Einstein's idiotic legacy
1.0 What's wrong with Quantum Mechanics?
For the last 400 years, the idiots of Mathematical Physics have been debating whether light is a particle or a wave. Not being
very bright or particularly enlightened with a subject they care little about and which they dismiss as ‘philosophical’ anyways,
the morons of the establishment finally merged the wave and the particle into an unfathomable entity known as a wave-packet.
The purpose of this proposal is not really for anyone to visualize what a wave-packet looks like, because no one can even imagine
such a monster. The wave-packet addresses behavior and not structure. The wave-packet is a convenient ‘object’ that synthesizes
what the mathematicians ‘observe’ in the field. The issue of structure is actually turned upside down, with the theorist alleging that
if an experiment reveals wave characteristics of light, then light ‘behaved’ like (meaning, it was) a wave. And if the experiment
reveals particle characteristics, then light ‘behaved’ like (meaning, it was) a particle:
" The Copenhagen Interpretation: A particular experiment can demonstrate particle
(photon) or wave properties, but not both at the same time (Bohr's Complementary
The mathematicians don’t lose any sleep over these matters because they dismiss them as 'philosophical.'
" There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is
wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics
concerns what we can say about nature" 
To them it is more important to talk about wavelength, amplitude, speed, and frequency, none of which specifically addresses
structure. This is what interests them. The result is that after 400 years of debate the idiots still don’t know what light looks like
and they haven’t even attempted to brainstorm new configurations. Meanwhile, they continue to treat light as a particle in 90%
of their writings.
Here I will lay it straight it on the line. Light is not a wave and much less a particle. The gazillions of ‘scientific’ papers ever written
about light can now be safely thrown in the trashcan. They are worthless without a valid architecture of light to back them up.
This will become apparent as I describe the correct configuration that light assumes in nature.
The first clue concerning the structure of light arises from a rudimentary observation. If your hand intercepts light (Fig. 1), this
wave is not longitudinal or transverse but 3D! Indeed, 1-D and 2-D waves are outside the purview of Physics.
The mathematician may accuse me of attacking a strawman. Of course there are no such things as a flat, 2-D
plane wave in reality. That's just a mathematical tool or convenient model to aid visualization.
The mechanics are fooling themselves. They absolutely fall back on a zero-thick, transverse wave of Flatland to
give a physical interpretation to the phenomenon known as polarization. Without it, the mathematicians simply cannot explain
this trick of nature! Therefore, even if the mathematicians can explain every observation and experiment ever performed, their
conclusions are worthless if they cannot extend them to the real world. They
can 'philosophize' all they want about plane waves and particles and wave-packets in the safety of their cubicles, perhaps as a
method to brainstorm new theories. The scientific method prohibits them from using these abstract concepts as physical objects
to explain what happens in the lab. In Physics, they have no choice but to point to
Fig. 1 Light is 3-D: You can stop light with your hand
Just in case, QM also has trouble justifying light’s undulating patterns with particles (Fig. 2). Newton’s First and Second Laws
of Motion would require each particle to be pushed up and down by an extrinsic agent. The mathematicians never justify this
undulating ability of the particle. They put it in ‘by hand’ and hope you don't ask questions. If you do, they clarify that you're
staring at a mathematical artifact anyway. In their view Math and not Physics is Science. In the religion of Mathematical Physics,
they dismiss anything related to Physics as 'philosophy' (i.e., just your opinion, intuition, common sense).
A wave, for its part, is a verb and thus an invalid scientific exhibit. 'Wave' is what a particle does. Hence, a ‘wave’ is a description
or an explanation, not a physical object in itself. Plane transverse waves, spherical waves, and the strings of string theory are
unacceptable objects for the purposes of Science because they are inherently dynamic (Fig 3). In Science, the definition of the
word object precedes the definition of the word motion. We cannot have motion without a physical object. The motion of what?
Therefore, a wave cannot be used as a model for light until the idiot who proposes such a barbaric hypothesis tells you what it
is that is waving. If he insinuates that 'it' is a particle, then the lamebrain should talk about particles and never bring up waves
at all. In such scenarios, 'a' wave has to do with how a group of particles moves. A wave is not a static, stand-alone entity you
point to. A wave is a movie, not a photograph! You stare at a photograph. You watch a movie.
If light were a plane wave (i.e., 2-D) it would go right through your hand. The mechanics
should have figured this out decades ago. Instead, they kept modeling and simulating
their equations with particles, and with plane waves when they had no choice. Not being
particularly keen on architecture, the mathematicians focused on the signal going back
and forth and glossed over the intermediary. The mechanics stopped brainstorming
models for light after the 5th Solvay Conference of 1927! Not a single mathematician in
the world today is even concerned about the physical configuration of light.
"Whether certain or in doubt, doubt!"
|I believe that you are
just a little too gullible!
|I doubt that you
doubt that I doubt!
This table is rectangular.
|This table could
also be round.
Fig. 2 QM particles cannot simulate
EM orthogonality and sinusoidality
QM and wave theories cannot justify
(i.e., provide a rational physical
explanation for) why electric and
magnetic waves run at 90º to each
other and oscillate around an
imaginary straight axis? In contrast,
the two strands of a taut rope
naturally run at 90º to each other
and coil around an imaginary axis.
2.0 Why a rope?
Having said this, I now propose that light assumes a DNA-like configuration (Fig. 2). If we were to freeze the Universe this is the
physical appearance light would exhibit. If Atom Man were there to take a snapshot of light itself for us, this is what the picture
You may wonder what this stale architecture has to do with light? Couldn't I have come up with something more exciting, maybe
a rocket, an impossible object, or a Rubik's Cube?
Well, just for starters, the rope intuitively resembles the transverse wave the mechanics and wave theorists have been talking
about for 400 years. Just consider two of the most fundamental laws of electromagnetism known today as Faraday  and
Maxwell  Laws. Taken together, they state that electromagnetic waves are comprised
of an electric field and a magnetic field oscillating at 90º to each other and inducing the other into being:
"as an oscillating electric field generates an oscillating magnetic field, the magnetic field in
turn generates an oscillating electric field, and so on" 
Waves and particles have no way of justifying these observations. Why would corpuscles align along or oscillate around an
imaginary axis? What induces waves (whatever they are) to oscillate up and down around an axis (Fig. 2)?
On the other hand, we can readily appreciate why this would be so with a rope: this is its natural state. In a static scenario,
each of the strands runs at 90º to the other throughout their extension. A torsion signal, then, has no choice but to travel
rectilinearly along this medium when it is tightly drawn. Only a tensed, rope-like configuration guarantees that the electric
and magnetic ‘fields’ will twine around an axis.
Let’s now pause for a long coffee break or continue with our chat at the water-cooler. Please understand that this interruption
is an absolute necessity. A mathematician cannot absorb the enormous amount of information I have just presented. It
overheats his brain and he goes into overdrive. Allow me to explain.
3.0 The deranged mathematical mind
• I don't 'understand' your hypothesis, Bill
In my discussions with relativists I have discovered that mathematicians have an insurmountable mental block when it comes
to visualizing images. The mathematician is unable to process baby pictures. You point to a circle, the mathematician stares at
it, but he does not see a round geometric figure like a normal human being would. Equations rush through his mind. The
mathematician processes (π r²) or (√¯2 + i ³) or some other symbolic expression in his brain. Experience and information have
so thoroughly conditioned the ‘trained’ intellect that it is impossible to hold his attention on the static object facing us for longer
than a pico-second. The mind of a mathematician impulsively wanders beyond. Where is the little v? And what happened to the
little c? Where is the position vector? What is the tension on the rope? And why don't the ropes tangle in space? Mathematicians
have been brainwashed to reject intuition at any cost. The maxim of all contemporary educational establishments is that common
sense is the least common of all senses, and the results of this erroneous view are evident. What you don’t use, you lose. The
mathematicians have lost common sense because colleges have taught them not to trust intuition. “Whose common sense?”
So the mathematicians can no longer grasp simple, kindergarten pictures such as the one I have just presented. You may not
believe me, but, as of this moment, the mathematician has not yet ‘assimilated’ the model that I have just proposed and
illustrated. Some of the ridiculous questions that the mathematicians ask or the comments that they make after the presentation
confirm to me that the fools are still struggling with the basics:
“How fast does the rope travel?”
“A rope can be stretched, changing the relationship (c = ƒ * λ). The same
'speed = frequency * wavelength' applies equally well to sound, oceans,
and most other wave phenomena.”
“It sounds a lot like string theory to me.”
“In many ways your rope resembles so and so’s spherical wave.”
“Torsion waves have been around for years and we have thoroughly
modeled them mathematically. A transverse wave is nothing more than a
cross-section of your rope.”
“How does the rope fit into the grand scheme of the space-time manifold?”
How can something so simple as what I am proposing here be so grossly misconstrued by the scholars? What do the
mathematicians have obstructing the grey matter in their skulls? Sawdust? What do I need to do in order for a room full of
college grads to just look at the image? I do not have this problem with lay people, and I believe that this has something to
do with ‘learning pollution.’ Laymen take what I am saying unhindered, unbiased, at face value, which is exactly what the
scientific method requires them to do. So far, I have not explained anything with my rope, and the juror has no reason to
jump to conclusions. The mathematicians, on the other hand, have an information overload blocking their eyes. Their CPUs
are already at the next step, pondering whether the rope violates the doctrines they learned by rote in college. I am not saying
that these questions are not valid. I am saying that these questions are not pertinent to the step of the scientific method where
we point to the exhibits.
Therefore, the mathematicians never manage to assimilate the theory because they are occupying their brains with questions
and objections at the very moment that I am introducing the exhibits. They never manage to process the object I am pointing
to in their brain in the first place because they are too busy rejecting the theory right off hand. Of course, it is no mystery, then,
why they later end up asking dumb questions like the ones I just listed. The questions are dumb because the mathematicians
ask them at the wrong time.
My heartfelt recommendation to any mathematician: forget everything you ever learned about light for a moment. Just sit in a
comfortable yoga posture for 2 minutes, go “uuuuumh,” and focus your mind on the image. Perhaps, if we can get past this
barrier together, you have a chance to understand the theory. Come on. You can do it! I’ll hold your hand.
• Unfathomable entity
To make matters even more complicated, the mathematicians are expecting the true nature and configuration
of light to be some unimaginable, breathtaking entity. Perhaps they expect the waters to part and the angels to streak across
the sky in chariots of fire while the millions of souls up in heaven sound their trumpets. Or maybe they expect a 7-dimensional
object or a tribar-like impossible object. Circles, blocks, and ropes are things we encounter in kindergarten. How can something
as simple as a rope account for our complex Universe? How can scores of mathematicians have overlooked this stale object in
the last 400 years? No! Light definitely cannot be a rope!
And believe me, there is no way to convince a mathematician to look through Galileo’s scope to verify that there are four moons
orbiting Jupiter. The numskull asks to see your equations. The latter-day philosophers and cardinals seek flashy, revolutionary
concepts that build on what they have already taken for granted in college. This summarily rules out the rope in the peer
But this line of thinking is easily debunked. Whatever light is, it’s got to be a three-dimensional object (Fig. 1). Therefore, it has
to look like something we are familiar with. All 3-D objects are amenable to visualization. In this sense, all objects are ‘simple’:
anyone should be able to imagine what light is. If Bohr, and Heisenberg, and the rest of them gave up brainstorming structures,
this only points to their limited imagination! Surely, the idiots of Mathematical Physics will never discover the object that underlies
light if they search for an unimaginable, unfathomable, breathtaking object or if they continue modeling their equations with point
particles. Yet more daunting (I should really say funny) is that the mathematicians have no trouble accepting surrealistic wave-
packets and ethereal wave functions. They just have trouble accepting that light could be like the rope you
hang your clothes on in your back yard. They have trouble identifying light with anything resembling
something of our routine 3-D world.
Nevertheless, even if a mathematician is capable of visualizing a simple rope, he has been conditioned to believe that it is
impossible to imagine what light is in reality. The messiah of QM, Mr. Bohr, already settled that we can’t form a classical image
of light, and surely we have tried hard for the last 400 years.
“ Bohr maintained we can never ‘understand’ the quantum world or assign physical
meaning to the complex wavefunction.” (Attributed to Weinberg).
“ The actual definite properties of a physical system ‘do not exist’ prior to the
measurement and the wavefunction is only interpreted as a mathematical tool
used to calculate the probabilities of the outcome of the experiments, which is,
in agreement with positivism in philosophy, the only topic that science should
[What contorted explanation to say so much rubbish!]
His lame sidekick, Heisenberg, added that:
" The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has led physicists far
away from the simplistic materialist views that prevailed in the natural sciences
of the nineteenth century… one attempt to counter the Copenhagen interpreta-
tion is an attempt to change the philosophy without changing the physics…
a return to the ontology of materialism. They would prefer to go back to the idea
of an objective world." 
So, as mathematicians see it, the purpose of science is to model the behavior of light with equations. Anything else is just
philosophy and religion. There is no possibility to visualize light in terms of our 3-D macro world. Hence, the mathematicians
trivialize or altogether dismiss what I am doing here. They regard the first step of the scientific method as ‘philosophy.’
• Skepticism for the sake of skepticism
The greatest obstacle to visualization is the mathematicians’ extreme skepticism, skepticism for the sake of skepticism.
Colleges brainwash freshmen to believe that science and skepticism are synonyms. Right or wrong, the safest course is to
doubt. Skepticism at all costs! Skepticism when among skeptics! Skepticism even when confronted with the true nature of
reality! Skepticism, healthy skepticism, even when staring at the God of Light face to face!
"Is this thing that is in front of me a chair?"
"Is what I am holding in my hand a book?"
"Can I really say that snow is white?"
"Well, I have been burned before and they won’t catch me off guard this time around.
I will keep my options open at all costs. I'm here just to listen to new, interesting
theories anyways, but I won't believe in any of them because someone in the future
will certainly show them to be untrue. I'm not going to look like a sucker again!"
The educational system has so destroyed the cherished ideas a mathematician grew up with, so conditioned his mind to
exotic ideas and arguments, that he questions anyone and everything beyond any reasonable doubt. If you present an
overly-educated individual with the actual physical configuration of light, he will yawn and say ‘Yeah. Interesting! I also
heard that light is…’ To a mathematician, any idea is just another idea contributed to the pile, and tomorrow someone will
come up with a better mousetrap:
"No matter how 'settled' Science seems to be, new facts and evidence can still
be discovered... remember that Science is never 'settled.' That's the very
definition of Science." 
[NO! That's the idiotic definition of Mathematical Physics. Here's the definition
The purpose of science is not to find, but to search eternally for something that is taken to be unknowable and which will
be overthrown anyways. The establishment has perpetuated falsehoods which later trickle down to the masses:
“ Scientists never claim absolute knowledge. Unlike a mathematical proof, a proven
scientific theory is always open to falsification” 
[Pardon my French, but this 'philosophy' is absolute bullshit!!!]
Don’t get me wrong. I am not insinuating that objects are beyond 'falsification,' at least not in the sense that we are unable to
show for example that a particle is not a correct model of light. Of course we can. The problem with extreme skepticism when
it is directed at exhibits as opposed to explanations is that it never allows the correct configuration of light to emerge. Whether
light is a wave, a particle, or a rope is not an issue of theory, but rather of assumptions. Light doesn’t change with successive
generations. Light cannot be a wave today and a particle tomorrow. What changes is our perception of what light is, which only
means that we weeded out a couple of hypotheses over the years. You can stop light with your 3-D hand and generate a
shadow! Therefore, light has a definite physical configuration irrespective of whether we have discovered this architecture or
not. This summarily rules out the plane wave with which the idiots of Quantum explain some of their theories.
But if you discover the true physical configuration and nature of light tomorrow, the current paradigm prevents the establishment
from accepting it as the ultimate reality. Everyone has been drilled to exhaustion that ‘all’ ‘theories’ (meaning architectures) are
falsifiable (meaning temporary). In the peer-reviewer's mind, this means that at some unspecified time in the future some bright
mathematician will propose a different model and so on in perpetuum. Thus, any exhibit that you present to a peer review board
is treated as a transitory ‘theory.’ The scholars may listen to you only for the novelty, but not to really, truly concede that Man has
finally uncovered the true configuration of light. In their minds, this is simply impossible.
The current paradigm is a patently false philosophy. The idiots teaching Science and Philosophy in colleges
have to overhaul this ridiculous line of thinking.
I am too little, too insignificant to fight against all this hard-headedness. The task is simply overwhelming. It is impossible to
overcome irrational, extreme skepticism. If you are staring at the God of Light in the face, will you doubt simply because you've
been brainwashed to doubt at all costs? This amounts to pig-headed ignorance and nothing else!
Now that I got that off my chest, let’s head back to the conference.
|Why must we always twine orthogonally
around each other, Al? Why can't we coil
around in parallel for once?
On the other hand, a rope is a physical configuration that meets the ‘undulating’ requirement with flying colors in both static as
well as dynamic scenarios (Fig. 4). ‘Rippled’ is the rope’s natural state. We do not need to torque or move a rope in any way. A
rope is intrinsically sinusoidal. But when you do twist a rope, you verify that the outgoing torque signal also 'waves.' A rope
embodies two seemingly irreconcilable static properties light is famous for. It is simultaneously wavy and straight. From a
dynamic standpoint, a short series of links rotate in place (standing wave). They generate the waviness light is famous for
(traveling wave). Yet from a distance, the signal travels rectilinearly along the taut rope. A rope embodies both the standing
and the traveling wave features in a single stroke, and explains why researchers have confused it with abstract transverse
waves for so long.
|Whether plane or spherical,
waves are movies of something
in motion. Matter cannot be
constructed of motion as some
morons without much
imagination allege. The word
motion is defined as two or
more locations of an object!
Therefore, it would be circular
to define an object as the
|Why does the electric 'field' run at
90º to the magnetic 'field'? How can
two mathematical concepts have
A rope simulates this architectural
feature easily because each strand
twines around the other. This is the
rope's natural state.
Meanwhile, the rope is pulled tight
and remains straight. the signal we
call light has no choice but to run
rectilinearly along this taut medium.
Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008