How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?

[Sensei]

14 hours ago, Capiert said:

If that is because it is NOT round
 then please describe
 this real particle's shape.
I.e. Photon.

None a single particle has the shape..

 

If you have many particles bound together by forces (e.g. proton, meson, exotic atom), they have what can be called shape ("the probability density function of finding a particle in a certain place at a certain time").

 

Look. particles mostly pass through each other undetected. Hence the Geiger-Marsden experiments, also known as the Rutherford gold foil experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger–Marsden_experiments

When there is a lot of them, e.g. thick layer of Gold, particles eventually hit something and are being reflected. But some of them pass through it like they were flying through nothing..

Macroscopical equivalent is a swarm of meteors passing through the solar system.. A collision with some planet occurs after billions of years.

 

If you have macroscopic object with billions of billions particles e.g. ball, it will hit the wall, and being reflected by it, there is billions of billions particles in the ball, and there is billions of billions of particles in the wall which interact.

If we have a single particle and a single "target," the chance of hitting and interacting is extremely low.

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm really glad someone knew the answer.
Thanks

I am sorry, I didn't pay attention and did not notice that the question was directed to you. Deleted.

[Sensei]

15 hours ago, Capiert said:

Naturally I have NOT co_related
 the photon's intensity
 to its size.

But why NOT?

 

Diameter has a unit of meters, area has a unit of meters ^ 2. Volume has a unit of meters ^ 3.
What is the unit of intensity? What is the unit of power? What is the unit of energy?

 

 

[geordief]

@Genady  Don't worry.I generally /often just quote content rather than the particular poster.

Feel free to jump in .

Edited February 17 by geordief

[Capiert]

On 2/16/2024 at 10:33 PM, Bufofrog said:

EM radiation and water waves are very different things.  A water wave is a disturbance in a medium.  EM waves are not a disturbance in a medium,

How do you KNOW
 if they (EM_waves)
 are NOT
 a disturbance
 in a medium?

Science can only measure,
 but its technical ability
 is limited;
 & often needs
 to be invented
 (in the future).

E.g. More accurate measurements.

Nature does NOT make exceptions;
 but people do.

On 2/16/2024 at 10:33 PM, Bufofrog said:

they are a disturbance in a field.

What'( i)s that?
What is a field?

I ONLY use that word intuitively
 (NON_specifically, generally)
 the way I am accustomed (traditionally).

E.g. For an acre (where the crops grow,
 also has the Earth's magnetic field
 in &/or around it;
 or a playing_field
 where the magnetism
 dances around.

E.g. A spray (~fog)
 of magnetism (produced,
 perhaps from
 (high_)speed collision (or) distortion
 against (our) stationary matter (wrt the Earth).
In other words,
 NOT the whole picture,
 i.e. ONLY part of the picture,
 e.g. the changes (=differences) that happen
 (when colliding with (or against) disturbances).

Some abstract thing,
 usually area;
 (but) it could be volume;
 or a topic=theme
 field of knowledge.

On 2/16/2024 at 11:52 PM, Sensei said:

On 2/16/2024 at 10:52 PM, Capiert said:

what does it look like?

Is it round like a ball?

None a single particle has the shape..

I DON'T understand that sentence.
Could you please restate it, differently?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Capiert said:

How do you KNOW
 if they (EM_waves)
 are NOT
 a disturbance
 in a medium?

Because we’ve done experiments. A medium has to have properties, and have a measurable effect on light.

Stellar aberration tells us that if there is a medium responsible for the deflection of the light, the medium is stationary and we must be moving through it. 

But when Michelson and Morley trued tried to confirm that with an interferometer, they could not measure any effect on light - IOW we are not moving through any medium.

These results are in conflict, if there is a medium. 

2 hours ago, Capiert said:

Science can only measure,
 but its technical ability
 is limited;
 & often needs
 to be invented
 (in the future).

E.g. More accurate measurements.

 

The experiments were of sufficient accuracy and precision. We can measure the stellar aberration. That was done ca. 1725. The Michelson interferometer was capable of sufficient accuracy to measure the effect if aberration was due to a medium.

[Capiert]

On 2/16/2024 at 11:52 PM, Sensei said:

It is relative. The one observer will detect it as 21 cm, the other might it detect as 42 cm (red shifted), the other might it detect as 10.5 cm (blue shifted). Actually any wavelength. Because in Special Relativity you have no absolute wavelengths..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Blueshift

 

None a single particle has the shape..

 

Such questions have no sense..

Particle is detected if it interacts ("hits") the other particle. If it hits it, it transfers some physical quantity on the second particle. Therefore we know there was interaction..

So really your data
 is about interactions;
 & NOT particles.

But you have the nerve to say "particles", instead;
 so that people might understand
 (at least the substitute (name)).(?)

On 2/16/2024 at 11:52 PM, Sensei said:

The diameter of an atom can be "measured" because scientists use the flux of other particles toward the nucleus. If these are reflected, the "diameter" of the multi-particle entity, called the "nucleus," can be measured by the angles at which the initial particles were reflected.

It is called cross section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_section_(physics)

The different isotopes have different cross sections.

 

"If a poacher shoots birds with a shotgun, he will eventually shoot any bird.."

That sure sounds like hit & mis(sed).
It does leave me doubting a bit.
E.g.
You assume
 hitting the atom(s)
 dead on 0°
 at their center
 when measuring
 their reflected angle?
& with thermal motion.

How do you know?

That is surely bound
 to fail!

It's NO wonder
 your data
 does NOT (always) corelate
 with real sizes.

It's a MESS!

On 2/16/2024 at 11:52 PM, Sensei said:

The wavelength is a property of the particle. Its (kinetic) energy can be mentioned instead of wavelength and get the same results.. e.g. the beam of electrons in vacuum with kinetic energy of 100 keV has similar effects on the matter as beam of photons with 100 keV. e.g. electrons in the matter will be excited and/or ejected (with the exception that other physical quantities such as Lepton number,

What is Lepton number?

On 2/16/2024 at 11:52 PM, Sensei said:

must be preserved, so electron gives its kinetic energy, and is not disappearing (is not absorbed) ).

Instead of saying "green photon" or "photon with a wavelength of 532 nm," you can say "photon with an energy of 2.33 eV." It's all the same.

Good!

On 2/17/2024 at 12:52 AM, Genady said:

In QFT, photon does not have dimensions.

I guess you mean,
 we can NOT measure
 a photon's dimensions (yet).

We ONLY have theory,
 e.g. assumptions.

[Genady]

16 minutes ago, Capiert said:

I guess you mean,

You are free to guess.

[Bufofrog]

20 minutes ago, Capiert said:

That sure sounds like hit & mis(sed).
It does leave me doubting a bit.
E.g.
You assume
 hitting the atom(s)
 dead on 0°
 at their center
 when measuring
 their reflected angle?
& with thermal motion.

How do you know?

That is surely bound
 to fail!

It's NO wonder
 your data
 does NOT (always) corelate
 with real sizes.

It's a MESS!

The only mess

is your laughable (humorous)

anti-science (stupid)

trolling attempts.

Your -69 rep 

points are very

much deserved.

 

Edited February 18 by Bufofrog

[Capiert]

On 2/17/2024 at 1:18 AM, swansont said:

On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

Real particles
 have real dimensions.

Not so much. Fundamental particles are point-like.

That sounds like
 you are taking center of mass
 into account.
E.g. Going virtual,
 math conversion.

On 2/17/2024 at 1:18 AM, swansont said:

 

Physical size has little meaning in QM;

QM?
Mechanics is the study
 of mass's motion. (y/n)?

On 2/17/2024 at 1:18 AM, swansont said:

it’s the interactions that matter.

It'( i)s doubtful
 anyone
 would understand that
 (those interactions).

I'( a)m (truly) amazed
 chemist can make
 3D views
 of (the) atoms. 
 

On 2/17/2024 at 1:18 AM, swansont said:

EM radiation requires no medium;

That'( statement) i)s
 what makes me wonder.

How do you know?

On 2/17/2024 at 1:18 AM, swansont said:

electric and magnetic fields can and do exist in a vacuum.

The rest is ok.

[MigL]

OMG !
Et tu, Bufofrog.

Reading  Capiert's posts actually hurts ...
Now you're doing it too ?

[Capiert]

On 2/17/2024 at 1:19 AM, Bufofrog said:

On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

I suspect I need
 a comparison
 of a field
 & a medium.

Then you need some work to do don't you.

I guess so,
 because my question
 "What is a field?"
 was NOT answered.

On 2/17/2024 at 1:19 AM, Bufofrog said:

On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

But I suspect
 you are implying
 that photons
 are (particles)
 too small to see.

Nope not saying that at all.  Most anti-science trolls

Do you also believe in trolls?
I DON'T.

On 2/17/2024 at 1:19 AM, Bufofrog said:

have some knowledge about science, I guess you are the outlier.

Ever consider (then)
 that I am NOT a Troll?
Scientists (as well as any person)
 do make false assumptions.
To error is human.

On 2/17/2024 at 1:19 AM, Bufofrog said:

On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

I have a big gulf (gorge)
 between
 talking about
 a wave_"length"
 e.g. 21 cm
 versus
 something
 as small
 as an optical photon.

Expand  

Yes, that is because you have not spent any time to learn anything.  Photons can have a wave length of a kilometer, so you must think those photons are 1 km in size?  Maybe this will help the wavelength has nothing to do with the 'size' of a photon.

On the contrary.
I'm fascinated.
I NEVER thought of a 1 km concept before.
Nature is systematic (=NO exceptions).

On 2/17/2024 at 1:19 AM, Bufofrog said:

On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

It does NOT make sense.

Well if you can't understand it then we must immediately change all of our theories!

Joker! 

On 2/17/2024 at 1:19 AM, Bufofrog said:

On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

If that is because it is NOT round
 then please describe
 this real particle's shape.
I.e. Photon.

I think I already said that a photon doesn't look like anything.  It makes no sense to think a photon looks like something.

Sorry, but I will NEVER understand that.
I'm too old fashioned.
Physical means for me some sort
 of form
 when dealing with particles.

(Yes)
Optically we can NOT see
 a (single) photon's shape;
 but I would like
 to (at least) conceive
 of 1.

-400 years ago,
 atoms
 were NOT imagined.

Now we have 3D models
 of them
 & their nuclei.

On 2/17/2024 at 1:19 AM, Bufofrog said:

On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

Naturally I have NOT co_related
 the photon's intensity
 to its size.

But why NOT?

Because that is nonsense.

100's of years ago,
 light's_speed was instant;
 til someone began
 trying to measure it.

Was that "instant"
 an amount
 of time;
 or NO time?
(Descartes).
 

On 2/17/2024 at 1:27 AM, KJW said:

On 2/16/2024 at 10:27 PM, Capiert said:

Why do water_waves need a medium?

What is a water wave without the water?

That'( i)s a good question (analogy).

On 2/17/2024 at 1:27 AM, KJW said:

In the case of an electromagnetic wave, without the medium, one still has the electromagnetic wave.

An electromagnetic wave
 is NOTHING
 without electromagnetism!

Thus electromagnetism
 must be its medium.

That includes
 the electromagnetism's functionality.
E.g. The way it behaves.

I can NOT see air
 & I (can) barely sense it
 (as though it does NOT exist
although it does (exist);
 but it (=air)
 propagates
 sound waves.

 

[Bufofrog]

7 minutes ago, Capiert said:

I guess so,
 because my question
 "What is a field?"
 was NOT answered.

Oh no!  

It would be

just awful if

you had expend

a little effort

to look it up.

10 minutes ago, Capiert said:

100's of years ago,
 light's_speed was instant;
 til someone began
 trying to measure it.

Very good!  We 

did not use to

know the speed

of light.

23 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Was that "instant"
 an amount
 of time;
 or NO time?
(Descartes).

I don't know

what they (them) 

thought, what do

you think?.  (Descartes?)

[Capiert]

On 2/17/2024 at 4:45 AM, MigL said:

An Electromagnetic Field is a value and direction ( vector ) associated with each point in space.

That is a mighty tall (=big, =demanding) sentence(=statement).

That means an infinite number
 of points!

E.g.
Although you (generally) specify
 specific (limited)
 numbers
 of flux lines
 (per area or per volume).

On 2/17/2024 at 4:45 AM, MigL said:

A Medium is a particle at each point in space, that has an oscillation as part of its motion.

OK. I find that interesting.
From NOTHING
 e.g. a field's virtual (math) point;
 the mass "grows"
 around that point
 to e.g. an atom (or molecule);
 & thus due to electrostatic (& magnetic) repulsion,
 excludes further mass
 in that mass's volume.

The atoms are born
 (in conception);
 & a (math) continuum
 is established.

Bravo!

From virtual((it)ly =NOTHING),
to real (matter).

On 2/17/2024 at 4:45 AM, MigL said:

A Photon is best described as a point ( dimensionless )

When I see
 that "dimensionless"
 I think
 of,
 NO x,y,z lengths
 (e.g. differences).

On 2/17/2024 at 4:45 AM, MigL said:

quantum particle
that is 'smeared out' over a volume with no distinct edge.

Bizzare!

On 2/17/2024 at 4:45 AM, MigL said:

But in its other model of a wave, an 'exact' value of its energy will make its wavelength infinitely long, so it is in no way related to its size.

I think
 I will need
 an example there,
 why that (photon) wavelength
 will become infinite
 (with an "exact" energy value).

On 2/17/2024 at 4:45 AM, MigL said:

You may have gathered, by now, that quantum objects don't act the same as macroscopic objects.

Yes.
Einstein, Schroedinger, & Feynmann
 NEVER liked QM.

On 2/17/2024 at 4:45 AM, MigL said:

So, I ask, again, why do you think quantum particles, like photons, would need a medium like macroscopic objects, such as water waves, do ?  

Simply because nature
 does NOT make exceptions
 but people do.

& your (photons') "lambda" wavelengths
 are (ruffly=approx.)
"squared" values.

Disclaimer:

I'( a)m only answering
 your question.

We live in an electromechanical universe.

It (=matter) functions elastically
 with charge (repulsion).
Charge always has mass
 (e.g. e/m ratio);
 but the opposite
 is NOT true.
It seems we can have mass
 without charge.
But that is probably NOT true
 e.g. tiny amount (negative)
 in the neutron.

Moving
 Charge deals with electromagnetism.

Quantum calculations
 have failed
 in the past
 for the proton's gyromagnetic ratio
 although scientist's thought
 their predictions were (absolutely) dead sure.
They were NOT correct.
Measurements gave different results.
 

Edited February 18 by Capiert

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

QM?
Mechanics is the study
 of mass's motion. (y/n)?

QM = quantum mechanics

Which has little to do with trajectories, but does study the quantities that classical mechanics studies, e.g. energy and momentum 

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

It'( i)s doubtful
 anyone
 would understand that
 (those interactions).

Don’t project your confusion onto others.

42 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Quantum calculations
 have failed
 in the past
 for the proton's gyromagnetic ratio
 although scientist's thought
 their predictions were (absolutely) dead sure.
They were NOT correct.
Measurements gave different results.

Welcome to science. 

When experiment and theory disagree, you modify the theory. We’ve been doing that for hundreds of years.

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

An electromagnetic wave
 is NOTHING
 without electromagnetism!

Thus electromagnetism
 must be its medium.

And what is this substance you call electromagnetism? What are its properties? Density, elasticity, compressibility, etc.? How would you measure them?

And how do you tell if you are moving through it, or stationary with respect to it?

[Capiert]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

QM = quantum mechanics

Which has little to do with trajectories, but does study the quantities that classical mechanics studies, e.g. energy and momentum 

Don’t project your confusion onto others.

Welcome to science. 

Thank you.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

When experiment and theory disagree, you modify the theory. We’ve been doing that for hundreds of years.

It meant
 you(r scientists)
 were WRONG!

Why should things
 be different now?

Mistakes will happen.

Nobody is perfect.

When experiment and theory disagree, & you modify it (=the theory)
 then please DON'T expect me
 to believe it.
(You'( ha)ve lost credibility.)

You are still learning.

(Meaning you DON'T know everything yet
 (& NEVER will,
 because NOBODY can know everything, right?)).

NOBODY expects my claims
 to know everything
 or anything.

But everybody
 expects yours
 are correct (now)
 even when they get thrown out
 20 years later (in the future).

I'm just trying
 to figure things out;
 & buffer myself (preventatively)
 (against) when you change your minds(' opinions).
E.g.
 (Your) Old idea out,
 new idea in (takes over).

On 2/17/2024 at 1:26 PM, John Cuthber said:

On 2/16/2024 at 10:34 PM, Capiert said:

What do you mean there, John?

I mean that it's impossible to define your speed with respect to a vacuum.

Yes perhaps in the infinitive sense.
But I still can NOT see a connection.
Speed needs
 to be with respect
 to a(n other) speed.
That means,
 you need an(other) object, body, mass (momentum).
A vacuum is NOTHING=NO mass, object, NOR body. 

On 2/17/2024 at 1:26 PM, John Cuthber said:

(This makes life rather difficult for traffic police in interstellar space.)

You bet!

 

On 2/17/2024 at 2:40 PM, geordief said:

On 2/17/2024 at 1:26 PM, John Cuthber said:

mean that it's impossible to define your speed with respect to a vacuum

If the vacuum
 is filled with quantum foam
 (a big "if", as I don't understand what that means)

You are NOT the ONLY 1

On 2/17/2024 at 2:40 PM, geordief said:

 could an object's speed/velocity be referred
 to different locations in that quantum foam?

Does the term "location" not apply,
perhaps wrt quantum foam?

Said in another way,
 could the quantum foam be considered
to be a medium?

A rose
 (re)named
 anything else,
 smells just a sweet.

[TheVat]

So (i see)

they moved the e.e. cummings

style contest to

here (this thread))

and he who pays attention

to the syntax of things

will never wholly

win?

[Capiert]

On 2/17/2024 at 3:18 PM, MigL said:

Quantum foam 'exists' ( ? )
 at a scale where space-time becomes chaotic,
 and virtual particles b
 ( the ones without a defined position or momentum )
 pop in and out of existence
( for an undefined time ).
How would you specify a position relative to it ?

I "guess", statistically,
 wrt to an average.
E.g. The forest;
 NOT the tree(s).

On 2/17/2024 at 3:18 PM, MigL said:

You can consider anything a medium, but what is actually 'waving' ?

Noise?

On 2/17/2024 at 3:30 PM, Sensei said:

On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

If that is because it is NOT round
 then please describe
 this real particle's shape.
I.e. Photon.

None a single particle has the shape..

I guess what confuses me there
 is 2 answers
 (in 1 sentence).

Are you saying:
 a photon
 does NOT have a shape.
(But)
 Only a (single) particle
 has a shape.
?

E.g. (It has)
None (=NO shape), a single particle has (a) shape
 ((but) NOT a photon).

On 2/17/2024 at 3:30 PM, Sensei said:

If you have many particles bound together by forces (e.g. proton, meson, exotic atom), they have what can be called shape ("the probability density function of finding a particle in a certain place at a certain time").

That'( i)s a good explaination.

On 2/17/2024 at 3:30 PM, Sensei said:

Look. particles mostly pass through each other undetected. Hence the Geiger-Marsden experiments, also known as the Rutherford gold foil experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger–Marsden_experiments

When there is a lot of them, e.g. thick layer of Gold, particles eventually hit something and are being reflected. But some of them pass through it like they were flying through nothing.

Macroscopical equivalent is a swarm of meteors passing through the solar system. A collision with some planet occurs after billions of years.

 

If you have macroscopic object with billions of billions particles e.g. ball, it will hit the wall, and being reflected by it, there is billions of billions particles in the ball, and there is billions of billions of particles in the wall which interact.

If we have a single particle and a single "target," the chance of hitting and interacting is extremely low.

Good.

[swansont]

49 minutes ago, Capiert said:

It meant
 you(r scientists)
 were WRONG!

Why should things
 be different now?

Mistakes will happen.

Nobody is perfect.

And how did we know that they were wrong? Because they did the experiment and reported the results. 

If you are trying to insinuate that because a result differed from theory that all results are suspect, the answer is no, that’s arguing in bad faith. You have to have evidence.

[Capiert]

On 2/17/2024 at 3:40 PM, Sensei said:

On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

Naturally I have NOT co_related
 the photon's intensity
 to its size.

But why NOT?

Diameter has a unit of meters, area has a unit of meters ^ 2. Volume has a unit of meters ^ 3.
What is the unit of intensity?

Maybe, we could give it (=Intensity)
 the units
 for the
 (average_)momentum squared
 per area, or per volume
 so it would be some kind
 of density,
 as
 kilograms_squared
 meters_squared
 per
 second_squared
 per meters_(squared or else )cubed.?

On 2/17/2024 at 3:40 PM, Sensei said:

What is the unit of power?

Power's unit
 is Joule per second.

On 2/17/2024 at 3:40 PM, Sensei said:

What is the unit of energy?

Energy's unit
 is Joule
 or
 kilogram
 meters_squared
 per second_squared.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Capiert said:

NOBODY expects my claims
 to know everything
 or anything.

No. We expect you to know some things. You repeatedly fall short of a reasonable expectation to have done some study. You demand that we spoon-feed you information. And you’re rude in doing so.

 

2 hours ago, Capiert said:

But everybody
 expects yours
 are correct (now)
 even when they get thrown out
 20 years later (in the future).

You go with the best theory available to you. Science can’t progress if you ignore a model because it might show some disagreement with an experiment 20 years in the future.

If the result needs the extra precision that 20 years brings, to show disagreement, then the basic model is pretty good. 

[Capiert]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

7 hours ago, Capiert said:

How do you KNOW
 if they (EM_waves)
 are NOT
 a disturbance
 in a medium?

Because we’ve done experiments. A medium has to have properties, and have a measurable effect on light.

I think the most significant (=notice_able)
 affect
 on light
 is the medium
 slows down light
 (e.g. due to the medium's mass (density).

The reverse (logic)
 would be:
 light would travel
 at infinite_speed
 in NO time(_delay)
 if there were NO medium.

Does light go so fast
 e.g.
 at infinite_speed
 taking NO_time?

NO it does NOT.
So what is slowing light down?

Perhaps a medium?

The devil is in the detail(s).

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Stellar aberration tells us that if there is a medium responsible for the deflection of the light, the medium is stationary and we must be moving through it. 

That'( i)s what bugs me.
Michelson threw a distraction
 into the project
 at the very 1st
 to distract
 sidetrack
 & confuse (us),
 with an uncleared topic=theme,
 just to divert us.

E.g. (To) Waste & exhaust
 our brainpower.

Einstein used a similar method too
 (early in his career
 with other themes).

Tired we wouldN'T bother further
 to search.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

But when Michelson and Morley tried to confirm that with an interferometer, they could not measure any effect on light

That'( i)s NOT true.
Michelson's 1st attempt in 1881 failed
 as NOT suitable
 for the search.
 

In that paper
 he clearly stated Maxwell's recommendation
 to abandon
 terrestrial
 forth & back light experiments
 on Earth
 (in favor of astronomical observations
 of Jupiter's moons).
Maxwell stated (=predicted)
 ONLY a (useless*)
 tiny wee observation*
 would be observable
 with such forth_&_back light experiments
 (that Michelson intended)
 on Earth
 (because he (Maxwell) had done a similar
 (although NOT identical)
 experiment,
 years before (his death).
(*E.g. much less than 1% observed,
 when more than 50%
 would be needed
 to decide).
 

But (Maxwell was)
 talked out
 of publishing it
 (by Stokes)
 because it would have insulted Fizeau.

Maxwell mailed the
(bidirectional, forth & back)
experiment_calculations
to Higgens
(who eventually published
 it as a letter).

Stokes found a 3 page letter (note)
 (for the 1_way Jupiter astronomy observation proposal)
 after Maxwell died
 & rated it as "important"!

Michelson read that 3 page note
 & rejected it
 stating any observation could be made
 no matter how small (& tiny).

But he (=Michelson) was NOT prepared for the thermal (noise) motion.
His (=Michelson’s) original 1881 experiment flopped.

Later in 1887 he (=Michelson) teamed up
 with the chemist Morley
 to perform
 the (Earth's speed v)
 experiment
 in (Alexander Graham) Bell's lab(s).
The telephone inventor
 because of his (=Bell’s) sick wife.

Granite slab
 floating on Mercury
 hindered (=reduced)
 vibration
 in the cellar.

Michelson managed to synchronize
 the 2
 90°
 multi_reflected light_beams
 between 5 cm metal mirrors
 each about 8 times
 for the extra_distance needed
 for increased accuracy.

According to the calculations
 the beams a NOT suppose to meet
 because of too much (time) delay,
 but they did.

& there is 1 (asymmetric 90°) path
 with enough tolerance
 in which both beams
 are equally delayed,
 fig 2 (1887)
 if the bean goes straight up
 hitting
 the mirror at 90°
 (instead of slanted up
 at an angle)
 & then diagonally down.
 

The sketch Fig. 2
 also demonstrates
 inconsistency
 in the input
 incident (45° mirror) angle,
 compared to the further reflection (at 90°, above).
E.g. More carelessness.

1 footnote 1887 mentions a (confusing) correction to 1881.
 

Michelson was astounded
 that the results were so small
 & (thus) questioned
 whether the medium existed
 at all.

Physicists did NOT want to hear about Michelson’s results
 expecting an answer (explaination)
 would be found later.

A decade past
 & Michelson’s WRONG experiment
 was an eye_sore,
 even for Lenard.

Michelson did NOT get a Nobel prize
 for his Earth speed experiment 1887
 because he proved NOTHING, there.

(You do NOT get a Nobel prize
 for disproving something;
 you get a prize for finding (=discovering) something.)

Einstein also did NOT get a Nobel prize for Relativity.

Instead, Michelson received the 1907 Nobel Prize privately
 for his diffraction_grating Echelon spectroscope experiment(al accuracy) 1898
 because the Swedish King died 3 days before.
So there was NO party, instead mourning.

 

Michelson continued
 (WRONGLY) experimenting
 for the Earth’s speed
 til his death
 because he also
 could NOT believe
 light had NO medium.

But hey,
 tuff luck
 if he CAN’T take Maxwell’s advice.

Maxwell said abandon that kind
 of (2_way) experiment;
 use something more effective
 (a 1_way experiment).

Who was right?
Maxwell or Michelson?

Maxwell was right.
Something very tiny was observed
 (by Michelson 1887).
But so small! (<<1%)

Michelson was also right
 he could measure something very small;
 but (unfortunately) it was useless scientifically;
 because it was the WRONG kind of experiment.
He wanted to challenge
 the famous Maxwell
 to disprove him.
Absolute egoism.

It was NOWHERE near
 what was needed. (>50%);
 & verged on randomness!

Was Michelson successful?
Did he accomplish
 what he had set out to do?
Partly.
Qualitatively
 we would like
 better results.

I mean,
 Michelson should have found (absolutely NOTHING=)
 ZERO results
 (if the medium did NOT exist)
 but he did NOT.
Instead,
 he (=Michelson) found
 what Maxwell
 predicted.
E.g. A slight disturbace
 which could be attributed
 to the glass_thickness
 (medium’s speed change)
 of the 45° half silvered mirror.

That leaves us with the speculation,
1.
 would a large chunk of glass
 in 1 of the paths
 help improve
 that (M&M) experiment’s results,
 to increase the notice_able delay
 for a greater time_delay
 between the 2 light_beams?
2.
A simpler 1_way experiment is needed.
E.g.
A (simple) laser
 aimed
 at a wall
 many meters away
 & the tiny light spot’s position(al motion)
 observed
 (either (far_away) with a telescope
 or (near) with a microscope).

Light falls,
 but sound does NOT (fall).
The difference being their medium.

Edited February 18 by Capiert

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

I think the most significant (=notice_able)
 affect
 on light
 is the medium
 slows down light
 (e.g. due to the medium's mass (density).

There is no lumeniferous aether.  Light can't have infinite velocity without matter containing infinite energy (also goodbye magnets).  It just doesn’t  make sense to talk about something moving faster than c. C just is - because it is specific in its relation to other things.  Basic causality has a finite speed limit, which has nothing to do with some sort of aether.  

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Capiert said:

That'( i)s what bugs me.
Michelson threw a distraction
 into the project
 at the very 1st
 to distract
 sidetrack
 & confuse (us),
 with an uncleared topic=theme,
 just to divert us.

E.g. (To) Waste & exhaust
 our brainpower.

Einstein used a similar method too
 (early in his career
 with other themes).

Tired we wouldN'T bother further
 to search.

Who is “us”? You might be confused, but to claim others are is projection. 

[Sensei]

On 2/18/2024 at 2:05 PM, Capiert said:

I DON'T understand that sentence.
Could you please restate it, differently?

No single particle has a shape..

 

The probability density function is not a shape..

 

On 2/18/2024 at 2:39 PM, Capiert said:

So really your data
 is about interactions;
 & NOT particles.

We learn about particles (molecules, or macroscopic objects) from observations and the interactions they caused on other objects..

 

On 2/18/2024 at 2:39 PM, Capiert said:

But you have the nerve to say "particles", instead;
 so that people might understand
 (at least the substitute (name)).(?)

If/when photon is detected it disappears i.e. it is absorbed..

On 2/18/2024 at 2:39 PM, Capiert said:

What is Lepton number?

Beyond that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number

 

On 2/18/2024 at 2:39 PM, Capiert said:

That sure sounds like hit & mis(sed).
It does leave me doubting a bit.
E.g.
You assume
 hitting the atom(s)
 dead on 0°
 at their center
 when measuring
 their reflected angle?
& with thermal motion.

How do you know?

That is surely bound
 to fail!

It's NO wonder
 your data
 does NOT (always) corelate
 with real sizes.

It's a MESS!

If you shoot at a flying birds with a shotgun, you will shoot several birds (I don't recommend this, it's just an analogy). If you shoot enough bullets, you should find out the size of the birds you tried to kill by simply looking at which bullets missed the target. The same is true for particles that can be placed at rest, in their rest frame, such as a proton or the nucleus of another element. The number of bullets is counted in the millions or billions. So you can get a pretty good image if you hit something and it is reflected or you miss..

 

We find out about the existence of one particle by hitting it with another particle, which we can control, e.g. a beam of photons, a beam of electrons, a beam of protons, etc. Unknown target hit by known source and observation what happens. e.g. a new beam of photons from that target (e.g. spectroscopy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy )

 

If you have a better idea, you should start a new thread. But you'd better check it out for yourself. That's what scientists do, first they experiment, then they talk. You seem to be doing the opposite.

 

On 2/18/2024 at 2:39 PM, Capiert said:

& with thermal motion.

..one (you) can make experiment at ~ 0 K..

 

Did someone forbid you to do physical experiments?

On 2/18/2024 at 6:05 PM, Capiert said:

I guess what confuses me there
 is 2 answers
 (in 1 sentence).

Are you saying:
 a photon
 does NOT have a shape.
(But)
 Only a (single) particle
 has a shape.
?

E.g. (It has)
None (=NO shape), a single particle has (a) shape
 ((but) NOT a photon).

I said that neither the photon, electron, positron, neutrino, antineutrino, etc. have a shape...

 

On 2/18/2024 at 6:38 PM, Capiert said:

Maybe, we could give it (=Intensity)
 the units
 for the
 (average_)momentum squared
 per area, or per volume
 so it would be some kind
 of density,
 as
 kilograms_squared
 meters_squared
 per
 second_squared
 per meters_(squared or else )cubed.?

By saying "What is the unit of intensity?" I wanted to point out that intensity has already defined units that don't match your..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)

"In physics, the intensity or flux of radiant energy is the power transferred per unit area, where the area is measured on the plane perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the energy."

 

On 2/18/2024 at 8:15 PM, swansont said:

You demand that we spoon-feed you information. And you’re rude in doing so.

..no one is forced to do so..

 

 

 

Edited February 20 by Sensei