Tuesday, January 6, 2015

The Inverse Square Law of Light

We are taught that light obeys the inverse square law. Has anyone ever bothered answering HOW or WHY? The Inverse Square Law for Light is perhaps solved by the assumption that all the atoms of the Universe are physically connected by a fundamental double helix EM Thread that mediates light signals. Lets see if I can give a little manifestation of this descriptive law.

The law for light could be stated as follows:
The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light from a point source is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; so an imaginary object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy.

The point source could be an atom or a star. Every single atom of the Universe is connected to that object that serves as the point source, whether atom or star via a twined and taut electromagnetic thread emanating rectilinearly, or orthogonally from that source to all atoms. The total potential energy of that point source is basically proportional to the number of atoms, i.e. number of atoms in the star or light bulb, etc. For one atom, the potential is derived from that atom's fundamental and permanent connection to all atoms of the Universe via this double helical thread by which the atom constantly torques light signals of all and various frequencies (or link lengths) to all atoms. If we consider one atom, or one star, with decreasing distance we find that all of these 'EM Ropes' converge upon it from all other atoms, hence more capacity in the work of light per conceptual unit area. Inversely with increasing distance from the atom all of these 'EM Ropes' spread out to all other atoms, hence less capacity in the work of light per unit area.

Since, at least, from our galactic neighborhood it seems that all atoms of the Universe are for all practical purposes distributed evenly on the largest scales . . . as we conceptually relate further and further away from that source object the double helical EM Threads, signalling light, emerge out of superposition on course to all other atoms. The closer we get to that source the double helical EM Threads begin to converge upon the source object, thus intensifying the light capacitance per unit area. For unit area we could imagine placing an object the same size as the unit area so AS IF to intercept the light signals propagating to atoms across the Universe. Below, the total number of EM Ropes frequenting light signals per unit area is our Intensity in the equation E = I/r2. For light energy is proportional to frequency.

Point sources are always idealized. Energy quantities vary. Lets do an idealized thought experiment. Lets say that a hydrogen atom is our point source. And lets just say that there are 1 * 10 to the 90 H atoms in our Universe. And let’s just say that this hydrogen atom’s electron or set of electron threads faces a third of the hydrogen atoms of the Universe. This electron will frequents light signals to all of these atoms via the EM Ropes converging and superposing with that electron. The EM Ropes have a capacity to mediate light at any and all frequencies. They will represent our I (intensity at the surface of a sphere or per unit area). The electron flickers sending a set of signals to 1 * 10 to the 30 H atoms.

At 1 kilometer (r) we find the unit area (A) where there is still 1 * 10 to the 30 EM Ropes (I). Twice that distance, 2 kilometers (2r) there will be a fourth of the EM Ropes per unit area. So in each quarter area we should find about 2.5 * 10 to the 29 EM Ropes (give or take if the atoms of the Universe are distributed slightly anisotropically). Three times that distance, 3 kilometers (3r) there will be a ninth of the EM Ropes per unit area. And so on. Why? Because the EM Ropes originating in that H atom 'fan out' of superposition in decreasing sets, with increasing distance, in their nexus to all the atoms of all the stars of the galaxies toward which the electron points.

Eventually, we see that at 1* 10 to the 15 kilometers a there will be single EM Rope per unit area originating in the source object. The distance would of this single EM Rope per unit area would begin at a little over a light year. So at about 1 light year we have EM Ropes originating in that H atom distributed more or less evenly in an enormous imaginary arc of the sky. They will no longer fan out of superposition. They will all be distinctly signaling their target atoms without interference. However if the assumption is sound, all these EM Ropes should eventually end on an atom somewhere across the Universe. The closer they get to their target atom connecting it to the 'point' source the more EM Ropes they will converge with from all other atoms of the Universe.

At some distance all of these EM Ropes will have ended on atoms or stars, so we will have 0 EM Ropes per unit area at a distance (Xr). All EM Ropes and atoms will eventually end and there will be nothing.

Now if we enter a star into the equation as the point source . . . something opposite will happen. With increasing distance we will get every single H atom of the star to superpose their EM Ropes connecting them all to one lone Hydrogen atom somewhere out there across the Universe. So we will get a Bird Beak structure of EM Ropes emerging from the star. The Earth is bathed in these extraneous EM Ropes which do not end on the Earth. And so perhaps we can call these neutrinos. These should converge by about 1 light year in the direction toward their target atom. And again with decreasing distance toward the target atom all those highways of light will 'fan out of superposition' in sets with decreasing distance and connect their target atom.

There is also an inverse square law for electrostatics. I imagine that the law can be explained using the supposed helical electron threads which twist out of the proton or nucleus in a similar manner than that of the double helix EM Thread. Electrical influence and capacity decreases per unit area with increasing distance away from the nucleus. Only these tend to be much shorter, so the distances and scales would be extremely tiny.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.