Light always travels in a given framework of topology. The framework of topology that light travels in when the given light is approaching a phenomenon that it is about to scatter upon, is different from the framework of topology that it travels in -- at the moment right after the light has scattered upon a phenomenon, -- the last of which is different from the framework of topology that light travels in when the given light is to go back to being quantized with other light. This just stated general condition is true not only about light -- yet it is as well as true with any other genus of electromagnetic energy. The topology involved with any actual beam of electromagnetic energy, has a different framework than when the given electromagnetic energy is scattered. The same set of eigenindices that had initially worked to comprise the here stated electromagnetic beam just as it is being scattered, has a different topological framework from the light-cone-gauge topology of the just eluded-to Ward-Cauchy-based condition, once that said energy is requantized. Actual light, as well as all actual electromagnetic energy besides light, travels with a Yang-Mills light-cone-gauge topology. This means that all of the light-cone-gauge eigenstates that work to comprise the primarily wave-based discrete energy impedance-related quanta, that are here to work to comprse this so-stated electromagnetic beam -- are of a non-abelian nature. This means that all of the second-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstates that are here to work to comprise each of the correlative individually taken first-orderd light-cone-gauge eigenstates, that are of each of the directly corresponding discrete energy quanta, that are to come together in so as to work to form the said beam of light, are to exist as Laplacian-based sinusoidal waves of "twined" mini-stringular segmentation -- that are to be fed-in to the proximal locus.
I will complete the idea that I have just started here soon.
I will continue with the suspense later! To Be Continued! Sincerely, Samuel David Roach.
No comments:
Post a Comment