O'Nero Samuel

The Higgs field, I believe, has a crucial role in unifying the fundamental forces of the universe. The generation of mass from interaction with higgs boson should give us something with which we could trace the source of gravitation, and unify the four forces into a system. There is a system for sure, its just that we still haven't got enough information to decipher it. The generation of mass, I believe has a crucial role, and gives an arbitrary answer to the question of this thread. There is an interaction between higgs boson, electromagnetic waves and gravitation in relation to subatomic particles. This sounds very speculative, but it seem to put "it all" in a nut shell.

I agree you have to get more specific with your question. It could be simple, or even insightful; but its just too vague.

"We would find out the necessity of an aether when we deepen our knowledge of EM waves". And we certainly will. Come to think of it, if there actually is an aether (new aether according to Einstein) then its existence would require an effect. This effects is what motivates the quest to prove its existence. But what would they be?

Is n permitivity of the transmitting space/medium, refractive index or some sorte of "dielectric" constant that determine the speed at which light travels?

Thermodynamics tells us that the enthalpy change of a system(allow me to call it heat content) is the sum total of the rms value of the kinetic energy of its molecules. Physics handles this quite conviniently, as long as the molecules are not reacting to form new products; in which case we stpp dealing with these mlloclles independently. Then we start talking about heat of reaction. Now here is a conclusion: we can solve the physics of small particles, even down to photons, as long as they are not reacting to form new particles. Please someone tell me I'm wrong. But when they are, in most cases, we just wait for the chaos to form systems, and know their composite element: this then is CHEMISTRY, eh?

That is to say that in vacuum, photons travels at c (the speed of light), but through a medium, photons are transmitted at a speed, v=c/n, relative to our frame of reference.

Why do they always seperate chemistry from physics when it comes to questions like this?

Now that is another perspective. If life is as we currently describe it to be, how then can we differentiate the living from the dead?

In my own thesis I call that a zero function. And if that is it then you are right. Funny you have to bring this up. Maybe weird. But you are right that was an aether. Though this might sound highly speculative but an aether is really a zero function. What do you really understand about your interpolation in relation to an aether?

Please could you provide a link or file to that experiment? Firstly, there is the "old aether" and the "new aether". The problem of the old aether are those you just outlined; is it rigid? Mobile? A fluid filling all of space? etc. I believe the role of this aether is more arbitrary than mainstream science would want to make it. But instead of describing what it is, lets look at some arbitrarily glaring properties of the suposed aether. Firstly, the presence of an aether has no obvious effect on EM waves and its transmission; that was why Lorentz's covarent transform and special theory of relativity arrived at similar conclusion. Secondly, the conclusions of the special and general theory of relativity implies the need for an aether(as proposed by Paul Dirac) and Einstien has to come up with the New aether. Einstein talked of aether of mechanics and aether of electrodynamics. Due to the cancellation of its immobility, the aether then has to be four dimensional; this gave birth to Einstein's "aether of special relativity". Due to the absolute nature of this aether, this gave birth to "the aether of general relativity". Now matter is influenced by this aether and matter influences the structure of this aether. Now dont you ever wonder why modern physics swallowed the whole of relativity and ignored the new aether proposed by Einstein?

Paul Dirac also concluded that it would come to a point where we would be forced to have an aether. And ladies and gentlemen this is that point. Sure the wave/particle duality explains the transmissiom of EM waves without any medium quite okay, but doesn't despense the Lorentz covarience. A. Einstein, knowing that we would eventually be forced to require an aether introduced the "New aether", born out of the juxtaposition of the special and general theory of relativity. I wonder why "moderm physics" decided to do away with this "New aether". I'm sensing the invisible hands of Occam's beautiful razor, with its love for simplicity and "elegance" in play. If only we could think deeper and further than the inconviniences created by this new aether we would see the answers to so many unanswered questions; the likes of dark energy and dark matter. And here, I'm sure, lies the answer to my energy transmission through EM waves.

If light requires a medium for its transmission, this medium (aether) must transmit light vibrations faster than the speed of light. This medium would have to fill the whole of space (ie be a fluid) and also be rigid enough(many times more than steel) to transmit such high frequency vibrations. This was Newton. This aether must be immobile, in other words, be an "absolute frame of reference". The special theory of relativity knocked of this presumption of immobility of aether. Lorentz theory, based on the assumption of an aether was also gotten from the special theory without the assumption of any aether. And once again the occam's razor had to come into play. But according to Lorentz, "whether there is an aether or not, EM fields certainly exist. . .", and dont be surprised to know that no violation of Lorentz covarience have ever been detected despite streneous effort.

I've been thinking about the three proposition you made about the transmission of light. Firstly, 1 can not be true. Because light transmitted without any medium would be preposterous. Thiscwould change the entire definition of time, and the defferential interaction of logic. Now forget the last line, that is the madness I've been fighting with. But if you think deep into it, you would understand it, but probably not comprehend it, just like I dont. Firstly, 1 can not be true. Because light transmitted alone without any medium would be preposterous. This would change the entire definition of time, and the defferential interaction of logic. Now forget the last line, that is the madness I've been fighting with. But if you think deep into it, you would understand it, but probably not comprehend it, just like I dont. Secondly, light travelling with a medium would be more ludicrous: ie taking into account energy content and its interactions with the medium, correlating with such speed. With this, relativity would not be what it is. With the third, with light as a cargo, seem more convinient with our mainstream science, but as you pointed out, this would leave us with more questions than answers. We would see its complex correlated aftermath as virtual propisitions that we cannot conviniently manupulate; eg dark matter, dark energy, higgs' field, etcetra. With this three propositions we see a trade off between convinience, understanding and comprehension, but not necessarily in that order. This would sound speculative and ambiguous, and totally out of line with scientific conceptions, but I believe 1 & 3 has a propensity to be correct. Ask how and I would elucidate. But I hope my point is apparent.

It is, but to a minimum extent. Unlike those intimidating power cables and high tension wires. I understand your point. Due to the amount of power to be transmitted, it'd be ill-adviced. And I can't think of any current way of reducing the power, transmitting, then transforming back to its initial state. Though somewhere in my head still believe there is a way out but we have not yet looked in that direction. Thank you very much, you've been of great help. But if you have any recomendations or direction you think I should look at pleasd do point out the way.

Okay. I think you have a point there. But in this case described, the EM wave (laser beam) has to travel in a straight line, unlike telecommunication system. And it ionises anything between it and the target. Intensity also comes into play. Sorry for going over this again, but let me put it in the lamest term. Can one transmit electrical energy from a source State or country(Dam) to another state or country (comsumer) with EM waves just like telcom. and with minimum ionising effect in air? If not, why not? What would be the obstacles of such proposition? It might sound really lame, my proposition I mean, but I dont like those big power cables litering my city and streets.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that, in both cases, the bulb lights up due to induction. If the distance between the energy source and the light bulb, or taking the bulb some distance away from the microwave, with the door left ajar, the inductive effect would be diminished to almost zero. Let me use a common analogy; sound energy to electrical then to EM Wave back to electrical and then to sound. This is the energy transformation process in telecommunication. Can similar transformation path be used to light this bulb?

Thanks for the tip. Vitalism seem to be the closest to what I was getting at. I believe that they weren't looking at the theory from the appropraite perspective. They made bold presumptions without solid background; like about organic and inorganic substaces. But these claims should have been more subtle. Given current scientific discoveries, one should look again at this theory. There seem to be an underlying truth that might change our medcine forever. Physicist could actually solve life!

Thank you for your response but I don't think there is any organism built by the combination of viruses. Let me rephrase the question; what is the smallest intersecting particle between biology and physics?

I wonder sometimes, should this be the quest of Physicist or Biologist? Here is my question: What is the smallest unit of life that is complete on its own, and which forms the building block of all things living? Can it be manupulated to create life or to give life. I know my question isn't acurately framed, but I hope someone understands my question.

Does that mean that one can travel back in time with present memories?

That, I believe is not the ides. If something like that actually works and you put the cat in an S-box, the cat wouldn't be in the box after the experiment, and neither would you be by your S-box. Both of you would be transported back to a time when the cat was not dead and you weren't even with it. This is to say that if backwards time travel was possible, then it can not be isolated. Has anyone watched a movie TERA NOVA? I believe they made this flaw, ie if I was correct in the first place. The machine would somehow map out the limit to its back time travel? The machine would somehow map out the limit to its back time travel?

If EM waves are traveling on something, that would for sure help my quest. But, that would rather complicate everything. Can electrical energy generated from a dynamo be transmitted to, say, a light bulb without a conductor? Or maybe through EM waves. I want to work on something like this but I'd need to know my obstacles. If EM waves actually travels on something, it would be a lot more easier, all I'd have to do is find out that something. But if not, then there goes my nemesis.

"When you see a wave its just energy traveling on something"? What then would you say of EM waves, which do not travel on something?

Maths and physics are twins joined by brain. There isn't any gifted hands that can seperate them. That is why mathematicians are almost always physicist, and vice versa.

Thanks for the advice, I think I'd do just that. Thanks for the advice! I think I'd do just that.