Light is not a Particle

Errors of Post-Classical Fysics Series: Part II

G. Stolyarov II

Issue XLVI- January 6, 2006

 

 

 

 

            In this article, the second in my series debunking the fundamental logical and filosofical fallacies of post-Classical fysics, I shall demolish the first part of one of the most fashionable and least correct scientific theories: the “particle-wave duality” of light. In A Rational Cosmology, Chapter VII, I had proved that light cannot be a particle. I shall reiterate my proof here and elaborate upon it:

A particle is an entity. It should be recalled from Chapter III that matter is one of the ubiquitous qualities of entities. Mass is the measurement of matter, yet light is massless. Light is not an element on the periodic table, nor is it a subatomic particle, such as an electron. Light lacks mass, thereby lacking one of the ubiquitous qualities of entities, thereby not being an entity. Light also lacks all other ubiquitous qualities of entities, including volume and any measurement in any of the three dimensions. One could hardly say, "this beam of light is half a centimeter wide, twelve centimeters long and two centimeters tall." Thus, light thoroughly fails the test for being categorized as a particle.  

What of the Experiments?

            The first question most would ask in response to my argument above is, “But have not ample experiments proven that light is a particle?” No, in fact, they have not. They could not have and cannot.

            Experimental apparatuses might detect light in ways similar to those in which particles might be detected, but it does not follow from this that light is a particle. That would be analogous to saying that experimental evidence has shown that a cat has four legs, just like a dog, and that a cat’s locomotion is remarkably similar to a dog’s. If this were all the evidence we had about cats and dogs (analyzed through an experimental device that can only study locomotion and the number of an entity’s legs), we would not be able to conclude that a cat is a dog, or vice versa.

           Experiments, as highly particular observations, are insufficient for establishing essential generalizations, on which any ubiquitous, universal understanding of an existent is based.  The mistake experimentalists most often make is the non sequitur, claiming that a given theory follows from some particular evidence, when it in fact does not.

            The experimental evidence explains that, which was being experimented on; particular observation explains particulars. It does not and cannot explain ubiquitous elements of existence, such as light. The particular evidence is necessarily too narrow to make ubiquitous generalizations from it. What modern scientists are in fact doing is presupposing that light is a particle, interpreting their experimental data on the basis of that presupposition, and then claiming that this data—interpreted under the premise that light is a particle—“proves” that light is a particle. This, of course, uses the particulate nature of light to “prove” the particulate nature of light—an inadmissible circularity. 

          All that experimental data in fact shows is that light interacts with certain experimental devices in certain ways under certain conditions. This data can be interpreted in any multitude of ways by a multitude of theories. To determine the correct theory, one must be sure that it not only fits the experimental data, but that it also does not contradict anything else one knows. If one’s ubiquitous observations about light are evidently incompatible with a given theory that happens to fit the particular experimental data, then the theory, not the ubiquitous observations, must be rejected. Another theory must be devised that fits both the observations and the data. Developing such a theory is the task of filosofers, namely, rational cosmologists, since the natural sciences deal with only particulars through experimentation.

The Ubiquitous Observations

            The theory that light is a particle contradicts several essential ubiquitous observations.

            All particles must have mass, since particles are entities. A particle without mass would be composed of “nothing,” and would therefore not exist. Post-Classical fysics follows Gilbert N. Lewis’s 1926 definition of the “foton” as a fundamental particle of light. The “foton,” under the particulate model of light, has “zero rest mass,” which means “it” has no mass (entities do not “magically” gain mass just by moving), which means “it” is composed of nothing, which means “it” does not exist. Evidently, some other theory is needed to describe the nature of light—a theory which does not presuppose light to be a particle.

          All particles must have volume, since particles are entities. A particle without volume would exist “nowhere,” and would therefore not exist. Light does not have volume. Therefore, light is not a particle. 

          All particles must have measurements in three spatial dimensions; anything less is inconceivable. But light has no measurements in any dimensions. A Rational Cosmology aptly illustrates this: “One could hardly say, ‘this beam of light is half a centimeter wide, twelve centimeters long and two centimeters tall.’”

            No human being can consistently conceive of an entity with fewer than three dimensions. Every man is a three-dimensional entity, and all the entities he observes exist in the same reality as he. In order for his body to interact with them, those entities, too, must be three-dimensional.

            One can abstract two or fewer dimensions from a three-dimensional entity and analyze those qualities of that entity, but one cannot reify that abstraction into an entity in itself. There is no way that such a reified abstraction could ever form a complete entity. An entity with no length, width, or height would have the same problem as an entity that has none of those qualities: it would have no volume and thus would not be able to exist anywhere. Where would it exist, if it did not have volume?

            Light does not have measurements in three dimensions; therefore, light is not particulate.

Observations of Light’s Lack of Mass

            On The Autonomist Forum, a poster, Alexander, challenged the first ubiquitous observation which leads to the refutation of the particulate model of light: the claim that light has no mass. Alexander wrote:

The claim that light has no mass was not entertained as a fact prior to experiment or theory, nor can we verify it with our senses unaided. Perhaps the theory is incorrect or the observations flawed.

There are several observations that can help us understand why light cannot have mass.    

            Conservation of Mass: If light had mass, the source entities emitting it would lose mass, whereas the target entities receiving it would gain mass. By implication, if we lit a room using a multiplicity of light sources and returned after a long time to it, we would observe a “coating” of “light particles” on the floor, since the floor would have been continually targeted by the light sources. Yet no entity gains mass or a coating of “light particles” upon illumination. Thus, we may conclude that light has no mass.

            Critics of this argument might respond that perhaps these light particles do accumulate, but they are too small to be visible by the naked eye. I respond that, if this were a possibility, we would be able to clearly discern collections of such particles by means of microscopes—which we still have never been able to do. 

            Behavior at Near-Absolute-Zero Temperatures: If light had mass, it would be solid or near-solid at near-absolute-zero temperatures (approaching -273.15 degrees Celsius), which have been obtained in laboratory conditions. Since light is in no way affected by approaching absolute zero temperature (under which all motion of particles ceases and material elements can actually form perfect solids), it is not a material entity.

Observations of Light’s Lack of Volume

            There is no conceivable way in which one might attribute “volume” to light in the same way one might attribute volume to solids, liquids, gases, or individual particles. One can see light as exhibited by source and target entities, but one cannot see light qua light. Nor does one have any indirect indication of the presence of light between source and target entities. Indeed, where there are no entities, there is no light, just like where there are no entities, there is no motion or any other relationship. All this suggests that light is a relationship, not an entity, and relationships cannot have qualities qua relationships.  Volume, on the other hand, is an essential quality of any entity. Thus, because light does not have volume, we must conclude that it is not an entity and thus also does not have mass, because anything with mass must have volume. Light can only be a relationship, by process of elimination. 

Is “Spin” the Defining Characteristic of Particles?

          Eddie Wood, another poster on The Autonomist, challenged my argument that all particles must have mass, instead putting forth the post-Classical scientists’ view of “spin” as the defining characteristic of particles. He wrote:

Your argument rests on insisting on a certain definition of "particle" which is not very informative. You insist that a particle (or any entity) must have mass and if it doesn't have mass then it is not a particle (or entity). Yet if you look at the fundamental particles, you will see that the common characteristic they all have is spin, not mass. The photon just happens to be the only known elementary particle that doesn't have mass.

Again, the modern fysicists have committed a filosofical error: the reversal of primaries and derivatives. In reality, entities are primary to relationships, and relationships are defined in terms of entities. However, under the post-Classical definition, a relationship, “spin,” is wrongly considered primary to entities, and entities are defined in terms of it.

            Spin cannot be a fundamental characteristic of particles, because “spin” implies that, which is spinning. Nothing can spin without a constituent quality that enables it to spin. Spinning is a relationship, and all relationships require certain qualities to make them possible. In the case of spin, such a quality is matter, of which mass is an index. Nothing can spin without being massive, i.e., without being composed of anything whatsoever.

            The idea that “spin,” rather than matter, is a fundamental constituent of particles, is an example of the same fallacy Ayn Rand thoroughly debunked in Atlas Shrugged: the idea that the fundamental “elements” of the world are “change,” “motion,” and “action.” Rand brilliantly showed that one cannot have change without that which is changing, motion without that which moves, action without that which acts. Entities are primary to relationships, and relationships can only happen by virtue of qualities. Spin is a change of position, i.e., a change of an entity’s three spatial qualities. An entity can and must have the three spatial qualities (dimensions) by virtue of its volume. It can only have volume if it has mass; a mass-less entity with volume would just be some arbitrarily delineated region of empty space (or “space-as-absence,” as I term it in A Rational Cosmology).

            In further clarification of his position, Mr. Wood wrote:

When I say that light has a spin, or any elementary particle, has a spin... it really means that light has an intrinsic angular momentum.

Yet angular momentum is a mathematical expression of a relationship which depends on mass to exist. The angular momentum, L, of a rotating object is defined as L=mvr. Angular momentum is a simply a relationship equal to the product of an entity’s velocity, its “moment arm” (or perpendicular distance from the point around which it rotates), and its mass. Any entity that has zero mass would have its angular momentum equal to 0*v*r, which is, of course, zero. If light does not have mass, it cannot have angular momentum, so—even by that definition—it cannot be a particle.

            Of course, defining particles in terms of angular momentum is again a reversal of essentials. Matter is primary to angular momentum; angular momentum cannot be a relationship of immaterial entities. Matter should thus be the defining characteristic of all entities.

Amounts of a Relationship

            It is known that source entities can emit different amounts of light. On The Autonomist Forum, a poster, Alexander, asked me how it is possible to attribute “amount” to light if light is not a particle. Since I reject the particulate view of light, I claim that light is not an entity, but rather a distance relationship between the source of light and its target entity. Alexander inquired:

[Mr. Stolyarov] further alleges that light comes in different amounts--we all know how he means this--yet the usage of that term begs the question, for me at least. What other phenomenon could we apply the term "amount" to without having to specify quantity (i.e. number of entities)?

Attributing “amount” to relationships is quite possible. We can discuss “amounts” of light in a similar manner to discussing “amounts” of force and motion, even though neither of these are entities. They are all relationships between multiple entities or between an entity and its former state (as is motion). What we need to discuss “amount” is not entities, but rather units of measurement, some of which can be used to measure qualities and relationships as well. This is why the electromagnetic spectrum is important: though it makes the fundamentally false assumption that light is a wave, it does reveal that light is quantifiable. One would only need to change the name of the unit of light from “wavelength” to “unit of light,” and the spectrum model will be fundamentally sound. 

   Can We Point at Light?

            Alexander further asked me how it would be possible to point at light and identify it, if light were not an entity composed of particles. He wrote:

We do not point and say, "that's a relationship." That is usually the word designating a particular explanation we have, rather than one we use to describe that which we sense. 

Alexander is correct to say that it is impossible to “point” at a relationship. Likewise, however, it is also impossible to “point” at light. We cannot do this with light any more than we can do this with motion. We can point at moving entities or illuminated entities, but we cannot point at motion itself or light itself. To identify relationships requires our conceptual faculty, which can abstract the relationships from the entities themselves. Looking and pointing does not suffice.

The Danger in Reifying Analogies

            Reginald Firehammer, owner of The Autonomist Forum, commented on the discussion by stating that, while he does not assert that light is “particles” or “waves,” it “has characteristics which can be comprehended by ‘picturing or modeling’ light [as particles or waves].”

            I do not deny that modeling light as particles or waves in certain conditions might lead to practically useful knowledge. I do not deny the valuable applications of said knowledge in engineering, optics, and computer design, for example. However, these models give us no true information about what light actually is—anymore than ball-and-stick models give us true information about what atoms actually are. The problem with modern science is not so much with the use of these models, as with their reification as actual properties of light, which then is used to absurdly reject the law of non-contradiction (which states that the same entity cannot be both a particle and wave, for example, or that massless entities cannot exist and that waves in vacuums cannot exist).  

           The particle and wave models are, at best, useful analogies. I do not object to analogies as such, so long as their limits are clearly recognized. Every analogy breaks down at some point, because the thing compared is inherently unlike the thing it is compared to. Most importantly, the truth cannot be understood by analogies alone. It can only be grasped by understanding the relevant entities, qualities, or relationships qua entities, qualities, and relationships. Science should not deal with analogies primarily, except to supplement and more easily convey direct insights into the nature of what it studies.

            My theory, as developed in A Rational Cosmology, goes beyond analogies to understand what light actually is—and to derive this understanding from evidence that is unavoidable in the course of everyday existence, provided one uses one’s reason to properly interpret it. However, my theory is also more fundamental—it does not explain non-ubiquitous particulars, but non-ubiquitous particulars are consistent with it and can be better understood through my theory.

          As a filosofer, all I am able to say is that light is a relationship and that this relationship has certain known, ubiquitously observable properties. Anything beyond that is the realm of particular observation, and is the rightful object of scientific investigation. However, no scientist may legitimately dispute the validity of the ubiquitous observations and must work to ascertain that his particular explanations do not contradict them in any way. In this manner, a reality-consistent understanding of particulars might also be attained.

             As a (hopefully useful) analogy, consider my theory to be like the delineation of the boundaries of a largely unknown, unexplored territory. This delineation tells all would-be particular explorers: “Everything you find out about this particular subject will be within these boundaries and must not exceed them. However, whatever is within these boundaries is admissible as a valid and useful finding.” I am responsible only for mapping the boundaries, not examining everything within them in exhaustive detail—though I assure you that, if examined in the context of my theory, all the particular fenomena concerning light will begin to make much more sense. 

G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent filosofical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician and composer, contributor to organizations such as Le Quebecois Libre, Enter Stage Right, and The Autonomist.  Mr. Stolyarov is the Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator and a Senior Writer for the Liberal Institute (http://www.liberalinstitute.com). He can be contacted at gennadystolyarovii@yahoo.com.

Read Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, at http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/rc.html.