YOUR DECISION

YOUR DECISION

https://www.ecoportal.net/en/solid-light-created-brighter-than-white/8398/

“Solid light” created for the first time in history — It’s brighter than white.

by Marcelo C. May 29, 2025

The article, in general, reflects the muddied thinking of mainstream physics today but no source for the information is given. Who were the scientists involved in this claimed breakthrough? Why are they not attributed? Strangely, even the article’s author’s full name is not provided.

“Scientists from the Institute of Nanotechnology of Lecce, in Italy”?

“by Marcelo C.”?

“When an electron is CHARGED TO ITS FULL CAPACITY, it explodes, expelling photons, and the levels of energy in these atoms are translated into the colors we see.”

Agnosco: Physics has routinely ignored Einstein’s concept of an electron comprising many photons, a concept my theory expands upon, but the foregoing paragraph incorporates the concept of the Ignis electron almost as if my theory had been read by the researchers involved!

It is the energy level of the originating electron, incorporated in its constituent photons, not the “energy of the atom”, that gives rise to the colour emitted.

“In this state, photons behave like particles and can reflect and emit light with an intensity and order that it appears almost ‘brighter than white’—not only in brightness, but in how precisely the light is structured.”

Agnosco: This is certainly a misunderstanding of experimental outcomes. Photons, when materialised, may themselves be reflected by material things but do not themselves reflect light with the exception of extremely rare occasions of coincidence of location and materialisation. Neither do they emit light [photons], and if they did, that light would be at a lower energy level (lower ‘frequency’) than the parent photons, not at a higher energy as implied by the article.

So, is there precisely and imprecisely ‘structured’ light? What does that statement mean?

“What was ONCE CONSIDERED pure energy without mass can behave like matter. If photons had mass, the universe would be a very different place.”

Agnosco: Physicists are very slowly moving towards the Ignis concept to some extent but they continue to exclude the transience of photon mass from their thinking.

Is it no longer considered by physicists that photons are pure energy, massless entities?

If photons simply ‘had’ mass the universe would indeed be a very different place, but they do not have influential mass on a continuous basis, as my theory explains.

Physicists may be shifting their thinking toward alignment with my theory without acknowledging its existence.

Even if this shift in thinking is actually happening, physicists continue in their failure to grasp the fundamental nature and simplicity of what is described in my theory and persist in an attempt to retain a mysterious aura for the basic physics of the universe.

You, as a physicist or as an intelligent independent thinker, may of course dismiss the Ignis theory out of hand (once you have considered it).

Perhaps it will be shown eventually that you failed to exercise your mind with sufficient studious discipline to understand the concepts involved, unable to set aside what you have previously believed to be true.

Why not avoid such an unfortunate outcome by seeking out and fully taking in my material on X and my blogger posts at:

https://photon-interactions.blogspot.com/?m=1

You will then be equipped to logically demolish my argument (which nobody has attempted to do since its publication in 2016), or to realise its validity.

Some may close their ears against the ideas I present but that will not make them go away. The ideas themselves are ‘in the wild’ and will persist until they are properly addressed even if I'm no longer extant.

Become part of a revolutionary update to physics or stand aside into irrelevance.