@Steve: it seems that we had a misunderstanding, which was possibly cleared by Ioannis. So we should be more precise about the issues at hand. Here is what I mean by saying that graphene is a two-dimensional structure: I do indeed think of the atoms as pure points without extent in any direction. These points are aligned in a two-dimensional hexagonal lattice. In the ideal case which I consider as the simplest theoretical model, this lattice is infinite. So when I was talking about "rings" in the previous posts, I meant the small hexagons which make up the lattice.
Of course in reality, the atoms are not just points, but have some internal structure and in particular a size. In this sense, they are certainly three-dimensional objects. However for the simple model which I consider in my essay---and which is indeed the standard approximation giving results consistent with experiment---the finite size of the atoms is not relevant and enters the calculation only in a very indirect sense.
Did this clear up the confusion? If not, please explain in detail what you mean by saying that "it's real 3D".
And then, no, sorry if I don't understand the "polarity between between mass and light in time space evolution". While I am familiar with polarity as a mathematical term in convex geometry, I have never heard it in this context. Sometimes it is difficult to find the sense in your writing; maybe you can try to explain things more precisely and in less prosaic terms?
@Ioannis: yes, of course, thanks for pointing out that this may have been the misunderstanding!
