In our world of visible physics, in areas where matter is clustered, as is the case in our world, and that matter crashes into matter, a chain reaction occurs, known as a "wave". External factors eventually slow that wave down, and it usually stops when it either runs out of energy, or hits something that can absorb the wave and transfer the energy, but the energy is merely shifted to another kind of energy, the energy does not go away. Still, for as long as matter is similarly clustered, the energy of the wave can travel.
Therefore, it is only conceivable that electromagnetic waves function in the same principle... only with some kind of "matter" we cannot see. In the quark of any given proton of an atom, Empty space accounts for 80 percent of the energy (mass) in the quark of a proton. Scientists are scrambling with projects such as the Large Ion Collider or the Large Hadron Collider to understand this energy, but it seems as though this can be best described as "Dark" energy, the energy that we now know makes up 70 percent of all energy in the universe. It is measurable in the empty space of an atom, but where atoms are not visible, we are at a loss to see them.
However, it seems feasible that if a wave can travel, there must be someTHING it is traveling through. Does it not only stand to reason that matter, which we know to be naught but bound energy, is really a bound form of this dark energy bound within quarks within sub-atomic particles to fashion our known universe?
it seems to me then that Electromagnetic waves are merely waves of energy not bound within the atom, but waves of energy crashing upon themselves, free to traverse the wilds of the dark energy in our universe. After all, it was just this week it was discovered the effects of gravetomagnetic waves were shown to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts (cite source below). What else are we missing that we don't even know about?
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml
Input, anyone? Your thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment