Is energy transmission medium contingent?

[O'Nero Samuel]

Do energy always require a medium for its transmission? If not, is it what is transmitted through electromagnetic waves? If then, why does E-M waves act as the conduit and not the form of energy? I mean why does E-M waves not be transmittable in such a way as to distort or affect mass without its conversion?

 

If then energy always require a medium for its transmission, then it defies its essence, because the concept of energy itself proves arbitrary enough as not to be able to be pin pointed down to anything tangible...we can only describe, horn and manage its effects.

 

 

[swansont]

Do energy always require a medium for its transmission? If not, is it what is transmitted through electromagnetic waves? If then, why does E-M waves act as the conduit and not the form of energy? I mean why does E-M waves not be transmittable in such a way as to distort or affect mass without its conversion?

 

Electromagnetic radiation has energy. It does not require a medium.

 

Not sure what your last sentence means.

[O'Nero Samuel]

I mean is the effective work done by this E-radiation energy obey the laws of conservation of energy? I mean can other forms of energy, say, electrical be transmitted without any medium an still have its effective work effect when converted back to its original form? We all know E-M waves are made use of by ICT, transmitted and converted back and forth. But can this same mechanism be applied to more greater forms of energy?

[mathematic]

I mean is the effective work done by this E-radiation energy obey the laws of conservation of energy? I mean can other forms of energy, say, electrical be transmitted without any medium an still have its effective work effect when converted back to its original form? We all know E-M waves are made use of by ICT, transmitted and converted back and forth. But can this same mechanism be applied to more greater forms of energy?

You need to clarify your question. Give an example of what you have in mind by the second sentence. What is "greater forms of energy"?

[too-open-minded]

"If then energy always require a medium for its transmission, then it defies its essence, because the concept of energy itself proves arbitrary enough as not to be able to be pin pointed down to anything tangible...we can only describe, horn and manage its effects."

I think your trying to say that energy needs a medium to travel. When you see a wave, its just energy traveling on something. By finding the medium, you learn more about what it is you have in front of you.

what we hear is just disruption of the gasses in our biosphere. You could talk in space but nobody would hear you because this breaks our hearing threshold. Yes your still emitting energy out of your mouth but were used to having a lot of particles being around for soundwaves to travel on. When we found out that sound travels on particles in a wave, we knew a little more about it and what to research.

[O'Nero Samuel]

"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?

[too-open-minded]

What if we just don't know what their traveling on?

[swansont]

What if we just don't know what their traveling on?

We should be able to deduce some of the properties of what it's traveling on, based on what we do know. But it leads us to the conclusion that there is nothing.

[too-open-minded]

Can you explain? or give a link?

[O'Nero Samuel]

Can you explain? or give a link?

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.

[too-open-minded]

Well I guess waves don't have to have something to travel on. Brains emit waves.

 

Just It sounds like a contradiction to me. A wave is just energy traveling, the up and down motion is energy traveling on something most of the time.

 

Meh, my education doesn't stand anywhere to question a concept meticulously worked on by well educated peoples.

[IM Egdall]

Can you explain? or give a link?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

[alpha2cen]

Three cases exists about the light movement.

1) Light has it's capacity to travel alone.

2) There is a medium to transfer light wave.

3) There is a carrier to move light, and light is only a cargo.

 

If 1) is true, light can move before beginning of the Universe. And, how to explain the wave property?

If 2) is true, we must find the medium, and can not explain particle property.

 

If 3) is true, we can explain particle and wave property. Carrier? quantum entanglement, uncertainty principle. Relativity? we can explain well about time-space bending. Light speed is constant not depending on energy level or amount. How we do not find the carrier? answer -> Why we do not find the Dark Matter ? Why we do not find Higgs field easily? We do not see the eye lens, but we can see it in the mirror. Only energy can move light so far without activation energy? Even very low temperature, below 100K, we can transfer energy fast, and the transfer amount velocity is only rely on temperature gradient.

[swansont]

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?

 

Yes. If you take a fluorescent bulb near high-power transmission lines it will glow. If you put a light bulb in a microwave oven, it will light up (do this with a glass of water in the oven as an energy dump, or the bulb could explode)

 

http://blog.sciencegeekgirl.com/2009/02/01/things-to-do-in-a-microwave-5-microwave-a-lightbulb/

[O'Nero Samuel]

Yes. If you take a fluorescent bulb near high-power transmission lines it will glow. If you put a light bulb in a microwave oven, it will light up (do this with a glass of water in the oven as an energy dump, or the bulb could explode)

 

http://blog.sciencegeekgirl.com/2009/02/01/things-to-do-in-a-microwave-5-microwave-a-lightbulb/

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?

[swansont]

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?

The fluorescent bulb is lit because the potential difference across the bulb is large enough; the source is the radiation from the transmission lines. The effect will diminish with distance because for a line or point source, that's what happens. But both are examples of the energy being transmitted electromagnetically without a conductor.

 

If you use a more complicated system, as you describe, then the answer is also yes. You can shoot a laser (or other EM source) and have it hit a target and generate electricity. We already do this with the sun, of course.

[O'Nero Samuel]

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.

[swansont]

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.

The EM need not be ionizing, though getting in its path wouldn't be advisable at high power, and rain would tend to attenuate it quite a bit. It's possible but not practical.

 

What makes you think that telecom is not line-of-sight?

[O'Nero Samuel]

The EM need not be ionizing, though getting in its path wouldn't be advisable at high power, and rain would tend to attenuate it quite a bit. It's possible but not practical.

 

What makes you think that telecom is not line-of-sight?

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.

[O'Nero Samuel]

Three cases exists about the light movement.

1) Light has it's capacity to travel alone.

2) There is a medium to transfer light wave.

3) There is a carrier to move light, and light is only a cargo.

 

If 1) is true, light can move before beginning of the Universe. And, how to explain the wave property?

If 2) is true, we must find the medium, and can not explain particle property.

 

If 3) is true, we can explain particle and wave property. Carrier? quantum entanglement, uncertainty principle. Relativity? we can explain well about time-space bending. Light speed is constant not depending on energy level or amount. How we do not find the carrier? answer -> Why we do not find the Dark Matter ? Why we do not find Higgs field easily? We do not see the eye lens, but we can see it in the mirror. Only energy can move light so far without activation energy? Even very low temperature, below 100K, we can transfer energy fast, and the transfer amount velocity is only rely on temperature gradient.

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.

[too-open-minded]

Well if light has its own capacity to travel alone then their is something else making it propagate like a wave.

 

Please, elucidate.

[O'Nero Samuel]

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.

Edited September 5, 2012 by O'Nero Samuel

[gib65]

Isn't this explained by wave/particle duality of matter/energy? If you can't understand how energy travels through a void, think of it as a particle. If you can't understand how a particle can travel as a wave, think of it as energy.

[O'Nero Samuel]

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.

Edited September 5, 2012 by O'Nero Samuel

[too-open-minded]

What if light doesn't need something to travel on and the wave propagation was just something in its way?