Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: ImaFungi

The electric and magnetic field are components of the same thing, the electromagnetic field. You can change the amount of electric and magnetic field you see by changing your frame of reference. The values that don't depend on the frame of reference (invariants) are B^2 - E^2 and B * E.

The electromagnetic field is physical in the sense that it has a physical effect on physical objects (matter).

Given that a field is observed by its effect on matter, you could argue that there are no fields, but just matter interacting with matter. This makes the field is a mathematical concept describing the interaction. Which is a valid point of view imho. Not sure how useful it is though.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: ImaFungi

The electric and magnetic field are components of the same thing, the electromagnetic field. You can change the amount of electric and magnetic field you see by changing your frame of reference. The values that don't depend on the frame of reference (invariants) are B^2 - E^2 and B * E.

The electromagnetic field is physical in the sense that it has a physical effect on physical objects (matter).

Components of the same thing; Why are two words needed, why not just 1 single electric field; of which it is known, the electric field, when interacted with in various ways, with various types of particles, from various reference frames, has various results?

Is it 1 singular material field, or are there two distinct types of material that make up the field? I suppose there are 2, as would be required for oscillation. Though a single type of material if abundant could oscillate with itself;

You have to understand, I am most interested in the precipice between ignorance and knowledge mankind is always standing on, I am only interested in physics because I am interested in taking part of the great human project of furthering comprehension of the human condition in relation to the reality it finds itself in and of. Try to remember when speaking to me that I am not interested in uses or toys; I am trying to speak about and get at some of the deepest mysteries of physical reality, I rarely ask a question in which I believe the answer I receive will be satisfactory, most questions I ask are the begging or middle, of a progression of discussion regarding all the mysteries of physics.

Given that a field is observed by its effect on matter, you could argue that there are no fields, but just matter interacting with matter. This makes the field is a mathematical concept describing the interaction. Which is a valid point of view imho. Not sure how useful it is though.

Part of my questioning involving electron, EM field, Photon, is from wondering;

If it is just matter interacting with matter; and here is where we see how non careful you are with terms and truth, you seem to not really know;

If you had an electron grasped between some electron grasper, and you shook the electron back and forth; according to theory, you would detect EM radiation, radiating from that electrons motion?

That situation, is one of the stems of my curiosity, by which I ask;

Where do the photons come from; Either there are real material field at every point in the universe, so that when an electron is accelerated at any point in the universe, the field it is accelerated closest too, will be altered, and this alteration will propagate away, and be called a photon;

Or there is not real material field at all points in

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: ImaFungi

The electric and magnetic field are components of the same thing, the electromagnetic field. You can change the amount of electric and magnetic field you see by changing your frame of reference. The values that don't depend on the frame of reference (invariants) are B^2 - E^2 and B * E.

The electromagnetic field is physical in the sense that it has a physical effect on physical objects (matter).

Components of the same thing; Why are two words needed, why not just 1 single electric field; of which it is known, the electric field, when interacted with in various ways, with various types of particles, from various reference frames, has various results?

Is it 1 singular material field, or are there two distinct types of material that make up the field? I suppose there are 2, as would be required for oscillation. Though a single type of material if abundant could oscillate with itself;

You have to understand, I am most interested in the precipice between ignorance and knowledge mankind is always standing on, I am only interested in physics because I am interested in taking part of the great human project of furthering comprehension of the human condition in relation to the reality it finds itself in and of. Try to remember when speaking to me that I am not interested in uses or toys; I am trying to speak about and get at some of the deepest mysteries of physical reality, I rarely ask a question in which I believe the answer I receive will be satisfactory, most questions I ask are the begging or middle, of a progression of discussion regarding all the mysteries of physics.

Given that a field is observed by its effect on matter, you could argue that there are no fields, but just matter interacting with matter. This makes the field is a mathematical concept describing the interaction. Which is a valid point of view imho. Not sure how useful it is though.

Part of my questioning involving electron, EM field, Photon, is from wondering;

If it is just matter interacting with matter; and here is where we see how non careful you are with terms and truth, you seem to not really know;

If you had an electron grasped between some electron grasper, and you shook the electron back and forth; according to theory, you would detect EM radiation, radiating from that electrons motion?

That situation, is one of the stems of my curiosity, by which I ask;

Where do the photons come from; Either there are real material field at every point in the universe, so that when an electron is accelerated at any point in the universe, the field it is accelerated closest too, will be altered, and this alteration will propagate away, and be called a photon;

Or there is not real material field at all points in the universe, but then you have to explain, how you can accelerate an electron any where in the universe, and a real material detectable quanta will appear.

I am working on some simple drawings I will post them later, which illustrate these points I have been making for the past 2 years; What I just said in this post will be illustrated, because I know reading and thinking is difficult for some of you.
the universe, but then you have to explain, how you can accelerate an electron any where in the universe, and a real material detectable quanta will appear.

I am working on some simple drawings I will post them later, which illustrate these points I have been making for the past 2-3-4 years; What I just said in this post will be illustrated, because I know reading and thinking is difficult for some of you.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: KrzYma

I asked you for the details, not what "they say is true"


?

Why not just look up 3-Jet Event?

en.wikipedia.org...

In particle physics, a three-jet event is an event with many particles in final state that appear to be clustered in three jets. A single jet consists of particles that fly off in roughly the same direction.
...
Since jets are ordinarily produced when quarks hadronize, and quarks are produced only in pairs, an additional particle is required to explain events containing an odd number of jets.

when quarks hadronize,...

In particle physics, hadronization (or hadronisation) is the process of the formation of hadrons out of quarks and gluons. This occurs after high-energy collisions in a particle collider in which free quarks or gluons are created.

so... jets are ordinarily produced when quarks hadronize,
but hadronisation is just a theory or better said comes from the theory itself

what if something else is happening ??
using theory A to explain theory A is just ridiculous
especially that...

The QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics) of the hadronization process are not yet fully understood, but are modeled and parameterized in a number of phenomenological studies, including the Lund string model and in various long-range QCD approximation schemes.

Lund string model...

In particle physics, the Lund string model is a phenomenological model of hadronization.

phenomenological model !

A phenomenological model (sometimes referred to as a statistical model) is a mathematical expression that relates several different empirical observations of phenomena to each other, in a way which is consistent with fundamental theory, but is not directly derived from theory. In other words, a phenomenological model is not derived from first principles.

this fundamental theory is particle physics.

A first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.


In other words, this theory is using itself to explain itself.
Circular theory based on assumptions, corrections and SHUT UP YOU KNOW NOTHING treatment of opponents !!!

SO, if we in the matrix of this quantum mechanics matriarch. What makes one think that any equation is correct for the scheme of things ? IT is ALL just a theory. Maybe in some other reality 1 plus 1 equals 3. ALL mathematics is , is an equation to fit the place of existence where one is at , at the time.

a reply to: greenreflections

Basically as I understand, you imply that concept of distance can only be meaningful when third point of reference is introduced, right?

Also, I did not get the dimension thing but some sort of spin that we identify with plus and minus sounds right.

Distance is a concept, it is the measurement of something with something.
If the universe was just 2 points and nothing else, there would be no distance at all.

Even with 3 points it's still nothing. Points are infinitely !!

To describe a charge one need at least 3 points or I call dimensions.
So the point becomes not infinite. It gets value of charge

Now, when I talk about dimensions, I don't talk about coordinate systems we are taught.
Not something on a piece of paper like point is first dimension, line the second and cube the third... NO

First dimension is infinite. I will call it dA now.
Two dA makes the second dimension.. dB, and it can be "from infinite big to infinite small" or "infinite small to infinite big"
dB­­Ý­ or dB­­ß, but this in still not the end.
The third dimension is needed for the charge to be present. dC¥

IF I would use a peace of paper to describe it, which is silly...
dA is the middle of the circle with radius dB­­Ý­ or radius dB­­ß, charge is dC¥ the "clockwise" or "anticlockwise" , dB­­Ý and dB­­ß is the spacial periphery of those and dC¥ the manifested charge.
dC¥ in relation to dB­­Ý­ or dB­­ß is what we call the "charge", plus or minus.

but still... two charge "particles" still do not "know" where they are in relation to each other.

now... an universe with just 2 dC would be infinite big if both ¥ is the same or infinite small if ¥ is opposite.

In our universe there is of course infinite number of those dC and the relation between them is what makes electrons and protons.
Electron an proton can "combine" to what we call a neutron.

Regarding the electric field, +1 charge and -1 charge end up in 2 field density and 0 charge outside the interaction distance.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
How might the frequency of a single photon be measured? You have some kind of detector, and a single photon exists and is traveling towards you, what is the essential fundamental characteristic of mode and method of possible detection to determine the frequency of that photon?

A photon is just a concept, not a real thing.
A photon is some construct made up to hide the unknowingness about particle interactions.

Physicist can't explain why two electrons repeal so they call "the force" an photon interaction.
They false concluding of what whey observe and have no idea why, just can measure how much, so they call it photon interaction.

photon is an mathematical "size" of "energy"

a construct in a theory and nothing real !!


an apple is something, we know that, but what is good or bad ?

Can you see what it is?
Some word to cover something they can't explain

originally posted by: KrzYma
A photon is just a concept, not a real thing.
A photon is some construct made up to hide the unknowingness about particle interactions.

Physicist can't explain why two electrons repeal so they call "the force" an photon interaction.
They false concluding of what whey observe and have no idea why, just can measure how much, so they call it photon interaction.

You're mixing up virtual photons which aren't independently measured with real photons which are independently measured.

an apple is something, we know that, but what is good or bad ?

An apple, what? Sorry, you lost me with the apple. Good would be learning the difference between photons and virtual photons, bad is mixing them up.

Virtual Particles: What are they?

The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term.

See where you went wrong? You were supposed to forget the word "particle", not the word "virtual". You forgot the word "virtual" and this adds to your confusion.

If something makes a real particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So it’s not like a particle at all, and I wish we didn’t call it that.

For example, an electron is a real particle, a ripple in the electron field; you can hold one in your hand, so to speak; you can make a beam of them and send them across a room or inside an 20th century television set (a cathode-ray tube). A photon, too, is a real particle of light, a ripple in the electromagnetic field, and you can make a beam of photons (as in a laser.)

So there are real particles, and there are virtual particles, learn the difference please.

To really understand this you need a small amount of math, but zero math is unfortunately not enough. It is better, I think, for the layperson to understand that the electromagnetic field is disturbed in some way, ignore the term “virtual photons” which actually is more confusing than enlightening, and trust that a calculation has to be done to figure out how the disturbance produced by the two electrons leads to their being repelled from one another

Imafungi will object to the "zero math is not enough" statement but it's true.

If math turns out to be our best description of nature's behavior then with zero math you're missing out on our best descriptions of nature. And yes it's nice to be able to predict exactly and quantitatively how two electrons will interact using math. Engineers need to know this so they can make your gadgets work.

originally posted by: operayt
SO, if we in the matrix of this quantum mechanics matriarch. What makes one think that any equation is correct for the scheme of things ? IT is ALL just a theory. Maybe in some other reality 1 plus 1 equals 3. ALL mathematics is , is an equation to fit the place of existence where one is at , at the time.

If an equation can predict the results of future observations or experiments, that means something. Specifically it means that it's a tool which helps us understand the universe and to predict what will happen.

One of the objections Eros noted regarding the MOND modified gravity approach to dark matter is that it seemed to vary by "place of existence", so you look at one galaxy and need one set of parameters and look at another galaxy and need another set of parameters, which makes the idea seem not universally applicable without location specific "fudge factors". Since many other observations suggest the laws of physics we observe here seem to apply elsewhere in the universe, we prefer explanations which are consistent with these observations, so that solutions which apply at one place should apply in another place if the laws of physics in our universe are the same everywhere.

Maybe the laws of physics are different in a different universe, but the only universe we can say anything intelligent about is ours. However, I'm not sure how 1+1 would equal 3 in any universe.

A question related;

Photon detector (z) stationary for 20 minutes outside (to test it works) detects x photons.

Photon detector (z) stationary for 20 minutes in what is called 'vacuum' detects 0 photons, (is that theoretically possible for experiment and thought experiment?)

Run experiment 20 times, 0 each time in vacuum.


Now; Same set up, except this time the detector (z) in the vacuum begins to move (detector face forward; at various velocities, but the line of questioning is interested in an absolute distinction, the potential for variances in the result of that distinction in relation to velocity of movement, is a further topic down the road); will the detector (z) still detect 0 photons?

There are also detectors (a,b,c) surrounding this volume/vacuum/space;

Will they detect photons, when the detector moves, what are the possible reasons why they might?

If the EH...EM field truly exists, and it is when an electron is accelerated, that the electron interacts with this real EM field that truly existed, in relation to the electron which accelerates in relation to it, resulting in that point of the EM field to oscillate, (in accordance to the manner in which the electron accelerated in relation to it, frequency, wave length, energy, quantity of quanta);

When the detect itself, moves forward, in the vacuum; would its forward movement be accelerated disturbance with the EM field that exist in front of it, causing photons?

And/Or would photons be caused from the mechanisms of movement required to force the detector forward; would any photons detected be result from the material moving in relation to the material of the detector apparatus, and not due to the detector face, acceleratedly running into a pre existent EM field

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: greenreflections

Basically as I understand, you imply that concept of distance can only be meaningful when third point of reference is introduced, right?

Also, I did not get the dimension thing but some sort of spin that we identify with plus and minus sounds right.

Distance is a concept, it is the measurement of something with something.
If the universe was just 2 points and nothing else, there would be no distance at all.

Even with 3 points it's still nothing. Points are infinitely !!

To describe a charge one need at least 3 points or I call dimensions.
So the point becomes not infinite. It gets value of charge

Now, when I talk about dimensions, I don't talk about coordinate systems we are taught.
Not something on a piece of paper like point is first dimension, line the second and cube the third... NO

First dimension is infinite. I will call it dA now.
Two dA makes the second dimension.. dB, and it can be "from infinite big to infinite small" or "infinite small to infinite big"
dB­­Ý­ or dB­­ß, but this in still not the end.
The third dimension is needed for the charge to be present. dC¥

IF I would use a peace of paper to describe it, which is silly...
dA is the middle of the circle with radius dB­­Ý­ or radius dB­­ß, charge is dC¥ the "clockwise" or "anticlockwise" , dB­­Ý and dB­­ß is the spacial periphery of those and dC¥ the manifested charge.
dC¥ in relation to dB­­Ý­ or dB­­ß is what we call the "charge", plus or minus.

but still... two charge "particles" still do not "know" where they are in relation to each other.

now... an universe with just 2 dC would be infinite big if both ¥ is the same or infinite small if ¥ is opposite.

In our universe there is of course infinite number of those dC and the relation between them is what makes electrons and protons.
Electron an proton can "combine" to what we call a neutron.

Regarding the electric field, +1 charge and -1 charge end up in 2 field density and 0 charge outside the interaction distance.

Distance is real; with or without a human knowing and to what degree a human knows, distance, regardless exists. Distance can be measured badly, there can be optical illusions, there can be know knowledge or understanding of distance, but distance exists.

There is no description or mention of the momentous mechanics of all the terms you listed, you listed terms with spatial relations, but we know the universe is very physically present and interactive, you did not write what about a charge, presents its unique physically momentous relation to the rest of the terms around it; You have a visual and graphic and descriptive mapping of distinct terms, but I dont see any talk of how and why they are physically unique, how and why they move the way they do, I don think.

originally posted by: KrzYma


A photon is just a concept, not a real thing.
A photon is some construct made up to hide the unknowingness about particle interactions.

Physicist can't explain why two electrons repeal so they call "the force" an photon interaction.
They false concluding of what whey observe and have no idea why, just can measure how much, so they call it photon interaction.

photon is an mathematical "size" of "energy"

a construct in a theory and nothing real !!


an apple is something, we know that, but what is good or bad ?

Can you see what it is?
Some word to cover something they can't explain

I agree the theory can possibly have aspect wrong, but I am not quick to say that the theory is not attempting to describe something really there, you seem to be throwing all the babies out with some bath water, like I think the word apple is describing 'something that really exists' as much as the word photon is attempting to describe 'something that really exists', I think knowledge about that which may exist can vary, you seem to think science would be closer to truth if it eliminated all sign of the concept of 'photon/light/em radiation' from human history, knowledge and use.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: joelr

Could always use one of these beasts too en.wikipedia.org...

Nice

originally posted by: ImaFungi




And so I ask something like; before electrons move where is the light?

And then the word energy is invented and described, and then light is said to not be matter, not to be something that always exists, but energy, something that can be created, or transformed... to try to skirt my question;

And then it is said that light is an E field and an H field, oscillating; Do the E and H field exist in a not oscillating state at any planck length of the universe?

Or E and H field do not exist anywhere in the universe, unless an electron moves, then a real E and H field come into existence out of nowhere surrounding the electron that moved, and oscilate at a precise speed everytime, but varying frequency some how?

If the E and H field are real physical things, they must in some sense have rest mass or rest energy, and if they can exist without ocsilating, then that would be light at 0 frequency, and the universe might be full of that, real field... or not, because I am skeptical about saying the universe is full of any 'field.

They are not classical fields that are spread out in space. You could call them “field of potentialities" and what exactly a potentiality is made of we cannot even imagine. It's possible that not all of physical reality is contained within space?

But these fields are more fundamental than particles and this is true in a mathematical sense. The field description makes predictions that have been tested to degrees larger than the particle-only model. Physically no one understands what they are. Only through equations, pure math do we know quantum fields.

The potentials in the field give rise to fluctuations - virtual particles, so on a small scale you would see those but only with a God-like perspective. Concepts of rest mass are concepts for the physical universe, these potentialities are beyond our understanding of physical.
To see fields better all you can do is start working on the math.

Here is an overview on how to speak QFT:
www.quantumfieldtheory.info...

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: KrzYma

I asked you for the details, not what "they say is true"


?

Why not just look up 3-Jet Event?

en.wikipedia.org...

In particle physics, a three-jet event is an event with many particles in final state that appear to be clustered in three jets. A single jet consists of particles that fly off in roughly the same direction.
...
Since jets are ordinarily produced when quarks hadronize, and quarks are produced only in pairs, an additional particle is required to explain events containing an odd number of jets.

when quarks hadronize,...

In particle physics, hadronization (or hadronisation) is the process of the formation of hadrons out of quarks and gluons. This occurs after high-energy collisions in a particle collider in which free quarks or gluons are created.

so... jets are ordinarily produced when quarks hadronize,
but hadronisation is just a theory or better said comes from the theory itself

what if something else is happening ??
using theory A to explain theory A is just ridiculous
especially that...

The QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics) of the hadronization process are not yet fully understood, but are modeled and parameterized in a number of phenomenological studies, including the Lund string model and in various long-range QCD approximation schemes.

Lund string model...

In particle physics, the Lund string model is a phenomenological model of hadronization.

phenomenological model !

A phenomenological model (sometimes referred to as a statistical model) is a mathematical expression that relates several different empirical observations of phenomena to each other, in a way which is consistent with fundamental theory, but is not directly derived from theory. In other words, a phenomenological model is not derived from first principles.

this fundamental theory is particle physics.

A first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.


In other words, this theory is using itself to explain itself.
Circular theory based on assumptions, corrections and SHUT UP YOU KNOW NOTHING treatment of opponents !!!

Why don't you use your time spent researching to note that the Electric Universe is a total fraud?

3 Jet is good confirmation of gluons, but there have been others. Besides the success of Quantum Chromodynamics overall as well.

From physics forum:
After this, there have been several other experimental confirmations of gluons, the most accurate being, I think, deep inelastic e p collisions (again, at DESY but with HERA this time). There are tons of publications by the two collaborations there (H1 and ZEUS).

the DIS results can be gazed at here. The amount of data is stupendous. The fact that the points are not located on an horizontal line, called scaling violation, is in perfect agreement with QCD. To fully appreciate the extent of this data set, please take time to realize that we have logarithmic scales in two dimensions (xB,Q2).
pdg.lbl.gov... DIS results

Wiki page with more info including DESI and other gluon confirmations:
en.wikipedia.org...


If you are saying that it's not true that you know nothing about QCD then go ahead and show me an alternate model that contains the equations to produce the effects of the strong force. Or some legit reasons why the success of QCD should be ignored. Electric U. is just a bunch of ideas, no predictions no anything. Nothing.

a reply to: joelr

Easiest way to explain fieldsome is they are properties of objects. You can detect them with sensors or for that matter your eyes since we can see EM radiation. Fields are not stuff they exist in mathematics as know properties of particles. We could get into why these particles have these properties by discussing things like Higgs boson. But trying to figure out what fields are is useless since it's nothing more than energy at a particular point in space at a particular time. Fields will fluctuate with velocity even temprature. What causes this energy.

Here is an example of a field most people wouldn't consider we have a wind current. I can map out speed and direction of the wind at different altitudes and positions on the earth. This is a field in its simplest form. Mapping temprature in a room again a field I can pick points in the room and show how the further I get from the fireplace the less heat there is. Point is temprature is a thing when mapped in a field it it's a physical description of a property of thermal dynamics.

Fields exist to describe interactions in detail we could have called them anything but what they tell is is the amount of energy between two objects and what will happen as a result of that.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

If something makes a real particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So it’s not like a particle at all, and I wish we didn’t call it that.

For example, an electron is a real particle, a ripple in the electron field; you can hold one in your hand, so to speak; you can make a beam of them and send them across a room or inside an 20th century television set (a cathode-ray tube). A photon, too, is a real particle of light, a ripple in the electromagnetic field, and you can make a beam of photons (as in a laser.)

So there are real particles, and there are virtual particles, learn the difference please.

A virtual photon is a disturbance in the EM field? A photon is a disturbance in the EM field? A virtual photon is a disturbance of the disturbance? A photon disturbed? Or the EM field disturbed from a different angle? Or the EM field not disturbed enough to produce photon? Or virtual photon is the real EM state at all given times and points of space? Or virtual photon is just a term to say "We cant be measuring what we are not measuring but we think something might be 'there' even when we are not measuring"?

One of the objections Eros noted regarding the MOND modified gravity approach to dark matter is that it seemed to vary by "place of existence", so you look at one galaxy and need one set of parameters and look at another galaxy and need another set of parameters, which makes the idea seem not universally applicable without location specific "fudge factors". Since many other observations suggest the laws of physics we observe here seem to apply elsewhere in the universe, we prefer explanations which are consistent with these observations, so that solutions which apply at one place should apply in another place if the laws of physics in our universe are the same everywhere.

Galaxies are different, in chemistry and biology, and physics, different circumstances of material, densities, velocities, rotations, orbits, charge, spatial relation, all these factors or parameters have extreme qualitative differences, to the point that every star and planet is not equal, but seemingly quite the opposite; why would it be so bizarre if different galaxies have different parameters?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: joelr

Easiest way to explain fieldsome is they are properties of objects. You can detect them with sensors or for that matter your eyes since we can see EM radiation. Fields are not stuff they exist in mathematics as know properties of particles. We could get into why these particles have these properties by discussing things like Higgs boson. But trying to figure out what fields are is useless since it's nothing more than energy at a particular point in space at a particular time. Fields will fluctuate with velocity even temprature. What causes this energy.

Here is an example of a field most people wouldn't consider we have a wind current. I can map out speed and direction of the wind at different altitudes and positions on the earth. This is a field in its simplest form. Mapping temprature in a room again a field I can pick points in the room and show how the further I get from the fireplace the less heat there is. Point is temprature is a thing when mapped in a field it it's a physical description of a property of thermal dynamics.

Fields exist to describe interactions in detail we could have called them anything but what they tell is is the amount of energy between two objects and what will happen as a result of that.

In those examples 'fields' are describing something that really exists; if humans disappeared tomorrow, we would presume wind would still exist; Air particles exist, they move. If the same thing can be said for EM field;

The biggest thing that needs to be cleared up about EM field, is when people at whim make it pure abstraction by saying "EM field exists at all points in space".... Does it really.......

How about; There are only a finite quantity of photons that exist in reality right now, and right now, and right now, and always...

And in the spaces where there are 0 photons? Is there something, EM?

In realities EM?

In mans EM field map, they can say; yeah I wrote a map and drew these lines so the lines exist everywhere in the universe so the EM exists every where in the universe, and I will draw some points on the lines, those are photons we detected;

Obviously we do not know where every photon is currently, or how much space is covered with them; but the space that its not covered with them... what is meant that there exists EM field there? Real something there? Related to photon? Photon is EM field? So you say Photons exist where photons do not exist?

Semi related question;

Has all human light experimentation and detection been while relatively moving?

If yes, how can it be known the energetic/speed of light detected, is not in part related to this relative motion?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Has all human light experimentation and detection been while relatively moving?

If yes, how can it be known the energetic/speed of light detected, is not in part related to this relative motion?

Moving relative to what?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Semi related question;

Has all human light experimentation and detection been while relatively moving?

Yes of course we know the Earth orbits the sun at over 100,000 kph.

If yes, how can it be known the energetic/speed of light detected, is not in part related to this relative motion?

Refer to the famous Michelson–Morley experiment and subsequent more accurate similar experiments.

Although it would be possible, in theory, for the Earth's motion to match that of the aether at one moment in time, it was not possible for the Earth to remain at rest with respect to the aether at all times, because of the variation in both the direction and the speed of the motion. At any given point on the Earth's surface, the magnitude and direction of the wind would vary with time of day and season. By analyzing the return speed of light in different directions at various different times, it was thought to be possible to measure the motion of the Earth relative to the aether.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Semi related question;

Has all human light experimentation and detection been while relatively moving?

Yes of course we know the Earth orbits the sun at over 100,000 kph.

If yes, how can it be known the energetic/speed of light detected, is not in part related to this relative motion?

Refer to the famous Michelson–Morley experiment and subsequent more accurate similar experiments.

Although it would be possible, in theory, for the Earth's motion to match that of the aether at one moment in time, it was not possible for the Earth to remain at rest with respect to the aether at all times, because of the variation in both the direction and the speed of the motion. At any given point on the Earth's surface, the magnitude and direction of the wind would vary with time of day and season. By analyzing the return speed of light in different directions at various different times, it was thought to be possible to measure the motion of the Earth relative to the aether.

That does not answer whether or not the quantifiable distinction of the speed of light is an accurate measure of the speed of light;

Light is measured at different energies and forces;

If one detector was purely stationary (and we all agreed from all possible reference frames it was stationary) and light hit it, and it registered an energy, if that same exact light were to hit a detector that was moving and/or rotating, would it not register a different energy factor; and so you say the earth is moving x speed, and its rotating y speed, and orbiting the galaxy z speed, so if all of our detectable measurements of light, are in various forms of movement, we do not have a perfect light detection, to compare all other light detections too; It would be like the difference between measuring the frictionate/frictive force of placing your hand on the pavement from a moving car, and doing the same while the car is stationary.

This may be true for all the 'fundamental fields', we just exist in a classical world gravity bubble? How much stuff passes right through earth? Or because some many things can pass right through matters;