Argument contra to light polarization as evidence for wave theory of light
Sven Gelbhaar
20 March 2010 – 22 August 2010
In this installment we’ll take a look at one of the last arguments for wave
theory in regards to electromagnetic radiation. Pundits for it still have
the argument from polarization, which states that the properties of light
look as though they are waves due to the fact that it behaves as if it were
comprised of a wave that wiggles or oscillates in various directions (up
and down, left to right, away and closer, some combination of these, and
even more configurations are said to exist) in-flight.
Before we continue any further, it bears repeating that for light to act as
a wave it requires a transmission medium, which was disproved by the
Michelson Morley experiments. For more on this topic please see my article
entitled Contra Wave Theory In Electromagnetic Radiation.
So what direct physical evidence (not proof, mind you) is there for the
notion that light can be polarized? Polarized sunglasses come to mind
quite readily.
It is thought that slight imperfections in glasses, spaced uniformly apart,
will block out certain “wavelengths” of light. Having already
mentioned that light lacks a transmission medium, and therefore cannot be
comprised of waves, let us brainstorm how else, using a particle
interpretation of light, this effect can be attained with the same physical
entities.
We already know that light can be refracted. This is how medical glasses
work, by refracting light to adjust it to parameters acceptable to the
eyesight of the wearer. So now we have a plane of glass with minor
imperfections at regular intervals, refracting the incoming photon
particles, and thereby redirecting a great deal of them away from the
wearer’s eye. Overall luminosity decreases, thereby sharpening contrast
inherent in the light that does manage to make it through the quasi-lattice
grid.
One minor note about the claim that some animals see polarized light: this
can easily be explained as trajectory of the incoming light; in other
words, where the light came from and therefore at what angle it came in.
It is, at best, a simple work-around for the fact that their eyes are
stationary, and unlike ours cannot rotate up, down, and side to side,
independent of their head.