skip to Main Content

A recent discovery at MIT further supports the idea that photons may be dielectric, and capable of a phase shift into inertial matter.

Researchers found that photons can stick together into pairs and triplets when passed through a cloud of ultracold rubidium atoms.

The structures formed had mass, and were therefore slowed down a lot. They moved at a speed 100,000 times slower than ordinary light.

The light appears to have gone through a phase shift similar to that observed for electron-positron pair production. However, in this case, we got the additional effect of photons latching onto each other to create structure.

Quasi-stable matter produced from light
Quasi-stable matter produced from light

Light was, as it were, condensed into matter.

This goes a long way towards proving that photons are dielectric, because it’s in the nature of dielectric matter to interact and form structures.

This Post Has 8 Comments

  1. Hello, can you Provider a Link to the above mentioned discovery of the MIT, or at least a Name of the Project? Interesting stuff thank you.

  2. “Reality is a mere illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” (Albert Einstein)

    Might, therefore, the concept of ‘particles’ themselves be an illusion? Could they merely be condensed energy locked in a persistent mode as projected from the ultimate source of reality…CONSCIOUSNESS? Instead, could reality be a holographic projection of pure consciousness, a cosmic theatrical production projected by a projectionist unknown? The discovery of the Boson may not be a particle, per se, but rather the unrecognized revealing of a yet unquantified field, an all-pervasive, luminescent primordial substrate from which persistent, highly condensed plasmids precipitate out into our limited spectrum of consciousness which has erroneously been quantified as particles.

    Without the quantification of consciousness itself, reality will remain an illusion. The projectionist appears adamant to remain isolated and unseen in the projection booth.

    Einstein was not an atheist, but rather did not believe in a ‘personal’ creator…his lofty mind hovered above all of the ‘nomen-clatter’. To the contrary, he never ceased to marvel after reality and by inference the astounding meticulous organizational intent behind it all. Perhaps he had a more comprehensive understanding of reality than he dared to pen.

    1. The theory presented in my book models energy as a property of particles rather a thing on its own. This is because energy is never observed in the absence of any kind of particle. Specifically, I model energy as the size of things at the subatomic. The larger a particle is, the more energy it carries. Hence, blue photons are bigger than red ones. Protons are bigger than electrons, and so on.

      Reality as such is in my opinion tied to what Christians call the soul, Schopenhauer called “will”, and others call consciousness. This is because I believe we have a “free will” that can alter outcomes of real world events. Physics provides no support for this idea. No physics can explain free will, and I’m therefore inclined to think that consciousness/will is in fact primary to everything.

  3. Perhaps the Creator of this multitudinous galactic holographic production has embarked upon a great drama of self-discovery and evolution as might be expected, given its unbounded creativity and intellect and desire for expression over the course of timeless infinity. We, the infinitesimal particulate souls all hewn from the same omnipresent block, to be viewed in reflection as through a cosmic looking glass. Not darkly, although the potential exists, but in anticipation that this grand production, through a process of soul-distillation, will produce a suitable zeitgeist for eternal companionship. Surely, infinity is too lonely a prospect to go it alone. Would it be stretching the imagination to assume that the Creator’s sole angst might be to suffer in solitude and boredom throughout infinity? A matter of too much timelessness on One’s celestial hands? This grand presentation an endless reel, cast upon cosmic celluloid developing under the gaze of celestial light.

    “All the world’s a stage”…and all the strutting and fretting of individuated souls provides for a play befitting the Creator’s superlative taste and limitless intellectual desire for drama without end. We have been given a script as a general guide that does not exclude, for ill or weal, improvisation played out by individual freewill. An Oscar for best performance in the category of The Soul awaits us all for which the curtain calls and standing ovations may never end. A saga of the Creator optimistically mining for a solid vein of hearts refined to pure gold and inevitably hitting pay dirt.

    ‘The NOW’, this primordial eternal quantum event, encompasses the past and from there forever after. The gestation of this instant, timeless, perpetual moment is, from all indications, now approaching full term. The Alpha and Omega on the verge of convergence.

  4. Might it be from a nebulous mist from which all matter is ultimately condensed and by…conscious…intent perpetually exists? An aethereal shadow show of cosmic proportions? A deck of Tarot Cards dealt by an unseen hand, now faintly perceived as a vapor rising, the pot beginning its inevitably boiling?

    The schism between physics and metaphysics, experiment and lore, on the mend as seen from a not so distant shore. The Philosopher’s Stone, there on the beach, stubbing the toe of both proselyte and adamant scientist.

  5. I worked with Mr. Spears for 5 years during the writing of the 2 books. I’m in the books acknowledgements and presented with him at NASA.

    What you present is not too close to his theory. Everyone should read the book as the theory is not hard.

    Think of all particles as a volume of electrical impedance (charged or not). Since all of them have lower impedance than that of the surrounding vacuum, they are attracted to all dipoles. Particles are a “short-circuiting” volume which when attracted, lowers the system energy.

    Steve

    1. My theory isn’t very close at all. The only part that has an overlap is Morton Spears’ model of the atomic nucleus which I’ve used as a base for my work.

      I’ve added a link to Morton Spears’ theory of gravity in the “worth a visit” section at the bottom of my pages. That might help promote his work so that it gets the recognition that it deserves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back To Top

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. More information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close