My theory has just had a few holes poked through it.

I would like evryone who cares jot down thier theories and supporting argument on this thread. I can then review these theories to refine my own.

And exactly what would be your theory?

A lack of something does not have a speed.

Imo, darkness, if defined as the transition between illumination and lack of such, in certain direction, does have speed, but since it's not an object, but continious series of events , there is no violation of relativity here (which i'am almost certain the OP implies).

A lack of something does not have a speed.

 

How fast does a hole move through a semiconductor?

How fast does a hole move through a semiconductor?

 

But that is a pseudo-particle... There are no holetons...

Speed of darkness

 

Upon the Earth, about 40.000 km a day, or something more than 1600km/h, twice the speed of a Jumbo jet.

Darkness moves at the speed of light. However, a shadow can move much faster (or slower).

:DHa, ha, ha. These are all very interesting replies. Some of you want to know what my theory is, this could help define my question.

Google "antiphoton".

The first link leads to this site.

Login.

It's basically all of page three.

Then it was suggested I should do it here, in the speculations forum.

anti-photons would not appear dark.

But that is a pseudo-particle... There are no holetons...

 

Still, we describe the motion of a lack of an electron, because it's convenient to do so. One could attempt a model based on dark particles, or for thermodynamics on the movement of cold. But they would fail the Occam test somewhere; for dark one place would be in describing the complete absence of light. How many darkons would that take? Photons explain this in a much more elegant fashion. The photoelectric effect is another phenomenon where photons explain the effect simply. Darkons would, at best, be another pseudo-particle explanation with a limited application.

:

Google "antiphoton".

 

The term "antiphoton" already has a meaning in physics, though the photon is it's own antiparticle.

The term "antiphoton" already has a meaning in physics, though the photon is it's own antiparticle.

 

Whether or not it is in use, that is the path I took to this site.

Whether or not it is in use, that is the path I took to this site.

 

Is this your ideas or someone else's?

 

Either way, it is usually a bad idea to invent terminology where established terminology exists and/or using existing terminology for something unrelated to the established meaning. It only courses confusion.

 

Lots of "crackpots" do the above quite a lot (of course mainstream scientists are also guilty of this of occasion). I think it stems from misunderstanding the original concepts and not being aware of the existing literature.

Is this your ideas or someone else's?

 

Either way, it is usually a bad idea to invent terminology where established terminology exists and/or using existing terminology for something unrelated to the established meaning. It only courses confusion.

 

Likely someone somewhere has had the same idea, but I have come to it without their input, if that's what you are asking.

As for my terminology, I started with something I know of (photons), and branched out from there to antiphotons. This is because I belive the speed of dark related to the speed of light and therefore photons, but it can't be photons exactly I thought, because that would make it light.

The fact remains however, that I am relatively ignorant with what I know, compared with what there is to know.

As for my terminology, I started with something I know of (photons), and branched out from there to antiphotons.

 

So you know photons are their own antiparticle?