Is energy transmission medium contingent?

[imatfaal]

That sounds absolute, but where is your proof?

The properties and the interaction of EM waves with matter has been understoood without an aether, but EM waves and its transmission of energy, has not been filly comprehended and utilise.

 

James Bradley in 1720 showed through his work on stellar aberration that we could not be stationary with respect to the ether.

 

Michelson and Morley in 1877 in an experiment to measure the movement through the ether showed that we are not moving with respect to the ether.

 

The easiest and only sensible explanation for the above two completely contradictory results which have been repeated many times (ie we are both stationary and not stationary wrt the ether) is that there is no ether. And until someone comes up with a good reason to have the ether, and an explanation of the observed facts that seem to contradict its existence we shall continue to assume it is non-existent.

[O'Nero Samuel]

Please, dont be mistaken. I do not argue that there is an aether; but this contradiction of the relative state of an aether still doesn't cancel the possibility of its existence.

Science has taught us through time that that which seems absolutely right could be wrong, and vice versa.

If we could think above the odds against its existence (as great as they seem to be; but not conclusive) and try to draw

a complete nut about its futility, then maybe I would sleep so well with my back to the aether idea.

But we still dont have a slam dunk case, and all that there is could be due to our erronous assumptions; because at the moment we still do not know it all.

[imatfaal]

Please, dont be mistaken. I do not argue that there is an aether; but this contradiction of the relative state of an aether still doesn't cancel the possibility of its existence.

Science has taught us through time that that which seems absolutely right could be wrong, and vice versa.

If we could think above the odds against its existence (as great as they seem to be; but not conclusive) and try to draw

a complete nut about its futility, then maybe I would sleep so well with my back to the aether idea.

But we still dont have a slam dunk case, and all that there is could be due to our erronous assumptions; because at the moment we still do not know it all.

 

I will happily ignore it completely until at least two conditions are met

1. Someone explains - even as wordy hand-wavy salad - how we, as macroscopic entities, are both stationary and moving wrt the ether

2. Someone comes up with a single repeatable experiment that needs the ether to explain the results

[Tres Juicy]

That sounds absolute, but where is your proof?

The properties and the interaction of EM waves with matter has been understoood without an aether, but EM waves and its transmission of energy, has not been filly comprehended and utilise.

 

 

It is not the place of mainstream physics to defend its position - Rather any attempt to go against it must be backed up with evidence.

 

With this in mind I would ask to see evidence for ether before making any attempt to refute it further.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Tres Juicy

[O'Nero Samuel]

You are the one who has it inverted. If, and whenever mainstream science claims the none existence of a thing, they PROVE it! They provide a unifying concrete evidence, in both directions, ie the zero of with it, and a result of without it.

Mainstream science has beeen able to get results without it, but has not been able to get the zero of with it.

Once again I'm not stating that there is an aether, just that there is not enough evidence of its none existence.

 

You are the one who has it inverted. If, and whenever mainstream science claims the none existence of a thing, they PROVE it! They provide a unifying concrete evidence, in both directions, ie the zero of with it, and a result of without it.

Mainstream science has beeen able to get results without it, but has not been able to get the zero of with it.

Once again I'm not stating that there is an aether, just that there is not enough evidence of its none existence.

[swansont]

You are the one who has it inverted. If, and whenever mainstream science claims the none existence of a thing, they PROVE it! They provide a unifying concrete evidence, in both directions, ie the zero of with it, and a result of without it.

Mainstream science has beeen able to get results without it, but has not been able to get the zero of with it.

Once again I'm not stating that there is an aether, just that there is not enough evidence of its none existence.

The requirement that there must be one was an argument of conventional wisdom — it isn't actually required for anything — which is not really binding for the null hypothesis. Thus, you don't assume it exist. M&M were trying to establish that one existed. They failed. Thus far nobody has been able to experimentally establish its existence.

[O'Nero Samuel]

Now lets do aways with the eather concept, it has too many unanswered faceth.

Back to EM waves and energy transmission. Having in mind that what is actually waving in an EM wave is a sinusoidally alternating electric and magnetic field. This waving is caused by a viberating charge.

My Questions:

1. Does the viberating charge lose energy to the EM field produced, and is this energy lost equal to that transmitted by the wave?

2. Since the intensity of the EM wave is a function of position and time, at what position and time would it equal to zero, and if so why? Does the wave lose energy through its wave front?

3. Can the intensity gradient of this wavefront be increased and redirected relative to its source viberations?

[derek w]

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.

 

If we use 3 dimensional cartesian coordintes plus time,to represent space-time.Space-time being nothing,why can't we have 2 sets of cartesian coordinates superimposed on each other.(x,y,z) plus (x,y,z) plus time?

[swansont]

If we use 3 dimensional cartesian coordintes plus time,to represent space-time.Space-time being nothing,why can't we have 2 sets of cartesian coordinates superimposed on each other.(x,y,z) plus (x,y,z) plus time?

To what end? We like our coordinate systems to be orthonormal.

[derek w]

To what end? We like our coordinate systems to be orthonormal.

 

To create an inverse.(something from nothing)

 

 

Positron(x,y,z) coordinates,Electron(x,y,z)coordinates.

photon(x,y,z) plus (x,y,z) coordinates.

[O'Nero Samuel]

To create an inverse.(something from nothing)

 

 

Positron(x,y,z) coordinates,Electron(x,y,z)coordinates.

photon(x,y,z) plus (x,y,z) coordinates.

Is this actually possible theoretically or otherwise? If so, how? If not, why not?

[derek w]

Is this actually possible theoretically or otherwise? If so, how? If not, why not?

 

Definition from Wikipedia:-

Topology is a major area of mathematics concerned with the most basic properties of space,such as connectedness.More precisel, topology studies properties that are preserved under continuous deformations,including stretching and bending,but not tearing or gluing.

End quote.

 

 

A lattice is a good way to visualise topology.

I,m just asking if describing space as 2 superimposed lattices,has any validity.

As a function (x,y,z) = -1(x,y,z)

[O'Nero Samuel]

Do you have any link or file that could help clearify your inferrence?I would really appreciate one.

[derek w]

Do you have any link or file that could help clearify your inferrence?I would really appreciate one.

 

Google:- four dimensional space / wikipedia

There is a computer generated animation of a Clifford sphere,which is created by distorting the distance between the point/coordinates of a lattice over time.

 

 

A lattice consists of joins and meets.A join being the distance between ant 2 meets.

A cubic lattice in which all the joins are of equal distance and does not evolve over time,can be considered as a point of equilibrium (x,y,z).

If I have 2 lattices (x,y,z) and (x,y,z) superimposed,a distortion can be considered as a displacement of the blue or yellow lattice away from the point of equilibrium(cubic).

 

Edited November 21, 2012 by derek w

[O'Nero Samuel]

If what you are proposing stands, then space is really an abstraction: a background created by our perception of our environment in an attempt to distinguish between objects and phase-space, images and space time. Not surprising, this is the usual way with which we tell the difference of things in our environment: tell motion from rest, tell objects from "space-time", tell images from background. The problem we are having now is reconciling the non-conforming nature of our "created space" concept to that of EM waves (another abstraction relative to space), reconciling their interactions through "space-time", and retranslating it into our world in which we understand motion and change in relation to background and object. This is why this space interaction would not seem to have a, so to speak, purpose.

[derek w]

Lets say that you shrink all the joins in an area of (x,y,z) lattice,the meets are then collapsing to a centre point,but this creates an area around it with less meets.

If however the shrinking of the joins in the (x,y,z) lattice,is met with an equal and opposite expansion of the joins in the (x,y,z) lattice,the area of collapsing (x,y,z) meets,is then surrounded by an area of expanded (x,y,z) meets.Both being an equal and opposite displacement from the point of equilibrium(x,y,z).

[O'Nero Samuel]

Now you've totally lost me. Could you recommend a text that would help me study Topology in detail...and maybe try to see what you are describing? Thanks in asvance.

[derek w]

Now you've totally lost me. Could you recommend a text that would help me study Topology in detail...and maybe try to see what you are describing? Thanks in asvance.

 

Going back to your original question 'Is energy transmission medium contingent?'

 

On the macroscopic scale space appears as a nothingness,but it does not necessarily follow that on the extreme microscopic scale that space has no topology.

[derek w]

If I am shrinking my (x,y,z) lattice joints to a centre-point,and expanding my (x,y,z) lattice joints away from the same centre point.I can create a model of a magnetic moment by displacing the 2 centre points slightly.

[O'Nero Samuel]

Okay then, if space, on an extremely microscopic scale, does not behave like nothingness, then how can it help in transmitting energy through EM waves? How would the topology of space interact with EM waves on this extremely microscopic scale?

[imatfaal]

Okay then, if space, on an extremely microscopic scale, does not behave like nothingness, then how can it help in transmitting energy through EM waves? How would the topology of space interact with EM waves on this extremely microscopic scale?

Beyond my knowledge really - but surely on the the scale of quantum interactions spacetime can be considered locally flat ? - ie the topology doesn't matter to current predictions and we don't know how to move to a position in which curvature is contained within quantum mechanics. I thought the whole thing about the search quantum gravity was linking GR(curved spacetime) with quantum mechanical predictions (which are compliant with SR but ignore gravity).

[derek w]

Okay then, if space, on an extremely microscopic scale, does not behave like nothingness, then how can it help in transmitting energy through EM waves? How would the topology of space interact with EM waves on this extremely microscopic scale?

quote from "universe-review":-

 

In classical physics(applicable to macroscopic phenomena),empty space-time is called the vacuum.The classical vacuum is featureless.However,in quantum mechanics(applicable to microscopic phenomena),the vacuum is a much more complex entity.It is far from featureless and far from empty.The quantum vacuum is just one particular state of a quantum field(corresponding to some particles).It is the quantum mechanical state in which no field quanta are excited,that is,no particles are present.hence,it is the "ground state" of the quantum field,the state of minimum energy.

[O'Nero Samuel]

quote from "universe-review":-

 

In classical physics(applicable to macroscopic phenomena),empty space-time is called the vacuum.The classical vacuum is featureless.However,in quantum mechanics(applicable to microscopic phenomena),the vacuum is a much more complex entity.It is far from featureless and far from empty.The quantum vacuum is just one particular state of a quantum field(corresponding to some particles).It is the quantum mechanical state in which no field quanta are excited,that is,no particles are present.hence,it is the "ground state" of the quantum field,the state of minimum energy.

Space, in quantum meahanics, isn;t featureless but a ground state...could one call this state the zero quantum state? That is the state from which other quantum states are defined relative to? If I could, let me know...this would really mean something

.

 

Beyond my knowledge really - but surely on the the scale of quantum interactions spacetime can be considered locally flat ? - ie the topology doesn't matter to current predictions and we don't know how to move to a position in which curvature is contained within quantum mechanics. I thought the whole thing about the search quantum gravity was linking GR(curved spacetime) with quantum mechanical predictions (which are compliant with SR but ignore gravity).

Thinking in terms of space time is the foundation of the clashes between quantum mechanics and classical physics. Topology, in the quantum domains, I believe, does not use the idea of space time GR proposes. In other words, you cannot prove quantum gravitation, thats a total misnomer. And what you are discribing is heading towards that direction. Nature has unity...that is, quantum mechanics and classical physics has a point of coherence (to exergerate, call it convergence), but the path taken by most, ie the linking of GR and SR, wouuld not lead us there.