Light ties itself in knots

It’s not only possible to get light to tie itself in knots: given the right conditions, it will do so spontaneously, according to a paper published last week in Nature.

El Reg has no possible hope of fully understanding this paper (published in full, an emerging trend we welcome), but one really interesting idea is right there in the abstract:

In other words, this research has the potential to be replicated not only to create “knotted waves” of light, but of waves in more tangible stuff.

“Knotted light” is already feature of research into things like optical tweezers and quantum computing. However, according to ANU researcher Dr Anton Desyatnikov, previous demonstrations have been painstakingly hand-made using carefully-engineered lasers.

“[W]hat we’ve been working on are models in which the knots spontaneously form on their own”, he said. “Apart from their curiosity value, what’s really interesting and useful about these knots of darkness is that they show you what the power flow is doing.”

“Our models suggest that you have to get the key parameters of the light in a certain range before you can easily tie the light in knots but once you do, the knots are virtually guaranteed … we can’t predict exactly where they will form. Just that under these specific circumstances the optical vortices will spontaneously nucleate and tie themselves into little knots.” ®

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

Is the manifestation of life merely a phase shift, inevitable fromt he fundamental construction of our where/when? ...

It is akin to the 'membrane interaction' posited by some string theorists, I think.

Indeed, following quantum field theory a phase shift would be the most likely consequence of God's creative speaking, "let there be," to or in space/time.

Concerning the sidebar on subscript/superscript designations - I'd add that Wesson shorthands his theory like this: "5D2T" meaning five dimensions, two of which are time dimensions - spatial being the default D.

In that shorthand 0D would be the only point (the Big Bang singularity), 1D a line, 2D a plane, 3D a cube, 4D a tesseract, etc. However, when we shorthand 4D concerning space/time, the 1T is assumed (4D1T). LOLOL!

So I guess the bottom line is whether the shorthand is communicative.

BUT, the naming of 'it' means it must have space to exist, and the command 'to be' indicates it must have time, to be an event in existence.

Years ago, I started trying to fathom how it all began, the order of 'unfolding'. That's why I've settled upon the notion of continua I express as where/when continua. Even the soul and spirit exist in a continua of some expression of space and time.

The 'first' continuum was point/moment. During the inflationary phase, the universe went from point/moment to linear/moment, linear/past, then linear/present, planar/present, etc. and eventually volume/future. But the expressions 'present' and 'future' I do not think of the same way traditional 'one variable of time' notions assert.

I best stop before the ridicule rains down, as it has in the past when I sought to share this 'different' cosmology.

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear MHGinTN!

I gather we agree that the Big Bang theory calls for a singularity which is a mathematical point. And from there dimensions are created as it expands, e.g. space/time continuum. Or to put it another way, space/time does not pre-exist, it is created as the universe expands.

Observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation shows that photons (physical light) came into existence about 300,000 years after the Big Bang based on our present space/time coordinates. Interestingly, the CMB records the sound waves at the moment physical light came into existence.

That, of course, always reminds of "Let there be light" or as you put mentioned earlier, "Light be."

But such measurements only apply to the observable universe.

For instance, by definition science cannot say that massless particles which have no direct or indirect effect do not exist, i.e. they cannot be observed. Or that fields which have no direct or indirect effect do not exist. Or that other types of dimensions which have no direct or indirect effect do not exist.

Physical cosmologists rarely speculate about non-observables.

Wesson's point that physical death is merely a phase shift ("in" 5D2T space/time) is particularly fascinating to me. I don't know if such a phase shift in 5D2T would be observable but in any case, that there may also be unobservable dimensions/fields bring various Scriptural events to the table, as you have noted.

The soul/spirit (whether associated with a physical body or not) is still a "thing" or "being" and experiences "events" which means it is "in" the continuum though it may not be measurable by a scientific observer in 4D. To put it another way, in the absence of space, things cannot exist. In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

I suspect some scientific observers prefer to associate everything mind related to a physical brain simply because they cannot physically measure the mind, soul or spirit. Thus they call the mind an epiphenomenon, a secondary phenomenon which cannot cause anything to happen.

Lurkers interested in this sidebar might want to look over our discussion on this thread.

So does this happy little notion of the physical scientists mean that "brains" cause wars, commit murders, rape, pillage, "ethnic cleansings," etc.?

To say that the "brain" is really what does everything really lets me off the hook for moral responsibility for anything I might willy-nilly choose to do — I can blame anything and everything I do on my "brain."

Good grief!!! I guess this would mean that I cannot let my "brain" wander outside my own house, lest it cause harm to others!!!

I honestly think that people who actually believe such things are just totally NUTZ. The world does not entirely reduce to "measurements." Indeed, probably the most significant part of it is "immeasurable" in principle.

Sorry for the snit I'm having right now.... I just cannot stand nonsense like this....

To say which does not detract in the least from the admiration I have for your wonderful essay/post, my dearest sister in Christ! Thank you so very much for your telling observations!

So does this happy little notion of the physical scientists mean that "brains" cause wars, commit murders, rape, pillage, "ethnic cleansings," etc.?

That is exactly what the notion means. If they'd think about it rationally, surely they'd realize how absurd it is.

Even some mathematicians believe they will someday create artificial intelligence capable of qualia (can be experienced but not conveyed such as love-hate pain-pleasure) because, after all, if the physical brain can produce qualia then so can a machine. LOLOL!

Thank you oh so very much for your insights, dearest sister in Christ, and for your encouragements!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.