i was going over some information and had a thought, but first here is the information I was looking through,
"Particle theory revisited
Another experimental anomaly was the photoelectric effect, by which light striking a metal surface ejected electrons from the surface, causing an electric current to flow across an applied voltage. Experimental measurements demonstrated that the energy of individual ejected electrons was proportional to the frequency, rather than the intensity, of the light. Furthermore, below a certain minimum frequency, which depended on the particular metal, no current would flow regardless of the intensity. These observations clearly contradicted the wave theory, and for years physicists tried in vain to find an explanation. In 1905, Einstein solved this puzzle as well, this time by resurrecting the particle theory of light to explain the observed effect. Because of the preponderance of evidence in favor of the wave theory, however, Einstein's ideas were met initially by great skepticism among established physicists. But eventually Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect would triumph, and it ultimately formed the basis for wave–particle duality and much of quantum mechanics."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Particle_theory_revisited
Here's the original partical theory:
"Particle theory
Main article: Corpuscular theory of light
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen, 965–1040) proposed a particle theory of light in his Book of Optics (1021). He held light rays to be streams of minute energy particles[5] that travel in straight lines at a finite speed.[6][7][8] He states in his optics that "the smallest parts of light," as he calls them, "retain only properties that can be treated by geometry and verified by experiment; they lack all sensible qualities except energy."[5] Avicenna (980–1037) also proposed that "the perception of light is due to the emission of some sort of particles by a luminous source".[10]
Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655), an atomist, proposed a particle theory of light which was published posthumously in the 1660s. Isaac Newton studied Gassendi's work at an early age, and preferred his view to Descartes' theory of the plenum. He stated in his Hypothesis of Light of 1675 that light was composed of corpuscles (particles of matter) which were emitted in all directions from a source. One of Newton's arguments against the wave nature of light was that waves were known to bend around obstacles, while light travelled only in straight lines. He did, however, explain the phenomenon of the diffraction of light (which had been observed by Francesco Grimaldi) by allowing that a light particle could create a localised wave in the aether.
Newton's theory could be used to predict the reflection of light, but could only explain refraction by incorrectly assuming that light accelerated upon entering a denser medium because the gravitational pull was greater. Newton published the final version of his theory in his Opticks of 1704. His reputation helped the particle theory of light to hold sway during the 18th century. The particle theory of light led Laplace to argue that a body could be so massive that light could not escape from it. In other words it would become what is now called a black hole. Laplace withdrew his suggestion when the wave theory of light was firmly established. A translation of his essay appears in The large scale structure of space-time, by Stephen Hawking and George F. R. Ellis."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Particle_theory
and started to make a connection with this:
"Origin of life
For more details on this topic, see Abiogenesis and RNA world hypothesis.
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.[163] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.[164] Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[165][166] Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[167] and the assembly of simple cells.[168]"
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Origin_of_life
Evolution of life
For more details on this topic, see Timeline of evolution.
Evolutionary tree showing the divergence of modern species from their common ancestor in the center.[177] The three domains are colored, with bacteria blue, archaea green, and eukaryotes red.
Despite the uncertainty on how life began, it is generally accepted that prokaryotes inhabited the Earth from approximately 3–4 billion years ago.[178][179] No obvious changes in morphology or cellular organization occurred in these organisms over the next few billion years.[180]
The eukaryotes were the next major change in cell structure. These came from ancient bacteria being engulfed by the ancestors of eukaryotic cells, in a cooperative association called endosymbiosis.[70][181] The engulfed bacteria and the host cell then underwent co-evolution, with the bacteria evolving into either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes.[182] An independent second engulfment of cyanobacterial-like organisms led to the formation of chloroplasts in algae and plants.[183] It is unknown when the first eukaryotic cells appeared though they first emerged between 1.6 - 2.7 billion years ago.
The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea until about 610 million years ago when multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the Ediacaran period.[178][184] The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacteria.[185]
Soon after the emergence of these first multicellular organisms, a remarkable amount of biological diversity appeared over approximately 10 million years, in an event called the Cambrian explosion. Here, the majority of types of modern animals appeared in the fossil record, as well as unique lineages that subsequently became extinct.[186] Various triggers for the Cambrian explosion have been proposed, including the accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere from photosynthesis.[187] About 500 million years ago, plants and fungi colonized the land, and were soon followed by arthropods and other animals.[188] Amphibians first appeared around 300 million years ago, followed by early amniotes, then mammals around 200 million years ago and birds around 100 million years ago (both from "reptile"-like lineages). However, despite the evolution of these large animals, smaller organisms similar to the types that evolved early in this process continue to be highly successful and dominate the Earth, with the majority of both biomass and species being prokaryotes.[103]
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolution_of_life
Then I thought, considering that light is affected by black holes gravity (once in the event horizon) it's safe to say the light is in fact a physical object of matter, at present time it is not currently understood what light is exactly, however with the partical theory in mind and considering the first life used water and sunlight for existence, I propose the theory that inside of light at such a level that can't be measured by modern science, there exist a piece of matter that is capable of creating life or is life in itself, and can live/grow/adapt with the help of certain chemical reactions (such as I'm proposing happens with water).
Anyone have any advise to make or break this theory?
and please if your gonna try to bust my balls at least have the data to back it up, or let me know of your references (if your a optics professor etc...) so I can take you seriously.