The metaphysics on light is a turn in Islamic peripatetic/Neoplatonic philosophy, which substituted Light for Being; it's associated with Suhrawardi.
There are is also a corresponding development in Kashmir, by the Kashmiri philosopher Abhinavagupta; and which, according to this conventionally scholarly thesis by Kirk Templeton was independent.
This, though is well outside the framework you're exploring - modern, contemporary, and physics based; though there is some correspondance with phenomenology, perhaps - light being that by which we see: some other element or medium that is neccessary to bring the object to the subject; or take the subject to the object.
This may seem exotic, outré and eccentric, but Frank Wilzek (2004 joint Nobel Laureate) points out in his book,The Lightness of Being - which is discursive in the usual manner that:
A central theme of this book is that the ancient dichotomy between celestial light and earthy matter has been transcended. In modern physics, all the stuff out there is unified into one Being more like the traditional idea of light than of matter.
I haven't read the book, so I can't say much more on it; but I expect that the argument will be similar to how visible light is only a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and this is generally accepted; the next step is to note that all the modern theories of forces (apart from gravity) are couched in theoretical terms taken from Maxwell, Freeman Dyson quotes him as saying (reprinted in only the second volume of Nature):
Another theory of electricity which I prefer denies action at a distance, and attributes electric action to tensions and stresses in an all-pervading medium, these stresses being the same in kind familiar to engineers and the medium being identical to that in which light is propagated.
The terms highlighted is what Einstein
managed to introduce to gravity.
Generally, Maxwells equation are presented as a set of four vector equations; but why four dimensions? Can we generalise for higher - and it turns out we can (using the language of forms), and better the equations simplify to an almost symmetrical pair of equations - so the number of equations have been cut in half (originally Maxwell had twenty equations - so there's been a long process of chipping them down).
But more, in this form it's also true for any curved space - this is also very useful because physically, spacetime is curved; and we need the equations to be valid in just such a context and not the usual boring Euclidean space that we're all used to simply by living, being and perceiving.
The second development is to notice that light has a hidden symmetry - a circle; this can be made a little more explicit if you view light as a travelling wave with transverse components of a magnetic and electric field.
This is most easily seen visually; but in words if you take the vector sum of the field strengths you get exactly what looks like a clock-hand spinning around a circle; and this picture and metaphor is useful as light beats out time.
This is the hidden symmetry of light;
Geometrically thought of as a circle; it's also referred to as 'gauge freedom', or 'internal symmetry space'.
The next step was taken by Yang and Mills; when they replaced the circle by higher spheres.
It's in this form that EM and the weak force was unified - electroweak and then the strong force formulated.
Then the obvious thing to think, is that given the origins of this theoretical development in Maxwells EM, to see corresponding features in its concrete generalisations.
Interestingly, gravity itself can be cast into this language (but whereas light can be quantised in this language, gravity still proves resistant).
This is one of the key moves in the last century - geometrisation; not only in physics, but also number theory (ie Grothendiecks theory of schemes) ; they're essentially the same language - fibre- bundles or just bundles: whereas GR just has spacetime, EM for example, attaches (or bundles) a fibre (which looks like a circle or sphere) at every point.
Actually, all this is also interesting from a metaphysics of light perspective; given geometry is something we do by eye - as opposed to algebra which we do by touch ie counting on ones fingers.
But this isn't really what the metaphysics is about; the locus classicus is Socrates in the Republic, where he asks why is a third thing is required to see - the Sun.