Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Many have wondered how the influence of electric charge, magnetism ,gravity and other small entities can influence or be felt, or creat a field at the other end of the universe. We have a model of energy traveling vast distances on our very shores. Waves are produced by incremental action of breeze and wind on the sea or waterways. The energy transferred to the water waves enable them to travel huge distances and arrive on foreign shores. The water does not travel there, the mass does not travel there. The waves as energy does travel there. Could this be a good model as to the sort of principles involved for atomic based energies like :- Electricity, magnetism, gravity, photons of light , to travel the vast distances of outer space. NOTHING , other than energy in the form of a wave travels these vast distances, only the effect ( or WAVE ENERGY ) that moves. Gravity; for instance......I have thought about this a lot. How can all these things, anything, reach out to the far distances of space to produce some form of invisible field effect.? As far as I see it, they do not reach out as such. Their ( Atoms, photons , quarks , whatever..), just exist where they do. Like some new (ball removed or extra ball) in the middle of one of those crazy children's park amusements , that is a huge volume of plastic colored balls. when a kid jumps in the middle. [yippee] or the kid makes a disturbance , say removes a ball and throws it away , he/she does not exert a field as such, it is just all the balls move a tad ( very small movement ) , little bit, and if another kid is sitting at the edge of the tank. he/she will feel the jumped in kids presence, by just the small ,accommodating movement of all the other balls. so it is the EFFECT that moves, nothing else. So with space time. a little movement in/ at an individual atom just appears here or there . The whole tank full of space time [ whatever space time is , but for the sake of this model it is like one gynormous tank of gazzillion gazzillion , gazillion , plastic balls ] just moves ever so ever so ever so slightly to accommodate the movement of that one atom. This in theory can be felt to some extent across the whole distance of space. Nearby the accommodation is quite large [ next door atom feels moved sideways quite a lot] another atom at the far reaches of space time would barely notice the change 10 to the minus million gazillions. but it will be there . This is the nature of the:- inverse square law F= gm1m2/r squared approximately of kids [atoms] jumping in a tank of plastic balls the size of the universe. This effect ( wave of energy ) will move across space at the usual speed of light, subject to all the other physics of Space time . That is the model . mike .----. Tonj18. Did respond with:-. Posted Yesterday, 07:54 PM . Quote " Thanks Mike, nice to finally see someone who has been developing their own theory ,most of the other postings are just quotes from historical theories from Newton and Einstein and the more recent non-relativistic gravitational calculations ,which still doesn't explain the nature of gravity specifically here on earth and what is actually is and where it emulates from. I was hoping this forum you encourage people like your self to put forward you theories, and we seem to be getting somewhere and maybe collectively we can discover or deduce how it occurs. "Unquote Edited March 7, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 The water does not travel there, the mass does not travel there. The waves as energy does travel there. Could this be a good model as to the sort of principles involved for atomic based energies like :- Electricity, magnetism, gravity, photons of light , to travel the vast distances of outer space. It already is the model. Light is an electromagnetic wave, but does not require a medium through which to travel. NOTHING , other than energy in the form of a wave travels these vast distances, only the effect ( or WAVE ENERGY ) that moves. Gravity; for instance......I have thought about this a lot. How can all these things, anything, reach out to the far distances of space to produce some form of invisible field effect.? As far as I see it, they do not reach out as such. Their ( Atoms, photons , quarks , whatever..), just exist where they do. Like some new (ball removed or extra ball) in the middle of one of those crazy children's park amusements , that is a huge volume of plastic colored balls. when a kid jumps in the middle. [yippee] or the kid makes a disturbance , say removes a ball and throws it away , he/she does not exert a field as such, it is just all the balls move a tad ( very small movement ) , little bit, and if another kid is sitting at the edge of the tank. he/she will feel the jumped in kids presence, by just the small ,accommodating movement of all the other balls. so it is the EFFECT that moves, nothing else. So with space time. a little movement in/ at an individual atom just appears here or there . The whole tank full of space time [ whatever space time is , but for the sake of this model it is like one gynormous tank of gazzillion gazzillion , gazillion , plastic balls ] just moves ever so ever so ever so slightly to accommodate the movement of that one atom. This in theory can be felt to some extent across the whole distance of space. Nearby the accommodation is quite large [ next door atom feels moved sideways quite a lot] another atom at the far reaches of space time would barely notice the change 10 to the minus million gazillions. but it will be there . This is the nature of the:- inverse square law F= gm1m2/r squared approximately of kids [atoms] jumping in a tank of plastic balls the size of the universe. This effect ( wave of energy ) will move across space at the usual speed of light, subject to all the other physics of Space time . That is the model . mike All you have to do is find the little balls. Describe how they will behave. Because for electromagnetic interactions, or gravitational interactions, there is no evidence of the little balls.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 7, 2014 Author Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) It already is the model. Light is an electromagnetic wave, but does not require a medium through which to travel. All you have to do is find the little balls. Describe how they will behave. Because for electromagnetic interactions, or gravitational interactions, there is no evidence of the little balls. ( Emphasis mine Mike ) Medium and Little Balls Well I think this could possibly be done in one stroke .Possibly ! . No doubt I will be shot down in flames ! Medium , Hummm! I will stick my neck out slightly here [ behind a guy who knows a lot more about it than me. In a moment ] I could say ," everything needs a medium of some sort to exist in " . Like if i think of jumping in my swimming pool that has no water in, No medium to float in, i am going to have a sore head. Now Electro magnetic waves, it is true are self supporting as a couple [Electric field - Magnetic field ] each supporting each other. But speaking from Radio E-M ( Electro-Magnetic waves) start off supporting each other in a coil of wire [holding a magnetic field ] collapsing and so producing an electri current and an electric field to appear in a capacitors plates, which then flows back into the coil , and on and on. doing the same in a connected antenna . the same sort of thing happens , but this time it enacts the oscillating E-M in a near field out in the space surrounding . At a distance called the far field the oscillating E-M wave is free to go. Into space. But space is the medium, and space is not empty! How could it be. If it were a void , we would all fall in it. Everything would fall in it ! Like me jumping into my empty swimming pool. No space is full to bursting with ( its true unseen ) oodles of things, like Quantum foam, Virtual particles coming into and out of existence by the bucket load , neutrinos, dark matter, dark energy and ( uncle tom cobly and all. ) Frank Wilczec Nobel Winning for his Asymtotic Freedom research calls it the Grid .looking like this :- He says in various recent books like " The Lightness of Being " and others listed below . 'The Gold Fish has finally woken up to the idea there is actually water in his Bowl' or words to that effect link "We Are Like Fish Who Finally Realized We Were Living In Water ... Regards to finding my little balls and describing how they behave , I can only refer to Frank Wilczek 'GRID' So if he is right my little balls are bubbles of Quantum foam stuffed full of all sorts of Vitual Particles , Vacuum energy,others mentioned above . Mike Listed References : The Grid - Frank Wilczek www.frankwilczek.com/Wilczek_Q_and_A.pdf 2 Sep 2008 - Q & A with FRANK WILCZEK,. Author of THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces. (Basic Books; September 2, ... [PDF] Wilczek's Unified Field Theory: Ether Back again www.gsjournal.net/old/files/4286_anderton107.pdf by RJ Anderton “Wilczek says the grid is a structured framework or ether through which energy and ...calling it grid. Frank Wilczek [2] says: “Quite undeservedly, the ether has. The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces ... www.amazon.com/The-Lightness-Being-Unification.../0465018955 Wilczek says the grid is a conceptual descendant of ether, that mysterious ... Frank Wilczek may be a Nobel Prize winner (2004), but you don't have to be a ... Book Review: The Lightness of Being www.nobeliefs.com/Wilczek.htm Frank WIlczek won a Nobel prize (along with David Gross and H. David ... of the ether in the form of what Wilczek calls the Grid (the persistence of Ether). Review: The Lightness of Being by Frank Wilczek | Books | The ... www.theguardian.com › Culture › Books › Science and nature Review by Steven Poole 26 Jun 2009 - Review: The Lightness of Being by Frank Wilczek The discussion of ...and renames it the "core theory"; he employs the name "the grid" for "the ... More by Steven Poole "We Are Like Fish Who Finally Realized We Were Living In Water ... atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2013/06/16/we-are-like-fish/ 16 Jun 2013 - Frank Wilczek said in a recent lecture. It's time we started ... Wilczek calls his reductionist view of space the “Grid.” The Grid's is reduced to a two ... The Lightness of Being by Frank Wilczek: A disturbance in the Grid www.lightnessofbeingbook.com/.../PlatePages/Plate06_KilcupMeson.htm... The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces,. Physics Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek illuminates modern physics ideas by showing how ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J3xLuZNKhlY Edited March 7, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Medium and Little Balls Well I think this could possibly be done in one stroke .Possibly ! . No doubt I will be shot down in flames ! Medium , Hummm! I will stick my neck out slightly here [ behind a guy who knows a lot more about it than me. In a moment ] I could say ," everything needs a medium of some sort to exist in " . Like if i think of jumping in my swimming pool that has no water in, No medium to float in, i am going to have a sore head. Now Electro magnetic waves, it is true are self supporting as a couple [Electric field - Magnetic field ] each supporting each other. But speaking from Radio E-M ( Electro-Magnetic waves) start off supporting each other in a coil of wire [holding a magnetic field ] collapsing and so producing an electri current and an electric field to appear in a capacitors plates, which then flows back into the coil , and on and on. doing the same in a connected antenna . the same sort of thing happens , but this time it enacts the oscillating E-M in a near field out in the space surrounding . At a distance called the far field the oscillating E-M wave is free to go. Into space. But space is the medium, and space is not empty! How could it be. If it were a void , we would all fall in it. Everything would fall in it ! Like me jumping into my empty swimming pool. No space is full to bursting with ( its true unseen ) oodles of things, like Quantum foam, Virtual particles coming into and out of existence by the bucket load , neutrinos, dark matter, dark energy and ( uncle tom cobly and all. ) Space not being empty does not make space a medium. (Semantically, the stuff in it would be the medium, but that's not pertinent) "everything needs a medium of some sort to exist in" is the assumption that led to development of certain theories back in the late 1800's. The medium has to have certain properties and affect the propagation of light in certain ways. The question became this: are we at rest with respect to the medium, or are we moving with respect to it? Because that has implication on what we should expect to observe. The trouble is, nobody could find these effects that were predicted, for either case. How can we be both moving and at rest at the same time? A medium whose effects are unobservable is not something that can be investigated scientifically. Science immediately rejects such concepts. Also, as an aside: be careful in using interpretations of pop-sci works. It's not unlike what happens when you translate from one language to another and back again, only to find that much of the original meaning has been lost. It's not enough that a few buzzwords that you recognize are in an article. That doesn't mean they are saying the same thing as you are. "Space is not empty" does not translate as "there's a medium for transmission of light"
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 8, 2014 Author Posted March 8, 2014 Space not being empty does not make space a medium. (Semantically, the stuff in it would be the medium, but that's not pertinent) "everything needs a medium of some sort to exist in" is the assumption that led to development of certain theories back in the late 1800's. The medium has to have certain properties and affect the propagation of light in certain ways. The question became this: are we at rest with respect to the medium, or are we moving with respect to it? Because that has implication on what we should expect to observe. The trouble is, nobody could find these effects that were predicted, for either case. How can we be both moving and at rest at the same time? A medium whose effects are unobservable is not something that can be investigated scientifically. Science immediately rejects such concepts. Yes, I am familiar that there was this (in and out ) of medium in the 1880-1920 period. Ending with the Michelson-Morley experiments testing for movement or otherwise with relation to space. With the removal of medium . Two things bother me slightly. 1. During that era .. The scientists like Einstein were looking at pollen grains floating on water ( for Brownian motion - atoms being buffeted ) and the like. You could still actually see things still, or in the case of the pollen [ the atoms nudging]. I have done the experiment using smoke from smoldering corrugated paper , put in a smoke cell and peer at it with a low magnification microscope. Spectacular ,( kids loved it ) . Things were still of human sized ,orders of magnitude. Nowerdays we are dealing with neutrinos of such different orders of magnitude , we live in different world , or might just as well do. So many billion neutrinos going strait through the earth and us , without them even noticing us, or us noticing them. Also we poddle around on earth , while the structures in the universe 13, billion light years away makes us so puny by account as regard size as to not be relevant. The whole universe at that distance could be moving relative to something millions of kilometers per hour , we would not notice anything , at least for 13,000,000,000 years. ( and chances are I would not be standing in the same spot ! ) So ,it's a bit rash to think that there is no possible medium in all the space from neutrino size to universe size. 2. I have a problem with absolute nothing . Totally void of anything ( which is possibly how we used to think of space ) , which we now think of ' space' , being the stuff Frank Wilczek is talking about . If absolute nothing was somewhere , I really do not think E-M would enter nothing or cross nothing , as there would be nothing to cross. Light seems to behave differently in the medium of water and glass , so maybe there is a medium many , many orders of magnitude different to us . So tests in things around our size , like people , the earth, the space just outside earth are not a fair enough for a survey for medium , possibly ! I really do not see an individual 'particle photon ' travelling all that way across space. But I can see the ' medium' being touched or disturbed , and a ' photon style wave ' moving as an effect , across vast distances. Mike
studiot Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) When we derive the mechanical wave equation we consider the action of a restoring force and after some manipulation end up with the differential equation, known as the wave equation. This restoring force is provided by the medium of propagation. The initial energy is transferred temporarily to the medium and then returned to the wave by way of the restoring force. This process is repeated over and over and so the wave progresses. An electromagnetic wave has no medium and so has a different restoring force mechanism. It basically generates its own restoring force, if the initial disturbance is of the correct form. Mike, since you like pictures you might like to wade through this explanation. http://ocw.tufts.edu/data/30/365841.pdf Edited March 8, 2014 by studiot 1
swansont Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Yes, I am familiar that there was this (in and out ) of medium in the 1880-1920 period. Ending with the Michelson-Morley experiments testing for movement or otherwise with relation to space. With the removal of medium . Two things bother me slightly. 1. During that era .. The scientists like Einstein were looking at pollen grains floating on water ( for Brownian motion - atoms being buffeted ) and the like. You could still actually see things still, or in the case of the pollen [ the atoms nudging]. I have done the experiment using smoke from smoldering corrugated paper , put in a smoke cell and peer at it with a low magnification microscope. Spectacular ,( kids loved it ) . Things were still of human sized ,orders of magnitude. Nowerdays we are dealing with neutrinos of such different orders of magnitude , we live in different world , or might just as well do. So many billion neutrinos going strait through the earth and us , without them even noticing us, or us noticing them. Also we poddle around on earth , while the structures in the universe 13, billion light years away makes us so puny by account as regard size as to not be relevant. The whole universe at that distance could be moving relative to something millions of kilometers per hour , we would not notice anything , at least for 13,000,000,000 years. ( and chances are I would not be standing in the same spot ! ) So ,it's a bit rash to think that there is no possible medium in all the space from neutrino size to universe size. Whether it's rash or not is something that the evidence will decide, not opinion, gut instinct or misplaced interest in other experiments that have no bearing on the problem. The M-M experiment was with light, and was not interested in the specific interaction (i.e. mechanism) of the ether, just our speed as we moved through it. Guess what: we aren't moving through it. There is no absolute frame of reference. Any objection you might make has to square with the fact that we get a null result from the M-M experiment, and we get stellar aberration. After you do that, and still have a medium, we can worry about the specifics. Einstein's investigation into Brownian motion is a separate experiment. 2. I have a problem with absolute nothing . Totally void of anything ( which is possibly how we used to think of space ) , which we now think of ' space' , being the stuff Frank Wilczek is talking about . If absolute nothing was somewhere , I really do not think E-M would enter nothing or cross nothing , as there would be nothing to cross. Light seems to behave differently in the medium of water and glass , so maybe there is a medium many , many orders of magnitude different to us . So tests in things around our size , like people , the earth, the space just outside earth are not a fair enough for a survey for medium , possibly ! I really do not see an individual 'particle photon ' travelling all that way across space. But I can see the ' medium' being touched or disturbed , and a ' photon style wave ' moving as an effect , across vast distances. Who said anything about space containing absolutely nothing? Nobody has objected to saying that space is not empty, only the jump from that to saying it's the medium required for light. If it's a medium, it has to behave in a certain way, and we've done actual experiments. Light does not behave as if it's traveling through a medium.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 8, 2014 Author Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) Whether it's rash or not is something that the evidence will decide, not opinion, gut instinct or misplaced interest in other experiments that have no bearing on the problem. The M-M experiment was with light, and was not interested in the specific interaction (i.e. mechanism) of the ether, just our speed as we moved through it. Guess what: we aren't moving through it. There is no absolute frame of reference. Any objection you might make has to square with the fact that we get a null result from the M-M experiment, and we get stellar aberration. After you do that, and still have a medium, we can worry about the specifics. Einstein's investigation into Brownian motion is a separate experiment. Who said anything about space containing absolutely nothing? Nobody has objected to saying that space is not empty, only the jump from that to saying it's the medium required for light. If it's a medium, it has to behave in a certain way, and we've done actual experiments. Light does not behave as if it's traveling through a medium. The point I was making with Einstein and the Brownian motion was just that scientists at that time were unaware of Quarks, Strong and weak forces, Neutrinos and all the very small, dark matter, dark energy, Higgs and a lot of recent discoveries.. Thus it was 'medium or no medium,' not could light interact in any way with all the things mentioned above, because they did not know they were there, [ Quarks, Strong and weak forces, Neutrinos and all the very small, dark matter,dark energy, kasmir effect, Higgs and a lot of recent discoveries.] The issue that niggles at me, just niggles, is that everything else in waves travels through a medium . Also if an ' item' an actual 'Photon ' particle , labeled 'Photon with an x on it ' is supposed to set off at the speed of light, as a particle and head out across the universe, and arrive at 100,000 light years across the galaxy with its 'x' figuratively marked on it. I can not rest easy with it. , I suggest the mark 'x ' is still at the source ,where the wave originated. [figuratively]. But if it is just a pulse, that as a bump [ with an 'x' on it ] creates a wave , with no content, no matter, no substance travels out, that just moves out like a wave on the sea [ but quantised] , the effect , or pulse ,is what moves, then fine. It is the effect or pulse that arrives 100,000 light years away. But of course for this to be possible, it would require something to be there to pulse or effect . Wilczek seems to say there are all these loose quarks, and virtual quarks everywhere in space creating a field.[the grid ] which is already wobbling and already has a field there in existence . Surely this would make a suitable medium for light to travel in ? Is this not what he is saying ? I realize that the m-m experiment has a negative contribution answer (that we are not moving through a medium), but maybe there is a miss diagnosis of what is happening with the m-m experiment . . Maybe the medium is there, everywhere, with all matter and all space, and just not orientated. I do not know, but I think something is there to be disturbed somehow, even if the pulses are bubbles of wave?. ( like a bubble of joined up fields of electric and magnetic type.Inter reacting in the way Studiot quoted in the last post . changing from electric field to magnetic field and back and forth . [ I know studiot is similarly saying it requires no medium ] Mike Edited March 8, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 The point I was making with Einstein and the Brownian motion was just that scientists at that time were unaware of Quarks, Strong and weak forces, Neutrinos[/size] and all the very small, dark matter, dark energy, Higgs and a lot of recent discoveries.. Thus it was 'medium or no medium,' not could light interact in any way with all the things mentioned above, because they did not know they were there, [ Quarks, Strong and weak forces, Neutrinos[/size] and all the very small, dark matter,dark energy, kasmir effect, Higgs and a lot of recent discoveries.] The issue that niggles at me, just niggles, is that everything else in waves travels through a medium . But that's my point. Knowing or not knowing what's there has absolutely no effect on the experiment. An interferometer doesn't behave differently now vs 130 years ago, even though we now have models for atomic, nuclear and particle behavior. Also if an ' item' an actual 'Photon ' particle , labeled 'Photon with an x on it ' is supposed to set off at the speed of light, as a particle and head out across the universe, and arrive at 100,000 light years across the galaxy with its 'x' figuratively marked on it. I can not rest easy with it. , I suggest the mark 'x ' is still at the source ,where the wave originated. [figuratively]. But if it is just a pulse, that as a bump [ with an 'x' on it ] creates a wave , with no content, no matter, no substance travels out, that just moves out like a wave on the sea [ but quantised] , the effect , or pulse ,is what moves, then fine. It is the effect or pulse that arrives 100,000 light years away. But of course for this to be possible, it would require something to be there to pulse or effect . Wilczek seems to say there are all these loose quarks, and virtual quarks everywhere in space creating a field.[the grid ] which is already wobbling and already has a field there in existence . Surely this would make a suitable medium for light to travel in ? Is this not what he is saying ? I realize that the m-m experiment has a negative contribution answer (that we are not moving through a medium), but maybe there is a miss diagnosis of what is happening with the m-m experiment . . Maybe the medium is there, everywhere, with all matter and all space, and just not orientated. I do not know, but I think something is there to be disturbed somehow, even if the pulses are bubbles of wave?. ( like a bubble of joined up fields of electric and magnetic type.Inter reacting in the way Studiot quoted in the last post . changing from electric field to magnetic field and back and forth . [ I know studiot is similarly saying it requires no medium ] Mike The solution is to study physics and become aware of the experimental evidence. Actual physics. Reading pop-sci works is not a viable substitute.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 8, 2014 Author Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) But that's my point. Knowing or not knowing what's there has absolutely no effect on the experiment. An interferometer doesn't behave differently now vs 130 years ago, even though we now have models for atomic, nuclear and particle behavior. The solution is to study physics and become aware of the experimental evidence. Actual physics. Reading pop-sci works is not a viable substitute. Well I did study the Michelson Morley experiment at uni, and as far as I remember, but I have to admit to a rapidly failing memory, so please excuse me if I am wrong. The experiment was arranged with two independent paths , at 90degrees to each other. But what they were checking was we're we moving through a fixed ether so that the earth was moving through it. The result was no ! We were not moving through a fixed ether. What I was asking? Could it not be possible that matter like the earth carries its own fuzzy medium in the local proximity I am not sure it is fair to say Frank Wilzek is pop science. I heard him give his Nobel prize related speech at Princeton or Cornell university. He hinted then about this subject of the grid. Now he seems to have come right out with it. I do not mind if you say it is all wrong. It is just that those couple of points I mentioned have bothered me a bit over the years , and I was rather relieved to hear that the idea of a grid like aether (ether) is back . But if it's not I will have to go back to feeling uncomfortable, Mike Edited March 8, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Well I did study the Michelson Morley experiment at uni, and as far as I remember, but I have to admit to a rapidly failing memory, so please excuse me if I am wrong. The experiment was arranged with two independent paths , at 90degrees to each other. But what they were checking was we're we moving through a fixed ether so that the earth was moving through it. The result was no ! We were not moving through a fixed ether. What I was asking? Could it not be possible that matter like the earth carries its own fuzzy medium in the local proximity The ad-hoc workarounds like entrainment/drag don't work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 13, 2014 Author Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) When we derive the mechanical wave equation we consider the action of a restoring force and after some manipulation end up with the differential equation, known as the wave equation. This restoring force is provided by the medium of propagation. The initial energy is transferred temporarily to the medium and then returned to the wave by way of the restoring force. This process is repeated over and over and so the wave progresses. An electromagnetic wave has no medium and so has a different restoring force mechanism. It basically generates its own restoring force, if the initial disturbance is of the correct form. Mike, since you like pictures you might like to wade through this explanation. http://ocw.tufts.edu/data/30/365841.pdf Yes, I do understand about the E and the M being self supporting and restoring each other. But I have a problem with , the dreaded 'nothingness' as if E-M. Waves could travel through absolute nothingness. ( this I have my serious doubts on ) Yes in a vacuum , which still has 3 D. Space allocated to it somehow. And I get the feeling the allocation is via wilczek Quantum space , with all sorts of things in it including energy . If that is required to create space , then there is something there, and even though E-M waves are self restoratory they will react somehow with the contents of space , thus it must be in a "sort of " if not medium , a something, not absolute nothing . Mike The ad-hoc workarounds like entrainment/drag don't work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis As above reply to Studiot . Edited March 13, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Yes, I do understand about the E and the M being self supporting and restoring each other. But I have a problem with , the dreaded 'nothingness' as if E-M. Waves could travel through absolute nothingness. ( this I have my serious doubts on ) Yes in a vacuum , which still has 3 D. Space allocated to it somehow. And I get the feeling the allocation is via wilczek Quantum space , with all sorts of things in it including energy . If that is required to create space , then there is something there, and even though E-M waves are self restoratory they will react somehow with the contents of space , thus it must be in a "sort of " if not medium , a something, not absolute nothing . Mike As above reply to Studiot . This is where one can do some actual science. If there is something that can be called a medium, it must have some properties. We look at what's happening to tell us what these properties might be. We can make models and do experiments to see if we're right. The thing is, all wave behavior in our everyday experience that involves a medium has the wave traveling at some speed with respect to the medium, and light doesn't do this. So whatever's in the vacuum, it's not a medium as we know it. You'd have to come up with a model for a medium that's Lorentz invariant. One thing this points to is that "the vacuum isn't empty" is not the same thing as saying that this stuff in the vacuum is thus the medium through which light travels. Again: nobody is objecting to the observation that space isn't empty. So saying you have a problem with the "dreaded nothingness" is not a real issue, since there is no dreaded nothingness. (It's like we all know that the world is round and you're still worrying about the edge of the world on an old map)
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 13, 2014 Author Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) This is where one can do some actual science. If there is something that can be called a medium, it must have some properties. We look at what's happening to tell us what these properties might be. We can make models and do experiments to see if we're right. The thing is, all wave behavior in our everyday experience that involves a medium has the wave traveling at some speed with respect to the medium, and light doesn't do this. So whatever's in the vacuum, it's not a medium as we know it. You'd have to come up with a model for a medium that's Lorentz invariant. One thing this points to is that "the vacuum isn't empty" is not the same thing as saying that this stuff in the vacuum is thus the medium through which light travels. Again: nobody is objecting to the observation that space isn't empty. So saying you have a problem with the "dreaded nothingness" is not a real issue, since there is no dreaded nothingness. (It's like we all know that the world is round and you're still worrying about the edge of the world on an old map) You will need to go through this " Lorentz invariant. " for me to put my flat earth atlas down and get E-M propagation part of my brain engaged..( again ) At least i am working in Euclidean geometry ,. nice clean Right angles and 3-D Space. mike Edited March 13, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 You will need to go through this " Lorentz invariant. " for me to put my flat earth atlas down and get E-M propagation part of my brain engaged..( again ) At least i am working in Euclidean geometry ,. nice clean Right angles and 3-D Space. mike The short version is that the physics is the same no matter what reference frame you are in. The speed of light is an invariant; no matter what frame you are in, the speed is c with respect to that frame. The spacetime interval is another; it tells us that time dilation and length contraction effects balance out. (There are more) But if the "stuff" that's in the vacuum is a medium and thus a frame of reference, how are all of the properties going to be the same regardless of our motion? That's the problem you need to solve.
studiot Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 I don't see why the question of what is or is not in 'empty' space is relevant. EM radiation passes perfectly satisfactorily through some pretty solid matter. Surely this is a side issue?
imatfaal Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 I don't see why the question of what is or is not in 'empty' space is relevant. EM radiation passes perfectly satisfactorily through some pretty solid matter. Surely this is a side issue? Thats a very good point - it's not an argument I have seen used in this particular way
swansont Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 EM waves passing through material is frame-dependent. The behavior is frequency dependent (wavelength), so if there is relative motion between the source and the medium the light will travel at a different speed in the medium. So a vacuum behaves differently than a medium does.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 13, 2014 Author Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) EM waves passing through material is frame-dependent. The behavior is frequency dependent (wavelength), so if there is relative motion between the source and the medium the light will travel at a different speed in the medium. So a vacuum behaves differently than a medium does. It would help if one knew the relative size of everything . Eg a neutrino coming along would not notice anything at all. .Nearly total empty, perhaps for something to the side a long way a way . ... Now as I approach a plank of wood , I see a solid wall of wood . no access. The neutrino would not know the plank was there. Now [ how big across is a photon of 100 Mhz E-M wave ]. What does it see when it approaches a plank of wood . what does a yellow photon of light see, approaching a plank of wood , then a block of glass , when it goes right through. Does it see the atoms with gaps between to go through. This simulation helps get proportion of the relative sizes INTERACTIVE Exploratory Simulation of Everything across Scale:- . from very small [plank ] 10 to the minus 35 to very large [universe] 10 to the plus 27 [ observable] and beyond link --- http://htwins.net/scale2/ Follow the following loading instructions :- ---- Press LOAD and wait . Then Single Click on START Button --Be patient starting takes 12- seconds-- [ Then slide in and out scale ]------ mike Edited March 13, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
studiot Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) How is it possible for small particles with mass or photons with no mass to influence or make fields in far distant places ? All you need is time; the interesting thing, to me is not so much the fact that the disturbance will eventually reach any distance, given enough time, but that it can influence the entire volume of space spanned by all that distance and just gets thinner and thinner. Is there any limit to this? Edited March 13, 2014 by studiot
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 14, 2014 Author Posted March 14, 2014 All you need is time; the interesting thing, to me is not so much the fact that the disturbance will eventually reach any distance, given enough time, but that it can influence the entire volume of space spanned by all that distance and just gets thinner and thinner. Is there any limit to this? well no because , the photon does not dilute as an individual, as far as I know. the single Photon ball ( even if it is only an effect , like a ball effect ) , just keeps on a going, unless something gets in the way. But the concentration or density of photons just gets less and less in line with the inverse square law [ from the area on the surface of a sphere. {but you probably knew that ] . but sooner or later the neighbouring photon is going to be a long way away ! If it ( the photon ) was not a ball or quantised particle like . It would dilute like a stone thrown ripple in a pond . mike
swansont Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 It would help if one knew the relative size of everything . Eg a neutrino coming along would not notice anything at all. .Nearly total empty, perhaps for something to the side a long way a way . ... Now as I approach a plank of wood , I see a solid wall of wood . no access. The neutrino would not know the plank was there. Now [ how big across is a photon of 100 Mhz E-M wave ]. What does it see when it approaches a plank of wood . what does a yellow photon of light see, approaching a plank of wood , then a block of glass , when it goes right through. Does it see the atoms with gaps between to go through. This simulation helps get proportion of the relative sizes mike Relative size is not actually an easy concept. Another way of saying the neutrino would not know the plank was there is that the plank has a small cross-section for interaction. If there's an interaction near a resonance then there would be a large cross section. In the interaction picture, it "looks" big. But that's just a model. There is no claim that this is what the particle actually "sees".
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 14, 2014 Author Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) Relative size is not actually an easy concept. Another way of saying the neutrino would not know the plank was there is that the plank has a small cross-section for interaction. If there's an interaction near a resonance then there would be a large cross section. In the interaction picture, it "looks" big. But that's just a model. There is no claim that this is what the particle actually "sees". So are you saying the difference between opaque and transparent is due to " resonance " . I remember at uni a prof saying something like that , but it slipped past me. .I think he was talking about fibre optic cables at the time . ? mike Edited March 14, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 So are you saying the difference between opaque and transparent is due to " resonance " . I remember at uni a prof saying something like that , but it slipped past me. .I think he was talking about fibre optic cables at the time . ? mike Yes. Something that is transparent lacks resonances in the appropriate frequency range.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 14, 2014 Author Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) Yes. Something that is transparent lacks resonances in the appropriate frequency range. That would infer , that anything that is NOT RESONANT will be transparent. ? or have i got this the wrong way round ? We only see what is happening in the visible spectrum, where most things are one colour or another apart from water, glass and a few other things . but mostly coloured or black and white. Whats happening across all the other frequencies ( vast range ) where are the Resonances and where the transparancies , because we can not see what is going on ? mike Edited March 14, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now