more about this stuff. We'll be doing it every Sunday morning at 10 a.m. Pacific. It's time. And get a copy of Paradox Lost, the material principles of natural philosophy for everybody in your life and help us make this impact so that we can change the world altogether. Thank you guys. We'll see you next Saturday.