AbstractDreamer

I must apologise for my poor use of words. Im a dreamer, not a physicist. Is the medium for light not the Electromagnetic field? Is spacetime not a superset of all media including EM? If you can clarify, it would help me dream. Just because a flock of birds is quantised by single birds, doesn't mean you can describe the flocking effect by looking at single birds.

You missed my point. My point is: Your statement is true, but only with the presence of the electromagnetic field. I posit that, the field prevents photons from moving at any speed other than c, and prevents any particles with mass from travelling at c. Thus satisfying your statement that a photon cannot be a rest relative to an observer, and that they always move at c.

A photon certainly appears to travel in spacetime, relative to an observer. But could it also be completely stationary (relative to the observer and the entire universe), and that its the medium that causes the relative motion? A piece of flotsam in the middle of the Pacific Ocean has no velocity in and of itself. Over time, its path of movement may exhibit wave-like properties, but this behaviour is also NOT a property of the flotsam. Precisely. Light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. A photon is simply a particle with zero mass at rest. To say the wave-like property belongs to light is essentially describing a property of the electromagnetic field. The photon is the particle. The field is the wave. Where is the duality, other than photon being bound to the field?

This is my last post till tomorrow as I've used up all my allowance. However my question remains unanswered. Just because a photon can exhibit wave like behaviour doesn't mean the behaviour is due a property of the photon. Is it not conceivable that the medium through which the photon is travelling is wave-like in nature, and that the photon is bound to this medium in such a way as to be have no other option but to exhibit this same property? Ps my math is sub standard. Relative to what is required to understand anything, it might as well be non existent. On a separate note, perhaps this post should be moved into the quantum board, rather than theoretical physics. I didn't realise before I posted sorry.

"the energy of photoelectrons increases with increasing frequency of incident light and is independent of the intensity of the light" So the above statement would indicate the particle nature of a photon. Is the wave theory shown with the double slit experiment? But why does the wave like property have to belong to the photon? Why can it not be intrinsic to the fabric of the space through which the particle traverses, and that it is space that exhibits the wavelike properties rather than the photon, and that any single photon is rigidly attached to a single wave?

Why can a photon not be described as a particle that is attached to a wave, and that these waves ripple through spacetime at the speed of light, independently of any particles Why does the wave need to be a property of the photon?

why does everything seem to only go in the same direction wrt time? If time is a rate of change, then something that cannot change has no time. if time is relative between object and observer, does this mean we can never observe something which never changes?

What force makes time go "forwards"? As "now" evolves, how is yesterday manifested? Where is yesterday at? What form does the past assume? If yesterday is irretrievable, where has all the energy before "now" gone? Can time be accelerating as observed from extra dimensions, and yet appear constant from within spacetime? Could dark energy be a manifestation of time, past and future, within which information is retrievable to the present?