The What Was, Before The Big Bang

[xyz]

This is the route of your problem with grasping the closed model. You assume that a finite system must have boundaries. You're imagining an edge where none exists. How best to explain this?

 

I'll give you three descriptions. Hopefully one of them will click.

 

Try the Earth one again. The surface of the Earth represents three dimensional space so the surface itself isn't a boundary. You can travel in any direction on this curved two dimensional surface and you'll never encounter a boundary. If you travel far enough in one direction you'll end up back where started. That exactly describes the closed universe model.

 

Imagine a flat two dimensional circle. Any object object in the circle that reaches the edge will emerge at the opposite side of the circle. Now imagine it from the perspective of that object and move all the other objects instead so that the one that's moving relative to the others is always at the centre of the circle and the others reappear on the opposite side of the circle when they reach an edge. Like this.

 

Now imagine yourself at the centre of a sphere. If you travel away from an object in one direction, you move an equal distance towards it in the opposite direction. If the volume of space is 100 light years across then every object is 100 light years way from you if you add up it's distance in both directions. Every object is always in the centre from their own perspective. There is a finite amount of space and no boundaries.

Nooo, if you move anywhere in the Infinite Universe, you do not start back at the same place, you are in a different 0 point space, you are at the center of a finite observation.   it is nothing like travelling around a circle or sphere, shapes are points in space that people play dot to dot with and imagine  a shape. Your video didn't help , you cant travel ''left'' and end up on the ''right'' of space. 

[A-wal]

I remembered that video wrong. I took it out before you posted.

 

Of course in an flat, infinite, open universe you don't end up back where you started, because it's infinite. In curved, finite, closed universe you do.

 

Your model is one of three. It's no more valid than the closed one. If fact it's less valid because redshift is evidence of curvature. The standard model is of a negative curvature (curves outwards, away from itself). I think the redshift is evidence of positive curvature (curves inwards, towards itself). The fact that there is redshift basically proves curvature and disproves the flat model you're using. It's a valid model but it doesn't match observations.

Edited November 12, 2015 by A-wal

[xyz]

I remembered that video wrong. I took it out before you posted.

 

Of course in an flat, infinite, open universe you don't end up back where you started, because it's infinite. In curved, finite, closed universe you do.

 

Your model is one of three. It's no more valid than the closed one. If fact it's less valid because redshift is evidence of curvature. The standard model is of a negative curvature (curves outwards, away from itself). I think the redshift is evidence of positive curvature (curves inwards, towards itself). The fact that there is redshift basically proves curvature and disproves the flat model you're using. It's a valid model but it doesn't match observations.

Redshift is the evidence of curvature /stretching of light. not a curvature of space itself,   there is no curvature, a curvature of what exactly?   there is no known medium /aether,   it us unlikely CBMR makes a curvature, the only possible curvature is that of the mind and the observation limit being isotropic.  Imagine being in the center of a ball that was expanding,on the skin of the ball was dots it would always seem a curvature, remove the ball skin but not the dots your vision is still of a curvature because that is the radius of sight limit and the shape you perceive. 

Edited November 12, 2015 by xyz

[A-wal]

Curvature of space exactly.

 

Stretching of light is evidence of curvature. It could work in a flat universe if the big bang hypothesis is accurate but it would be so unlikely. It would be balanced on a knife edge and it would have to tip one way eventually. It could have some self-balancing system I suppose.

 

It doesn't matter though. I've never said the model you're using isn't valid. You need to invalidate the others if you want to show that the flat one is the correct one. Saying space can't be curved is just a statement, back it up!

 

Will you please stop it with limited range of view! It has absolutely NOTHING to do with it!!!

[xyz]

Curvature of space exactly.

 

Stretching of light is evidence of curvature. It could work in a flat universe if the big bang hypothesis is accurate but it would be so unlikely. It would be balanced on a knife edge and it would have to tip one way eventually. It could have some self-balancing system I suppose.

 

It doesn't matter though. I've never said the model you're using isn't valid. You need to invalidate the others if you want to show that the flat one is the correct one. Saying space can't be curved is just a statement, back it up!

 

Will you please stop it with limited range of view! It has absolutely NOTHING to do with it!!!

no, the stretching of light is evidence of incident angle like a red sky at night.   I believe you call it refraction/lens flare.

 

consider this, Dave has a set of night vision bino's on, he can see a radius of 1000m, what only isotropic 3 dimensional shape does he observe?  

 

 

He observes a sphere shape.   

Edited November 12, 2015 by xyz

[A-wal]

I agree. This redshift is evidence of light traveling at an angle, not of recession.

 

 

The standard model is of a negative curvature (curves outwards, away from itself). I think the redshift is evidence of positive curvature (curves inwards, towards itself).

That's an over simplification, I should probably clarify. Redshit has been taken as evidence of an expanding universe (BS!) and the rate of it's expansion means that it will never recollapse and will keep on expanding at an ever increasing rate, and the rate that it's increasing will increasing, and the rate of its increasing rate of expansion will also probably increase, and etc. That's a negatively curved universe. That's a three dimensional interpretation of the evidence. They seem to have forgotten that the universe has a fourth dimension. They make space curved and time a straight line.

Oh no, our model doesn't work. I know let's invent something completely undefined that we need to make it work, call dark something and just carry on. Physicists.

Objects can't move faster than the speed of light relative to each other and objects can't accelerate without feeling a force, except when we need them to.

Edited November 12, 2015 by A-wal

[xyz]

I agree. This redshift is evidence of light traveling at an angle, not of recession.

 

 

That's an over simplification, I should probably clarify. Redshit has been taken as evidence of an expanding universe (BS!) and the rate of it's expansion means that it will never recollapse and will keep on expanding at an ever increasing rate, and the rate that it's increasing will increasing, and the rate of its increasing rate of expansion will also probably increase, and etc. That's a negatively curved universe. That's a three dimensional interpretation of the evidence. They seem to have forgotten that the universe has a fourth dimension. They make space curved and time a straight line.

 

Oh no, our model doesn't work. I know let's invent something completely undefined that we need to make it work, call dark something and just carry on. Physicists.

 

Objects can't move faster than the speed of light relative to each other and objects can't accelerate without feeling a force, except when we need them to.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to get at, red shift is said to be caused by the Doppler effect, when an object is said to be moving at the near speed of light away from the light, it is said to stretch the light, the physics and release of radiation pressure by the object travelling away/with, the light and a visual angle allowing the observation. However it could be also simply angle of the shot capturing the red-shift like the red sky at night is observed.   My problem is the speed thing, because the stars do not seem to contract in all the years I have been alive and can remember, they seem has big as 30-40 year ago, surely something travelling so fast would of passed its vanishing point by now. Also it does not make much sense that we were not expanding with it, what kept the milky way here as such.    

[A-wal]

Doppler shift happens whenever an object moves relative to another object, not just close to the speed of light. Redshift has been taken as evidence of recession because the light waves are stretched. If they're moving towards each other they'll be blueshifted because the light waves would be squashed instead of stretched. It happens with sound too. It has nothing to do with angles in the standard model.

 

What do the stars not contracting have to do with anything? The stars you can see aren't all moving away from us.

 

The milky way and other galaxies are held together by gravity and the amount of expansion over such a small area of space would be tiny anyway.

 

I've just spotted the typo in my last post. :lol:

[xyz]

Doppler shift happens whenever an object moves relative to another object, not just close to the speed of light. Redshift has been taken as evidence of recession because the light waves are stretched. If they're moving towards each other they'll be blueshifted because the light waves would be squashed instead of stretched. It happens with sound too. It has nothing to do with angles in the standard model.

 

What do the stars not contracting have to do with anything? The stars you can see aren't all moving away from us.

 

The milky way and other galaxies are held together by gravity and the amount of expansion over such a small area of space would be tiny anyway.

 

I've just spotted the typo in my last post. 

I know it has nothing to do with angles in the standard model, however the standard model is based on the standard model of light, so to discuss this and the why's, I need to discuss light and a prisms mechanics.    I think I have a light thread, but think maybe I am best keeping the discussion to one thread, as it all relates in the full picture of what I consider I understand.   I do not want to go off and tell you all about science and how it is wrong, but in learning it many things have not made sense to my logic, especially the present version of light and a prism.   A different version of light which I believe is possible re-writes a complete new look on everything.

I know science as heard this before , probably a few thousand times, but I do believe I have some great input. 

 

Firstly to check some facts

 

 

Q1-Daylight propagating through air, you call this ''white light'', and say it is a mixture of frequencies?. 

 

1.By this do you mean it is all the frequencies merged into one frequency and like a ''clear mist''?  

 

2.or do you mean each different Quanta is a different frequency and it is a mixture of these different frequency Quanta?

Edited November 14, 2015 by xyz

[CraigD]

The distance between two bodies increasing because the space between them expands, differs from the distance between them increasing because they simply move away from each other, in that in the first case, neither body experiences acceleration, while in the second case, one or both does.

I get ya. If the space between them is expanding then as the space increases they'll move away from each other faster with no acceleration felt by either.

 

Okay, there is a way test it in principle. Now is there a realistic test that we can do before the sun burns out?

If it’s fairly uniform – not present only in special regions, such as the large voids between galaxies and cluster of galaxies, but about the same through space – then it should be possible to directly measure cosmic expansion.

 

The Hubble constant is about 2.1972 x 10^-18 (m/s)/m, so if you place two spacecraft say 500 AU (1.4960 x 10¹² m) apart, zero their relative velocity as best you can, then wait 1 day, the distance between them is predicted to increase by about 15 m. Light travels 15 m in about 5 x 10^-8 s, and atomic clocks have resolution of about 10^-10 s, so this is detectable.

 

Complicating factors in this experiment is protecting the spacecraft from stray accelerations from radiation, stray releases of matter, changes in gravity, etc. These spacecraft would need to be kept very clean, cold, far from the Sun, planets, and lesser bodies, and surrounded by shields to block radiation in all but the direction of the pulsed beam between them used for the distance measurement.

 

Given the current cost and politics of science and spaceflight, I doubt such an experiment could be flown anytime soon, but think it’s technically feasible. Most physicists and cosmologists are certain enough of the existence of cosmic expansion because it explains so much observational data that I doubt there’d be much interest in such an experiment purely to demonstrate its existence, the question of its uniformity, I think, is uncertain and interesting enough that that such an experiment would be valuable in the search for theory explaining the fundamental physics of it. I don’t think any theorists are very happy with cosmic expansion, because while it explains many otherwise bizarre observed data, there’s no compelling theory explaining its cause. Experiment measurements of it in many places and scales could point the way toward such a theory.

 

I don’t know if such experiment will be flown in our lifetimes, but I’m hopeful they will be within a few human generations.

[A-wal]

Q1-Daylight propagating through air, you call this ''white light'', and say it is a mixture of frequencies?. 

 

1.By this do you mean it is all the frequencies merged into one frequency and like a ''clear mist''?  

 

2.or do you mean each different Quanta is a different frequency and it is a mixture of these different frequency Quanta?

Interesting question. I never use the particle conceptualisation of light. I always think of it as a wave and in that description the colour of light that we perceive depends on its wavelength and the intensity of the light depends on the height of the waves, just as the pitch of sound depends on the wavelength and its volume depends on the height of the waves.

 

Using the particle description of light, the amount of photons dictates the intensity of the light but what's equivalent to wavelength? I suppose maybe an interval of gaps between the photons but that would mean the wavelength of that is equivalent to a rapid flicker. That doesn't seem right.

 

 

If it’s fairly uniform – not present only in special regions, such as the large voids between galaxies and cluster of galaxies, but about the same through space – then it should be possible to directly measure cosmic expansion.

 

The Hubble constant is about 2.1972 x 10^-18 (m/s)/m, so if you place two spacecraft say 500 AU (1.4960 x 10¹² m) apart, zero their relative velocity as best you can, then wait 1 day, the distance between them is predicted to increase by about 15 m. Light travels 15 m in about 5 x 10^-8 s, and atomic clocks have resolution of about 10^-10 s, so this is detectable.

 

Complicating factors in this experiment is protecting the spacecraft from stray accelerations from radiation, stray releases of matter, changes in gravity, etc. These spacecraft would need to be kept very clean, cold, far from the Sun, planets, and lesser bodies, and surrounded by shields to block radiation in all but the direction of the pulsed beam between them used for the distance measurement.

 

Given the current cost and politics of science and spaceflight, I doubt such an experiment could be flown anytime soon, but think it’s technically feasible. Most physicists and cosmologists are certain enough of the existence of cosmic expansion because it explains so much observational data that I doubt there’d be much interest in such an experiment purely to demonstrate its existence, the question of its uniformity, I think, is uncertain and interesting enough that that such an experiment would be valuable in the search for theory explaining the fundamental physics of it. I don’t think any theorists are very happy with cosmic expansion, because while it explains many otherwise bizarre observed data, there’s no compelling theory explaining its cause. Experiment measurements of it in many places and scales could point the way toward such a theory.

 

I don’t know if such experiment will be flown in our lifetimes, but I’m hopeful they will be within a few human generations.

It explains so much observational data/it explains many otherwise bizarre observed data? You mean redshift? What else does it explain? The cmb? That doesn't match the prediction of the big bang model because it's not uniform enough.

 

I'm hopeful that by that time they'll have released just how baseless the big bang model is.

 

 

DESCRIPTION ONE

The universe is expanding in the sense that the space between objects is increasing with the objects actually moving, allowing them to move faster than the speed of light and allowing objects to accelerate away from each other without feeling any acceleration as the space between them increases.

 

Advantages

It provides a possible explanation for the observed redshift of distant galaxies.

 

Disadvantages

It's overly complicated in that it introduces relative velocity that behaves differently from the relative velocity that's been observed as well as acceleration that behaves differently from the acceleration that's been observed and it needs a lot of additional unexplained processes to make it work. It needs inflation without providing any cause for it, it needs dark energy without providing any cause for it and it needs the value of dark energy to increase beyond what would be expected by the increase of the amount of space between the objects without providing any cause for it.

 

 

DESCRIPTION TWO

The universe in four dimensions is a hypersphere.

 

Advantages

It provides a possible explanation for the observed redshift of distant galaxies without introducing any new physical processes as well as directly explaining dark energy and dark flow and indirectly explaining dark matter.

 

Disadvantages

It's an embarrassment to physicists.

[CraigD]

Q1-Daylight propagating through air, you call this ''white light'', and say it is a mixture of frequencies?.

 

1.By this do you mean it is all the frequencies merged into one frequency and like a ''clear mist''?

 

2.or do you mean each different Quanta is a different frequency and it is a mixture of these different frequency Quanta?

According to best-accepted theory, light that humans perceive as white is your #2, many photons (quanta of electromagnetic radiation) with different frequencies.

 

It’s important to understand that frequency is simply a quantum mechanical characteristic of a photon, and can be equivalently described as the photon’s energy or wavelength.

 

Your #1 alternative suggests, xyz, that you don’t understand the essential characteristic of the kind of particle a photon is, a boson. That characteristic is following Bose-Einstein statistics. A major consequence of these statistics is that, in most situation, and all situations involving photons, bosons don’t interact with one another. So many photons of different frequencies/wavelengths/energies can’t “merge into one frequency”.

[CraigD]

I never use the particle conceptualisation of light. I always think of it as a wave and in that description the colour of light that we perceive depends on its wavelength and the intensity of the light depends on the height of the waves, just as the pitch of sound depends on the wavelength and its volume depends on the height of the waves.

There are couple of problem with your thinking about both light and sound, A-wal.

 

Denying that light has a particle nature in addition to a wave nature makes it difficult to explain a common experiment (I did this in my undergrad Modern Physics lab course), in which one reduces the strength of light on a photoelectric detector by adding dimming filters. If light were purely wave-like, you could reduce it indefinitely, and still measure a non-zero intensity. But what actually happens is that, below a specific energy – the famous E = h v, where v is frequency and h is the Planck constant - the intensity of the light drops to zero, showing that what you’re actually measuring is not the amplitude of waves, but the count of particles.

 

Sound is a longitudinal, not a transverse, wave, so its intensity isn’t due the height of a transverse wave, but difference in air (or some other medium) pressure. It’s easy to be confused about this, because most instruments that provide a graphical representation of sound show it as a transverse wave. This is not because it actually is, but because this is easier to look at.

 

Using the particle description of light, the amount of photons dictates the intensity of the light but what's equivalent to wavelength? I suppose maybe an interval of gaps between the photons but that would mean the wavelength of that is equivalent to a rapid flicker. That doesn't seem right.

As I mentioned above, wavelength is an intrinsic property of a photon, inversely equivalent to its energy. It’s not necessary to have regions of low and high photon density to define a wave the way a sound wave is by regions of high and low air pressure.

 

Speaking of transverse vs. longitudinal, light is a transverse wave, which we can see because it can be polarized into given plane. Longitudinal waves can’t be polarized.

 

 

It explains so much observational data/it explains many otherwise bizarre observed data? You mean redshift? What else does it explain? The cmb? That doesn't match the prediction of the big bang model because it's not uniform enough.

Do you have a source for your claim that the cosmic microwave background doesn’t match the prediction of the Big Bang model because it’s not uniform enough, A-Wal :QuestionM: This contradicts the summary and the many references in the linked Wikipedia article.

 

DESCRIPTION TWO

The universe in four dimensions is a hypersphere.

…

Disadvantages

It's an embarrassment to physicists.

The idea that we are in a “nearly flat spherical universe”, to borrow from the title of this 2002 paper, doesn’t embarrass any physicist I’ve heard or read, but rather is an attractive hypothesis and subject of serious study.

 

I strongly recommend the April 1999 Scientific American article “Is Space Finite” for a good non-technical discourse on the subject, by several of the same authors as the 2002 paper I link above.

 

One of the reasons a finite volume universe such as a geometrically spherical or hyperbolic one is attractive, as Weeks et al explain it, is that quantum cosmology theories explaining space are easier to make work with a finite volume universe. A universe can be geometrically flat and finite, but then must have an edge, which is weird and theoretically troublesome.

 

A beauty of spherical (and other topologies, such as a Euclidean 3-torus and more complex connected oes) universe hypotheses are that they’re obviously testable, in at least 2 ways:

In a connected universe of sufficiently small size and great age, you need only look in any direction with a sufficiently powerful telescope, and you’ll see yourself. What Weeks and colleagues have been looking for, within the power of existing telescopes, which are far to low-resolution to see themselves at distances of tens of billions or lightyears, are repeating images of galaxies and patterns of galaxies.

 

Another test is simply to precisely measure the angles of large real polygons, such as triangles. Just as we can use it to show that the 2-dimensional surface of the Earth is spherical, not flat, the sum of their exterior angles in 3-D space would tell us, if not 360deg, that we’re not in a flat 3-D geometry. However, the polygons need to be very big, on the order of lightyears, so such a measurement must use either spacecraft similar to those I described in my previous post, or astronomy trickery, which astronomers have been trying for decades.

[A-wal]

There are couple of problem with your thinking about both light and sound, A-wal.

Hmm, I said it didn't seem right.

 

Denying that light has a particle nature in addition to a wave nature makes it difficult to explain a common experiment (I did this in my undergrad Modern Physics lab course), in which one reduces the strength of light on a photoelectric detector by adding dimming filters. If light were purely wave-like, you could reduce it indefinitely, and still measure a non-zero intensity. But what actually happens is that, below a specific energy – the famous E = h v, where v is frequency and h is the Planck constant - the intensity of the light drops to zero, showing that what you’re actually measuring is not the amplitude of waves, but the count of particles.

I'm not denying that light has a particle nature to it. I said I always think of it in terms of waves. There are other tests that show that it must be a wave though. It can only be fully described with two models, which is absolutely fascinating because it means nobody has yet been able to come up with a conceptual or scientific model for what light is. It also applies to other subatomic particles so it means particle physics is an inaccurate approximation of something that nobody don't really understands.

 

Another interesting sidenote about light that I'd never thought of until I recently came across it is that there's no such thing as the colour purple. That's why there's no purple in rainbows. Red and blue are at opposite ends of the visible spectrum so when we see both together our minds invent a completely made up colour, although I suppose you could say that's true of all the colours we see.

 

Sound is a longitudinal, not a transverse, wave, so its intensity isn’t due the height of a transverse wave, but difference in air (or some other medium) pressure. It’s easy to be confused about this, because most instruments that provide a graphical representation of sound show it as a transverse wave. This is not because it actually is, but because this is easier to look at.

 

As I mentioned above, wavelength is an intrinsic property of a photon, inversely equivalent to its energy. It’s not necessary to have regions of low and high photon density to define a wave the way a sound wave is by regions of high and low air pressure.

 

Speaking of transverse vs. longitudinal, light is a transverse wave, which we can see because it can be polarized into given plane. Longitudinal waves can’t be polarized.

Oh okay.

 

Do you have a source for your claim that the cosmic microwave background doesn’t match the prediction of the Big Bang model because it’s not uniform enough, A-Wal :QuestionM: This contradicts the summary and the many references in the linked Wikipedia article.

I can't remember where I came across that. Maybe it was too uniform to mach the prediction of the big bang model, although that seems to make less sense. Maybe it wasn't reliable info, that was the first and only time I've ever come across it. I withdraw that one, and replace it with the lithium problem. :)

 

The idea that we are in a “nearly flat spherical universe”, to borrow from the title of this 2002 paper, doesn’t embarrass any physicist I’ve heard or read, but rather is an attractive hypothesis and subject of serious study.

Then why do they still go on about the big bang model as if it's unanimously accepted as the only possible model that matches the evidence when if fact there's a much simpler one that predicts as an effect of curvature what the big bang has to invent and claim are unknown new physical processes to make the model work?

 

One of the reasons a finite volume universe such as a geometrically spherical or hyperbolic one is attractive, as Weeks et al explain it, is that quantum cosmology theories explaining space are easier to make work with a finite volume universe. A universe can be geometrically flat and finite, but then must have an edge, which is weird and theoretically troublesome.

A universe can have an edge, flat and finite? I don't think so.

 

A beauty of spherical (and other topologies, such as a Euclidean 3-torus and more complex connected oes) universe hypotheses are that they’re obviously testable, in at least 2 ways:

In a connected universe of sufficiently small size and great age, you need only look in any direction with a sufficiently powerful telescope, and you’ll see yourself. What Weeks and colleagues have been looking for, within the power of existing telescopes, which are far to low-resolution to see themselves at distances of tens of billions or lightyears, are repeating images of galaxies and patterns of galaxies.

I know there are scientists who look for repeating patterns in space but they only ever refer to space. Why do the only use three dimensions? It's obviously curved to the same degree in all four dimensions because they're equivalent. Also, that will never work! You can't look around a sphere. As the distance of what you're looking at increases the object becomes more redshifted until everything funnels into an apparent singularity at the horizon.

 

That's what dark flow is. From the perspective of any observer, anything on the outer rim of their half of the sphere (stuff in any direction at the distance just before it starts to curve back in on itself) will appear to be in the same place. This effect lessens the closer the observed object is to the observer. That's all the apparent big bang singularity is except we're looking across time instead of space.

 

Another test is simply to precisely measure the angles of large real polygons, such as triangles. Just as we can use it to show that the 2-dimensional surface of the Earth is spherical, not flat, the sum of their exterior angles in 3-D space would tell us, if not 360deg, that we’re not in a flat 3-D geometry. However, the polygons need to be very big, on the order of lightyears, so such a measurement must use either spacecraft similar to those I described in my previous post, or astronomy trickery, which astronomers have been trying for decades.

Didn't know they'd been trying to do that.

 

 

This spellchecker doesn't speak English! How do you turn it off USian?

[A-wal]

I should probably elaborate a bit on what I said in the last post.

 

Trying to see objects anywhere on the opposite side of the sphere is impossible because the view of the observer can't go round corners. You can't look through the sphere, in this conceptualisation the inside of the sphere represents the past and outside of it represents the future but it doesn't mean the universe is expanding. It would look like that from any point in time in the same way it looks the same from any point in space.

 

In you look at objects far away on the surface on the Earth they would be tilted because of the angle of the sphere. When you do this with light it changes the wavelength, making it more redshifted the further away you look.

 

It would make everything at the furthest point you can see look like it funnels into a singularity. Singularities aren't rings, they're points, so anything at the outer most edge of the visible horizon will look like it's in the same place with this effect becoming less and less pronounced the closer the object is to the observer.

 

So I'll ask again. Why is redshift not taken as evidence of curvature when it explains far more with far less?

 

Edit:

Oh and the fact that redshift is directly proportional to distance is exactly what you'd get on the surface of a sphere!

Edited November 16, 2015 by A-wal

[xyz]

According to best-accepted theory, light that humans perceive as white is your #2, many photons (quanta of electromagnetic radiation) with different frequencies.

 

I thought it was, however I do not see it can be, by the experiment of a prism and the separation of the individual wavelengths. If we were to sprinkle a mixture of individual coloured particles, it would be physically impossible to separate the different colour into individual lines by the sprinkle, so how can a prism separate sprinkles into individual colours.

 

 

this doesn't make logical sense.

Edited November 16, 2015 by xyz

[A-wal]

There is no know model for light, or any massless particle for that matter that makes logical sense. Just look at the two-slit experiment.