It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

page: 263
80
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:07 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
(time to play everyones favorite game) only so many physically conceivable ways at least beginning simply and fundamentally (geometrically, mechanically) a photon can be (and of course I know I am missing some-many (but certainly no where near infinite...though I guess photons can be snowflake like; but with something so fundamental being the smallest force surrounded by all others how much room for physical variety could there be)
Has it occurred to you that no matter how many drawings of a photon you make, not a single one will ever accurately represent all the properties of a photon? I certainly have no idea how to make such a drawing and am not sure it can be done.

originally posted by: greenreflections
Don't get it. Why so many confusing definitions of 'field'? Is it constituted of individual particles that together form wave pattern or is definition of 'particle' messed up?
It's not confusing to me. The Weather map analogy works for me and is pretty clear, I think:

Field

For example, on a weather map, the surface wind velocity is described by assigning a vector to each point on a map. Each vector represents the speed and direction of the movement of air at that point. As another example, an electric field can be thought of as a "condition in space" emanating from an electric charge and extending throughout the whole of space.
Here is such a weather map:

To me it's a map of the properties of space at various points in that space. There doesn't have to be any particle in a gravitational field for example, the graviton is only hypothesized. There are no particles or waves in the above weather map, it just shows wind strength (via arrow length) and direction, as dragonridr was trying to explain. It's not much different from how you might envision an electric field where you'd have longer arrows closer to the electric charge and shorter arrows further away from the electric charge, where the arrows could represent field strength visually, though often we use math to characterize things like electric fields. But the math is basically describing something very similar to that, the properties of space at various points in space, where in the case of an electric field it would be field strength and direction, analogous to the wind speed and direction on the weather map.

posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 08:01 PM

originally posted by: joelr
I think a better description is that fields are more fundamental structures and particles are just quanta of energy located in each field.

Yup. In high energy theory, scientists hypothesize fields with certain interactions and symmetries as axioms (i.e. not derivable from math but facts of universe), and particles are manifestations of them (in some cases) once you also apply axioms of quantum mechanics (again an experimentally justified assertion, not derivable).

There is a big deal with the 'gluon field', and as I've read, coherent states of macrocscopic numbers of gluons or even individual gluons as an entity don't really occur. The effect is just through the consequences of the field. So there is a major part of "particle physics" where the particle nature is not an empirically relevant phenomenon in this universe.
edit on 28-2-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 08:04 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

This gets into my continual point, where does this wiggly material exist before it is propagated; and why must it wiggle;

There is no other answer known other than "the electromagnetic field is an experimentally verified property of Nature, apparently created by the Big Bang and whose properties have been constant throughout existence, and cannot be derived as a consequence of any deeper theory or phenomena."

posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 08:07 PM

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

This gets into my continual point, where does this wiggly material exist before it is propagated; and why must it wiggle;

There is no other answer known other than "the electromagnetic field is an experimentally verified property of Nature, apparently created by the Big Bang and whose properties have been constant throughout existence, and cannot be derived as a consequence of any deeper theory or phenomena."

Some of the problems in the science of theoretical fundamental physics exist because people like you believe this

posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 08:14 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

It means - how often per second are the E and H fields which constitute the wave nature of the photon oscillating? Conversely, what is the energy of the particle aspect of the photon? Each photon has this, it's a base characteristic.

What exactly is the E field and what exactly is the H field, and how exactly do they oscillate?

What exactly? The things that make charges move.

How do they oscillate? Maxwell's equations, or quantum field theory in full detail .

What does the E field physical equal, in terms of volume, density, mass, momentum?

The E field exists inside all volumes of the universe. It doesn't have mass but it's self energy contributes to gravitation to a very small degree. The Stress-Energy tensor and Poynting Vector are descriptions of the momentum in the electromagnetic field.

Is the E field a singular object made up of multiple objects?

The electromagnetic field (E&B combined) appears to be fundamental to the universe and is not decomposable.

Does the E field truly exist at all planck lengths of space?

Yes, as far as all experiment has shown. We are unable to probe Planck lengths.

What is the mass of the E field at each planck length of space?

Energy density is proportional to |E|^2 + |B|^2

Where is there room for the H field if the E field literally takes up all space?

E and H superimpose over whatever else is there in the volume without any problem.

Can the E field be made to be more or less dense?

If you call that stronger and weaker, yes.

Can the E field be separated from the H field?

No, changes in one always make changes in the other.

If it cannot, how can it be said there are separate things, E field and H field?

Deeply, they aren't, as shown by Maxwell and Einstein.

Why, theoretically, hypothetically, can the E field not be made to oscillate slower?

There is no known lower wavelength or frequency of electromagnetic waves in theory.

The E field and H field always oscillate at the same speed, speed of light, the difference is the angles of the fields to one another?

That's confusing. They oscillate at any frequency---perturbations propagate in vacuum at the speed of light (speed of EM) which is frequency-independent. This is an experimental fact of nature, that there is no dispersion relationship for EM waves in vacuum. It did not have to be so: the vacuum permittivity could have been frequency dependent, but it does not appear to be so.

A photon is nothing but the E and H field oscillating, therefore a photon is multiple components? Identifiable things?

You can say a baseball is a baseball, 1 thing, 1 identifiable thing, baseball; but we know there are components, the stitches, the outer fabric, the inner cork and stuff, and then even further atoms and what not; you are saying a photon is 1 single thing; but that a photon is the oscillation between E and B field, that seems contradictory on your part.

You still have much too much attachment to naive linguistic notions of 'things'. Language is secondary to physics, and our language is an imperfect representation of the physics. Mathematics is better, but in the end, it is all about explaining what are experimentally observed realities of the universe in a compact way.

Talking about the baseball, stop thinking about what "is" and "what isn't" and start thinking like a physicst as what can be done and not done. You could peel off cork and leather, and put cork in one box and leather in another, and each one of those is not a baseball. That cannot be done with electromagnetic waves.

(note that in vacuum, B field is the same as H field, consider them identical for purposes of this discussion)

edit on 28-2-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 08:32 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

This gets into my continual point, where does this wiggly material exist before it is propagated; and why must it wiggle;

There is no other answer known other than "the electromagnetic field is an experimentally verified property of Nature, apparently created by the Big Bang and whose properties have been constant throughout existence, and cannot be derived as a consequence of any deeper theory or phenomena."

Some of the problems in the science of theoretical fundamental physics exist because people like you believe this

I don't believe that to be true because I want it to be so, or am unwilling to consider the opposite, but because experimental results seem to say so.

You seem unwilling to accept that there could be fundamental properties not derivable from others, and that humans have successfully understood them apparently correctly thanks to modern theory, technology and experiment, and that your discomfort with the theory is only a result of your intellectual discomfort and not an actual problem in the theory.

The historical course of physics has been to discern underlying laws and principles which explain other diverse phenomena, and that has been highly successful. Electricity and magnetism and optics appeared in the 1600's to be experimentally diverse phenomena, and yet now we know they are all part of the same underlying property. It's not that scientists are unwilling to consider something else---very much to the contrary they would love to find some deeper explanation. But, the difference between physics and speculation and mumbo jumbo is

physics: theoretical compatibility with known results, and secure experimental confirmation

speculation: theoretical compatibility with known results, and hypothetical experimental consequences not contradicting known experimental results

wrong: incompatibility with known experimental results

mumbo jumbo: mumbo jumbo
edit on 28-2-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 08:41 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: joelr

So really it's not a classical field with photons all over the place, it's a quantum field that IS everywhere but photons only exist where and when the field has energy.

Is a real quantum field everywhere in reality, or just in theory?

If so, what does that mean, what does it mean that there really exists a quantum field everywhere?

To answer that question, one has to turn it into a question which could be answered:

How would one experimentally tell the difference between a quantum field existing everywhere, or one existing only in some places?

One result would be that in some parts of the universe, some particle interactions which depend on that field take place, but in other ones they don't, just because.

Experimentally, this has never been observed: particle accelerators always show the same set of potential interactions if the conditions are the same. There is never any question of "whether the X field is operative here, or at this moment in time."

Astrophysically, the observed properties of the universe appear to be that the same physics and behaviors are the same everywhere.

Therefore it is a physical axiom that such fields always exist everywhere in the universe and always have the same interactions, as that is compatible with every physical observation ever made, and the converse has never been observed.

This concept (if you call 'laws' as the equivalent of field theories) is, in truth, quite scientifically revolutionary and profound. Who really understood this first? The most important human in history: Isaac Newton.
edit on 28-2-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 10:43 PM

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

This gets into my continual point, where does this wiggly material exist before it is propagated; and why must it wiggle;

There is no other answer known other than "the electromagnetic field is an experimentally verified property of Nature, apparently created by the Big Bang and whose properties have been constant throughout existence, and cannot be derived as a consequence of any deeper theory or phenomena."

My gripe with this is that you are not saying what the electromagnetic field is, you are not physically defining it

posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 11:43 PM

Hi mbkennel, that last series of posts was very good.
But I will have to disagree on this statement,

The most important human in history: Isaac Newton.

Newton has to share that position at least 2 other people, then first being Rene Descartes.

Descartes' work provided the basis for the calculus developed by Newton and Gottfried Leibniz, who applied infinitesimal calculus to the tangent line problem, thus permitting the evolution of that branch of modern mathematics.(74) His rule of signs is also a commonly used method to determine the number of positive and negative roots of a polynomial.

Descartes discovered an early form of the law of conservation of mechanical momentum (a measure of the motion of an object), and envisioned it as pertaining to motion in a straight line, as opposed to perfect circular motion, as Galileo had envisioned it. He outlined his views on the universe in his Principles of Philosophy.

Descartes also made contributions to the field of optics. He showed by using geometric construction and the law of refraction (also known as Descartes' law or more commonly Snell's law) that the angular radius of a rainbow is 42 degrees (i.e., the angle subtended at the eye by the edge of the rainbow and the ray passing from the sun through the rainbow's centre is 42°).(75) He also independently discovered the law of reflection, and his essay on optics was the first published mention of this law.(76)

Influence on Newton's mathematics(edit)

Current opinion is that Descartes had the most influence of anyone on the young Newton, and this is arguably one of Descartes' most important contributions. Newton continued Descartes' work on cubic equations, which freed the subject from the fetters of the Greek and Macedonian perspectives. The most important concept was his very modern treatment of independent variables.(77)

He laid the mathematical foundations for a host of fields of study.
Rene Descartes

The other is of course Nikola Tesla, without his contibution in AC elctricity the world as we know it today would not exist.

posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 02:24 AM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: joelr

So really it's not a classical field with photons all over the place, it's a quantum field that IS everywhere but photons only exist where and when the field has energy.

Is a real quantum field everywhere in reality, or just in theory?

If so, what does that mean, what does it mean that there really exists a quantum field everywhere?

It means the probability fluctuations in the fields are the virtual particles popping in and out of existence. That is the only physical marker the fields have. That could be responsible for dark energy, we don't yet know?
The probability itself exists but not in any physical way. There are things in physics that seem to have no mass or energy, just information or pure mathematical rules, tendencies.
QFT is always talked about with math however. The physical-ness isn't considered. It's just really a way to merge Quantum mechanics with Special Relativity.The equations make predictions that pan out when tested. That's all we really know.

posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 01:51 PM

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: joelr

So really it's not a classical field with photons all over the place, it's a quantum field that IS everywhere but photons only exist where and when the field has energy.

Is a real quantum field everywhere in reality, or just in theory?

If so, what does that mean, what does it mean that there really exists a quantum field everywhere?

It means the probability fluctuations in the fields are the virtual particles popping in and out of existence. That is the only physical marker the fields have.

Ok, so field theory is not saying, there exists real matter and/or energy at every infinitesimal point in space, and that is what a field is?

Field theory is saying, there does not exist real matter and/or energy at every infinitesimal point in space;

So real matter and energy exists some places in space;

So then what is the EM field saying;

Electrons exist at some points in space, photons exist at some points in space;

Field theory is saying; we do not know where in space electrons and photons are, unless we measure them (and even then, there can be issues) but an electron could potentially travel there and there, and be there and there and a photon too, so field theory is to keep in mind that we do not know where electrons and photons are at all given times but they could be all around, and so we must consider them as potential actors on that which we do observe?

posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 02:11 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Has it occurred to you that no matter how many drawings of a photon you make, not a single one will ever accurately represent all the properties of a photon? I certainly have no idea how to make such a drawing and am not sure it can be done.

Do you think you understand 'photon' better than I have drawn? What is one aspect of photon I have not drawn? Are you saying it is impossible the photon is a sphere like object? Or a line like object? You think it may be way more complex, like every photon is 100 different gears? Or every photon is a snow flake?

It's not confusing to me. The Weather map analogy works for me and is pretty clear, I think:

Field

For example, on a weather map, the surface wind velocity is described by assigning a vector to each point on a map. Each vector represents the speed and direction of the movement of air at that point. As another example, an electric field can be thought of as a "condition in space" emanating from an electric charge and extending throughout the whole of space.
Here is such a weather map:

To me it's a map of the properties of space at various points in that space. There doesn't have to be any particle in a gravitational field for example, the graviton is only hypothesized. There are no particles or waves in the above weather map, it just shows wind strength (via arrow length) and direction, as dragonridr was trying to explain. It's not much different from how you might envision an electric field where you'd have longer arrows closer to the electric charge and shorter arrows further away from the electric charge, where the arrows could represent field strength visually, though often we use math to characterize things like electric fields. But the math is basically describing something very similar to that, the properties of space at various points in space, where in the case of an electric field it would be field strength and direction, analogous to the wind speed and direction on the weather map.

But in all the examples of fields you give; there is really something there;

In the wind example; Do you agree that atoms are required for wind? So the field is full of atoms, and its simplest there would be no wind, but the real atoms would still exist, and they would relatively be quite dense?

The atoms are moving a certain way at a certain speed, draw arrows, sure wind, fine field;

But in EM, you put a test particle in relation to EM field, as you would the wind field, and it is moved;

In the wind field, it is moving atoms which move the test particle; In the EM field is it what that moves the test particle? Photons and/or virtual photons?

The Em field is composed of electrons, photons, and virtual photons?

That is all the EM field, is saying 'electrons exist, photons exist, and virtual photons exist'?

I asked this question over and over again, and I thought it was part of the reason field theory was desired to be devised, because it was not understood where photons came from, when electrons were accelerated;

I ask this question over and over and you shy away from it. Look at what you write in response, you are taking a cheap easy way out, face it head on.

If you had a device that can accelerate an electron back and forth ~continuously, it is presumed this would result in the ~continuous propagation of EM stemming from the electrons location and force and momentum of acceleration; it was not understood, and I still do not understand, where the photons are coming from; so I thought field theory said; there is a real physical material substance that exists at all points in space, and charge particles are intimately coupled with this substance in some way, and so when they are accelerated, the substance reflects that acceleration in some propagation.

So in the wind field, if there is 0 wind, there are still innumerable atoms, relatively at rest, prepared to become wind if the right methods of energy and matter are introduced;

In the EM field, if there are 0 photons in an area, are there innumerable photons, or innumerable virtual photons, relatively at rest, prepared to become photons, when an electron is accelerated near? OR, prepared to become a momentary wave, while a distant photon approaches this particular volume of EM field?

posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 02:50 PM

originally posted by: mbkennel

What exactly (is E field and H and how do they oscillate)? The things that make charges move.

Is the E field a single fundamental object, or an object made of fundamental objects? What is the theory of its rest mass?

Is the E field anything other than photon? Is virtual photon anything other than photon, what?

As far as I understand it now, a virtual photon is when a real photon is collided with relatively perpendicularly, or altered in some way;

The E field exists inside all volumes of the universe. It doesn't have mass but it's self energy contributes to gravitation to a very small degree. The Stress-Energy tensor and Poynting Vector are descriptions of the momentum in the electromagnetic field.

If it exists inside all volumes of the universe, it must have rest mass, because it must be resting inside all volumes of the universe; if it was continuously moving at all points, it would not exist so omnipresently;

What does self energy mean?

"Does the E field truly exist at all planck lengths of space? "

Yes, as far as all experiment has shown. We are unable to probe Planck lengths.

Can the E field be split, or broken, can its density be altered? The E field cannot truly exist at all points in space, because then nothing would exist but the E field; that thought alone allows me to be skeptical of declaring the E field exists everywhere. Or you would say, everywhere there is not material there is E field, and the E field bends and curves around material? Though it also is in and through material. The EM field and the Gravity field are like the air of the universe, in a sense, you usually cannot see them, but (on earth at least in air example) they are around and inside you in various ways.

Is the E field composed of particles?

"can the e field be made more and less dense"

If you call that stronger and weaker, yes.

Snow can be made more and less dense, a pillow can be made more and less dense, I dont know if I would call those examples stronger and weaker;

If the E field exists at point a1, b3, c5, d7, e9, f11, g13, h15, i16,

can it be compressed (a1,b2,c3,d4,e9 ....), and can it be separated.

"If it cannot, how can it be said there are separate things, E field and H field?"

Deeply, they aren't, as shown by Maxwell and Einstein.

Ok, that is why I was just asking about E field, but now should go back to saying EM field, if there is only 1 physical thing;

"The E field and H field always oscillate at the same speed, speed of light, the difference is the angles of the fields to one another?"

That's confusing. They oscillate at any frequency---perturbations propagate in vacuum at the speed of light (speed of EM) which is frequency-independent. This is an experimental fact of nature, that there is no dispersion relationship for EM waves in vacuum. It did not have to be so: the vacuum permittivity could have been frequency dependent, but it does not appear to be so.

But I just learned from the others, that there is no such thing as up and down wiggle action in regards to a single photon; I suppose a pond is a good analogy, when a stone is dropped and concentric circles begin, because it is thought photons do not propagate as concentric circles, but do so in one exact direction per electron acceleration (maybe); imagine that a stone was dropped in a pond and concentric circles were not made, but 1 particular path of propagating crest of wave; that crest moves further from the point of its creation; that in idea is photon; the thing with the water is the particles are already there and already exist, and relatively resting (analogy would be the water would be the E field, the EM field, waiting to be disturbed);

The particles may stay relatively in the same location, the amount they are moved from their starting rest location, is the overall signature of the energy of the stone which contacted the water;

I guess there is an up and down wiggle action in that example, unavoidable, because the stone breaks the surface, and pushes outward on all the particles of where it breaks; the mass of the stone, and its energy, force the particles away,

For a photon it is just said a single crest is a photon, is a particle, the single crest is not itself a wave wiggling; the crest is a continual symbol of energy signature;

When I asked about how to think of a single photons frequency, maybe there was some confusion, I still dont know what to think about it or what was said;

But if we imagine an event which creates a lot of photons, lots of stones dropped in the pond; or a very massive boulder dropped in, I suppose the frequency of multiple photons would be related to the distance between concentric circles?

Or the height of the crest relative to the rest level, would represent the energy, and therefore frequency?

posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 02:58 PM

originally posted by: mbkennel

"There is no other answer known other than "the electromagnetic field is an experimentally verified property of Nature, apparently created by the Big Bang and whose properties have been constant throughout existence, and cannot be derived as a consequence of any deeper theory or phenomena." "

"Some of the problems in the science of theoretical fundamental physics exist because people like you believe this"- me

I don't believe that to be true because I want it to be so, or am unwilling to consider the opposite, but because experimental results seem to say so.

What I objected to about your " statement " , because you use the term 'electromagnetic field' but it is not entirely defined or understood; so you are saying... oh I guess I also have a problem because you say ' there is no other answer known', which is my problem, I know that what is known is incomplete, so I do not want to accept all that is known is this term, and then I am trying to ask as many physical questions about it as I can imagine, to attempt to get closer to knowing more about what is not known, and you are just saying, the EM field exists; I still do not understand physically in what way it exists, I understand relatively physically in what way an apple exists, and a person, and a tv, and a computer, and acts of chemistry and biology, but to me truly understanding the universe from a purely physical stand point, as in moving objectivity, interacting objectivity, interacting objects, I do not have complete knowledge of fundamental physics no. The EM field is one of the big interesting aspects of physics, I have questions about it; the questions cannot be answered by telling me 'the EM field exists'.

You seem unwilling to accept that there could be fundamental properties not derivable from others, and that humans have successfully understood them apparently correctly thanks to modern theory, technology and experiment, and that your discomfort with the theory is only a result of your intellectual discomfort and not an actual problem in the theory.

No, I have asked plenty of questions, in my most recent response to you, that show that you too do not fully comprehend what you mean by EM field.

The historical course of physics has been to discern underlying laws and principles which explain other diverse phenomena, and that has been highly successful. Electricity and magnetism and optics appeared in the 1600's to be experimentally diverse phenomena, and yet now we know they are all part of the same underlying property. It's not that scientists are unwilling to consider something else---very much to the contrary they would love to find some deeper explanation. But, the difference between physics and speculation and mumbo jumbo is

Whenever I ask a lot of questions, and you come across ones you cant answer, when you realize that I am asking good and righteous questions that expose some of the mysteries of human knowledge and ignorance, you attempt to purely attack me for asking questions, I can only presume ones you cannot answer.
edit on 29-2-2016 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 03:13 PM

originally posted by: mbkennel

"Is a real quantum field everywhere in reality, or just in theory?

If so, what does that mean, what does it mean that there really exists a quantum field everywhere?"

To answer that question, one has to turn it into a question which could be answered:

How would one experimentally tell the difference between a quantum field existing everywhere, or one existing only in some places?

One result would be that in some parts of the universe, some particle interactions which depend on that field take place, but in other ones they don't, just because.

Experimentally, this has never been observed: particle accelerators always show the same set of potential interactions if the conditions are the same. There is never any question of "whether the X field is operative here, or at this moment in time."

I would have no problem accepting that a real physical EM material (I wont call it field, because I do not call air, field)
exists everywhere throughout space; That is why I have been asking questions about its potential physical characteristics, like its density, if it is singular or plural, if it can be broken, can it bend, if it has a rest mass; and I do not entirely ask these questions because I do not have my certain opinions on these questions meanings and answers, but I ask to see what you will say, to get your comprehension of these things, so then I can further question, and arrive at places where you do not understand these things; not understand in terms of how well you understand exactly what you read, but how well what you read and what you think, can possibly equal a real physical reality.

I guess part of my desire is, if a real EM exists throughout the universe (like real air exists pretty much everywhere along earths surface) then one ought to treat it like the real object it must be, just as air is real object, you treat EM field as if its sort of real, not really, sort of physical not really, sort of energetic sort of massive not really, sort of virtual;

If EM exists at all points in space; Some points are currently photons, most points are not currently photons, because the volume of the universe is likely much larger than quantity of photons (?), anyway;

There must be in some respects, rest mass of the EM field?

If the EM field is real, existing, and resting... It must be something, and something in some sense must have mass;

The photon is just this EM field moving (like wind is air field moving),

The photons energy must be related to the EM fields rest mass; though I know it is more difficult then that, because there would be other mechanical energy aspects (potentially more related to the water, than the wind, but both of these analogies we are familiar with in relation to gravity so both are likely offish fundamentally on that account alone)(though light is intimately related to gravity as well, in terms of the bending; are there particles whose path are not bent by gravity?)

edit on 29-2-2016 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:07 PM

posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:10 PM
You're still wanting it to be an 'aether', thus you want it to have mass like air, because you're envisioning EM propagating in it like sound in air, right?

Doesn't work that way.

posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:43 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam
You're still wanting it to be an 'aether', thus you want it to have mass like air, because you're envisioning EM propagating in it like sound in air, right?

Doesn't work that way.

I dont have any desire but to work towards comprehending the truth;

Pink dots represent the EM field that exist at every point in space, there should be black dot next to it representing the gravity field that exists at every point in space, the other fields next to that if youd fancy

posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 01:13 AM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

I dont have any desire but to work towards comprehending the truth;

I'm just trying to understand why you're asking the questions you are - what mass is it, what particles is it made of.

You're envisioning it as being aether ,or something similar, right?

posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 01:35 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

I dont have any desire but to work towards comprehending the truth;

I'm just trying to understand why you're asking the questions you are - what mass is it, what particles is it made of.

You're envisioning it as being aether ,or something similar, right?

The gravity field must be composed of something;

The EM field must be composed of something;

Both of these are said to exist at all points in space;

Where there are no photons, the EM field is said to still be something that exists, where there are no photons;

Where there is no mass or curvature, the gravity field is said to still be something that exists;

You can call it something else, but that which exists must have some characteristic like mass;

I always thought the term Aether was used to evoke the thought of a real material substance like medium that existed at all points in space;

If you believe EM field is something that really exists and exists at all points in space, if you believe gravity field is something that really exists and exists at all points in space; you believe something extremely close to the general concept of Aether;

People believed there was likely material medium that could not be seen with the eye, that was the reason gravity worked and EM worked;

The gravity field is a material medium that can not be seen with the eye, the EM field is a material medium that cannot usually be seen with the eye (only when a specific oscillation of the medium slams in the eye).

These discussions and concepts are nearly infinitely more important than a single word, and the emotional connotation you place on it.

To answer your question, I do not care about the word or concept Aether (I think it is a cool word, because the rare Ae combo, but thats it), I believe from what I have heard, some well thinking physicists believe a real material medium exists at all points in space in the way of gravity and EM.

new topics

top topics

80