Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

the ke of the hydrant may be zero but it pe increases.

According to your definition of kinetic energy including stationary objects with time-varying forces applied, isn't that exactly the case with the fire hydrant? So are you saying your definition of kinetic energy was flawed? Where did you even get that definition, from a book, or just made it up to troll here?

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
a reply to: moebius
a reply to: DanielKoenig

And you see, or we will see, the problem with asking someone who suggests they fundamentally comprehend how a photon close to actually exists and so attempting to probe their understanding by asking such questions with such analogies as I have, almost forces them to admit things that somehow at once must logically conclusionly be attached to their assumptions, and at the same time contradict their declared stark and barren, surface, depth lacking, probeless worldview.

Hmm, yes... ok... the universe must be full of jump ropes then...

What I see from you are flawed assumptions that tiny things beyond your ability to directly perceive must behave the same way as larger objects you're more familiar with like jumpropes or wooden balls painted yellow. As long as you cling to such false assumptions you will continue to be confused and think that everybody else in the world doesn't get it, when it's actually you who doesn't get it because you are strongly clinging to wrong assumptions.

It's only when you let go of those false assumptions that you can begin to understand the true nature of electrons and photons. One of my physics professors referred to them as "wavicles", a term I see rarely but I like it because there are no large objects like jumpropes that you can refer to as a "wavicle". If you keep trying to put them into a box of either wave or particle such as objects you are familiar with, you will fail, because experiments have clearly shown they simply cannot be classified as just one or just the other, which the term "wavicle" in some sense captures.

We could ask why jumpropes and wooden balls don't behave like wavicles. The simple answer is because they're not wavicles.

a reply to: DanielKoenig

Hi Daniel - I believe you can think of a photon as a wave that has a superimposed amplitude function. The amplitude function results in behaviors something like that of a ball, and the internal wave results in behaviors something like those of a rope. Whether the light is red or blue depends on the frequency of the internal wave. Where the light is located as well as the size of the photon depend on the center and spread of the amplitude function, respectively. A photon can have any number of oscillations within the envelope, the issue is that a single photon must have a quantized energy of hf, where f is the frequency and h is Planck's constant. (You can get the same energy with a longer wave train of less amplitude without changing the carrier frequency.)

There is also the issue of quantum collapse. It is my belief that the localization of the amplitude function corresponds to delta-p times delta-x = hbar/2, where delta-x is the spread of the amplitude function AFTER measuring it with a probe that exchanges an energy of delta-p during the probing. Your question, and Arbitrageur's sound status quo answer (photons aren't fully balls nor strings), each deal with the heart of quantum mechanics philosophy. Please take a look at the discussion Arbitrageur, mbkennel and I had on this topic starting on page 287 of this most excellent thread. We had a good discussion about this issue back then.

To all - I continue to make progress on my aether model, and if I do ever get a solution I will certainly post about it. However, it is proving (as it did before) to be rather difficult! The aim is to start with simple classical assumptions and then show how those assumptions lead to both Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz force equation. In terms of potentials, the Lorentz force equation has three terms. I've come up with models for Maxwell and each of the three Lorentz terms, but the problem was that the models were not fully consistent with each other. So on the whole things fell apart, but there was a lot of value there and I think I was close. I've now come up with a tweaking of the modeling that I think might be consistent with all the equations, but I can never say for certain until the math is rigorously worked through, and this is still a work in progress.

Merry Christmas to all!

What the wavelength is, or how it manifests, is simply the energy of the particle. Photons do not have all the same energy.

So photons don't really have a property of colour, they simply have energy. It is this energy which may trigger a reaction with the different cells in our eyes which basically give us sensitivity to the energy. our interpretation of this is... colour.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
What I see from you are flawed assumptions that tiny things beyond your ability to directly perceive must behave the same way as larger objects you're more familiar with like jumpropes or wooden balls painted yellow.

Things must behave someway, and I am confident I can comprehend AT THE VERY LEAST AN INCREASING APPROXIMATION IF EVEN VIA ANALOGY OF HOW ANY THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE THING CAN POSSIBLY EXIST.

We are talking about a simple ''object'', one of the smallest and simplest things... we are not even talking about a geometric shape which has 10000 lines asking me to envision this.

We are not talking about asking to envision at once the momentum and direction of each water particle of a pond when a cannonball is fired into it.

We are talking about 1 single thing. 1 single thing. 1 single small thing.

For you to so persistently suggest that it is possible for me to be able to grasp, how 1 single small simple thing exists, because I think there can be a good, and a very good, and a better, and a better better, way to analogously approximate it, is preposterous and intellectually dishonest, deflective, and shallow on your part.

I am working for the meat and potatoes, lets talk about it chief, instead of giving me your same "no no no, about you, about you, I think this, I thnk this about you, lets not talk about the photon, and what you are saying, I think this about you, I think you are wrong, lets draw attention to how you cant possibly understand the photon, and it cant be approximated, there is no way the most intelligent people working on this stuff over the past 40 years could close to simply approximate how a photon might actually looks... because... I just in my head cannot properly envision how a photon looks... in my head it just looks like numbers and letters and a graph.... of course a photon, em radiation, is not a classical thing, or cannot be better and better approximated in crude, and less crude drawings, or classical analogies, because em radiation in my head looks like numbers and letters on a graph,.... I know... listen, I know the photon, em radiation, behaves nothing like anything you can possibly imagine or think of... why? because I cant imagine or think of it... thats how I know... and I dont try... so you shouldnt try... because you cant... because I havent, and I cant.... and if I cant think about what a photon might look like, how could I possibly tell you if you were write, if you provided an analogy that approximated... listen... really smart scientists said that how EM radiation exists cannot be shown, and how it exists and moves is nothing like anything material, or existing you can imagine.... its not like the whole universe is covered in horizontal ropes that cross the whole universe... it is not like the universe is covered in vertical ropes that span it.... it is not like the universe is covered in vertical and horizontal ropes, of which when the horizontal is accelerated, it causes a nearby vertical to accelerate, which causes nearby horizontal to accelerate, which causes near by vertical to accelerate... its not like em radiation is like if you took all those ropes and chopped them up into little line segments, or little nubs, and then stuffed a bunch of them into stars, and then let the stars spew them out... and its not like in those cases where its not like there are vertical and horizontal ropes everywhere that wave, that those are made of out particles.... its not like those little cut ropes, can just be tossed this way or that and like a snake or caterpillar wave themselves.... that is certainly not how EM radiation actually exists... you cant imagine or think about anything like it that approaches... like if there is close to a circle... you can say.... that is not actually a circle... but it is closer to being a circle than being a trapezoid... you cant say.... that analgy is not actually 100% congreuent to how em radiation actually exists, but this one is closer than that one... because I know in my head how EM radiation actually exists, but I just cant tell or express or draw it.. and so I also cant say: that analgy is far from being congruent to how em radiation actually exists... that analogy is closer to being accurate... that analogy has this aspect accurate.... lets ponder and think and work and argue and discuss how we can create a closer and closer to accuracy analogy.. you just gotta embrace the mystery mannn, its like sooo crazy and weird and cool hehehehehe, isnt it kinda cool how we cant really know... how we can tell our friends and family: the fundamental and most commonly experienced aspect of your existence cannot be even approached to be accurately depicted and understood.... because I understand and comprehend it, and I can tell you when you do not... but I cannot approach offering any imagery or accurate analogy as to how em radiation actually exists... it gives me this power, I feel, that noone can really judge me, and nothing really matters, because people just cant even imagine the superr cool and weirdd and bizzarree and wowwowowo twilight zone weirrdddd simulation computerrr energy juiceeeee jello weird matter quasi plasma planck space bose einstein condesente quark gluon plasma electronic aetherrr fielddddd juiceeee splurgeeee gooooooo em radiation is like gooey marble wavess heheheh ropes all over waving up and down its frequency wave its wavelength up and down, side to side... a makes b makes a1 makes b1 makes a2 makes b2... ask me to show you I will make up some absolute nonsensical garbage... its a secrett... topppp secretttttt cant let the russians no how a photon really looksss...... goooooo juiceeee plasmaaa taking up all planck space a pico second micro motion movements fraction waves dimension tangent vorticey vector tangent balls or waves balls and waves all over... theres balls everywhere theres waves everywhere... theres balls someplace theres waves someplace.... you cant even really imagine balls or waves.... these are nothing like the balls and waves you can imagine.... I can imagine them and see them... but I cant show them... I cant talk about them.. I can describe them, but when you point out all the inconsistencies in my descriptions and ask all your questions that poke holes in my understanding and vision I will say your logic is wrong, your understanding is wrong, I see perfectly in my head, and what you say is thinking classically, and in my head I see the perfect spooky quantum truth.... waves made of balls, balls made of waves.... gooey juice... plasma.... everywhere... pico plancks.... waving balls.... little balls... but not like balls or waves you can ever think of.. nothing like you can imagine or have ever seen... the concept of a wave applies perfect!! and does not apply at all!!"

What is the speed of no light?

a reply to: khnum

Nothing per nothing.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
because experiments have clearly shown they simply cannot be classified as just one or just the other, which the term "wavicle" in some sense captures.

Exactlylylylylylylylyly. Everytime an experiment occurs it tampers with the purity of the Em radiation as it exists. How do, how have, experiments aided in the admittedly difficult task... lets take the time to really appreciate the difficulty of this challenge.... I DO NOT THINK ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO APPROACH UNDERSTANDING. The challenge is. We have never seen Em radiation (lolololoo...its all we have ever seen).

It is like a rare wild animal. We have experiments, where we catch glimpses of this creature in captivity. All of our experiments involve bludgeoning it to death. All our experiments involve starving it. And slamming it into the wall to see how its innards (doesnt have any ; ) splatter against the sensitive electro screen.

And then there comes the theorizing... we have detected the wild entity by proxy... by tampering... by interupting....

What can we do but educatedly guess and argue... how it exists as itself... when we are not interacting with it?

We could ask why jumpropes and wooden balls don't behave like wavicles. The simple answer is because they're not wavicles.

The essential concept of WAVE is: Up down Up Down Up Down Up Down (or left right left right left right left right), or (Hump/crest made and staying up but moving forward (as in single up tick holding rope).

Tell me if I am missing any raw conceptual datum compared to the general principled concept of WAVE.

Everything that is labeled WAVE, must have some relation to the subsection of any of these possible components of WAVE.

Just as to call something an APPLE, requires that something to have the qualities that fall under the definition of the term APPLE.

So, for the term WAVE, to be nudged toward the term EM RADIATION, nudged toward it, and draped over it, or rested under it (though yes i messed that up it would be other way around: EM radiation would be under the General Concept Of The Totality Of All Possible Types Of that Which Can Be Considered A Wave or Possessing Wave Like Properties: The general concept of Wave being at the top of this hierarchy of distinction):

Wave
quality a
quality b
quality c
quality d
....
...
quality z
etc.
etc.
etc.

If Em radiation does not have any ACTUAL PHYSICAL REAL RELATION IN REAL PHYSICAL REALITY SPACE to any qualities of WAVE.... the term WAVE should never be anywhere near the term EM radiation.

Same with the term PARTICLE.
What are all the possible correct most highest human super human intelligently authoritatively concluded qualities of THE CONCEPT OF A PARTICLE:

quality 1
quality 2
quality 3
etc.
etc.
etc.

What Qualities does EM radiation have... not when you detect it in experiment A, or B, or Q.... I have only been curious, in all my talks and rants and meltdowns and question sessions, have only be curious about how EM radiation actually exists actually actually as itself, traveling through space, independent of experimental tamper.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hey thumb rule Fluctuation = Energy and Voila you have learnt something new here,. And you call it trolling Eh
Carry on

a reply to: DanielKoenig

Done with the breakdowns and rants yet?

Your last statement is a circular argument

"I have only been curious, in all my talks and rants and meltdowns and question sessions, have only be curious about how EM radiation actually exists actually actually as itself, traveling through space, independent of experimental tamper."

Which by your own definition is absolutely impossible to do and for you to accept any results because for you, by definition, experiments should not be performed on said entity. Despite your long winded ramblings about what you know/think you know, or finger pointing at other people, you appear to simply believe that if you ask a question that you already believe there isn't an answer to you can either make something up and not be proven wrong, or just hit back with the "Ah but you dont know... no one can know" as though it means you positively contributed.

What you do, is you ask a question, and then follow it with what you think, when people tell you that your analogies are or assumptions are not correct or not a good way of imagining it, you go off on a rant... makes me wonder why you actual ask the question in the first place?

The photon, and its nature has been studied for a very long time. its conceptual appearance in someones mind is is actually rather unimportant so I find it both amusing and rather strange when people get so worked up on this conceptual image fitting their world view when basically the image in your mind of what a photon is is absolutely irrelevant to all of the observations we have made down the years, all the uses of photons, and all the tricks we know we can get them to do.

If we adhere to Hume, Mach and Einstein (positivism) as the ultimate arbiters of truth, then the responses to Daniel by ErosA433 and Arbitraguer are spot-on. And I will concede the point of the Hume argument - that all we can really be sure of is empirical observation. I also concede that the Hume argument leads logically to where physics is today. But where I diverge is that just because we can't be sure there is an underlying physical reality represented by models, that does not imply that such a reality does not exist.

Daniel has a knack for some truly epic rants, and as always I read things here in full, and enjoyed doing so. And he is presenting in the form of a primal scream a protest against the approach of Hume, Mach and Einstein. ErosA433 and Arbitrageur are simply replying from the standpoint of Hume, Mach and Einstein, so we get into a bit of a feedback loop.

I retain my belief that both approaches (positivism and classical models) can offer a route to the advance of mankind.

I have offered above a simple model for the photon, along with a quantum mechanical interpretation. I believe the model is fully consistent with all empirical observations and so should satisfy the positivists here. It should also provide what Daniel seeks. If anyone sees any flaw, please let me know. I am always open to the fact that not only can Hume, Mach and Einstein be improved upon, but that Larson can be improved as well.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hey thumb rule Fluctuation = Energy and Voila you have learnt something new here,. And you call it trolling Eh
Carry on

You said fluctuation of a force applied to a stationary object gives the stationary object kinetic energy, did you not? You mentioned kinetic energy specifically, not energy in general.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

kinetic energy is when something moves of if stationary any forces emanating or acting fluctuate. meaning wrt time. so how does a stationary atoms nucleus posses any kind of kinetic energy?

Are you still claiming that's true, or are you now admitting stationary objects don't have kinetic energy (except for the previously discussed internal kinetic energy related to the objects temperature).

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
What Qualities does EM radiation have... not when you detect it in experiment A, or B, or Q.... I have only been curious, in all my talks and rants and meltdowns and question sessions, have only be curious about how EM radiation actually exists actually actually as itself, traveling through space, independent of experimental tamper.

Humans have some experience figuring out how things work without any experimental interference. For example we figured out that during periods of drought, sacrificing virgins to the rain god was a good idea because then we hoped the rain god would be pleased with the offering and make it rain.

It didn't occur to us to set up an experiment, with 20 test villages making sacrifices, and 20 control villages not making sacrifices, to see if the sacrifices are making any difference, we just knew there was a rain god making decisions about whether to make it rain or not and so we acted accordingly, trying to keep the rain god pleased.

Now I know you're asking about EM radiation and not talking about rain gods, but the point is that performing experiments and observations to better understand the natural world is what has advanced our understanding. Without the experiments we are back to "my intuition tells me this...." which history has shown time and again that our intuition can be very flawed.

What Qualities does EM radiation have... not when you detect it in experiment A, or B, or Q.... I have only been curious, in all my talks and rants and meltdowns and question sessions, have only be curious about how EM radiation actually exists actually actually as itself, traveling through space, independent of experimental tamper.

We went back and forth on the nature of light for hundreds of years before we had performed enough experiments to deepen our understanding, and before the experiments it wasn't resolved. Some argued light was a particle, others argued that it was a wave. So, if you remove the experiments, you remove whatever understanding we have and are back to people arguing their different points of view, which wasn't very productive if it just resulted in chasing our tail and never coming up with a resolution to the question.

Are you the same guy that talked about spending a day with Nima Arkani-Hamed to get him to help you re-write all the laws of physics? I can tell you he's open to the idea that we have some wrong ideas and he wants to come up with better, right ideas, but he's very focused on comparing whatever he comes up with to experiment because how else can you rule out wrong ideas which don't agree with experiment? Use intuition instead, which gave us rain gods as the source of rain?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Lol kinetic energy converted to potential energy is energy just the same. some zitter bewegung or movement because of temp is not knetic energy of any consequence
so now where exactly is the kinetic energy in a stationary atoms nucleus

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Lol kinetic energy converted to potential energy is energy just the same. some zitter bewegung or movement because of temp is not knetic energy of any consequence
so now where exactly is the kinetic energy in a stationary atoms nucleus

If we can't agree on a definition of kinetic energy there's not much point in discussing what does or doesn't have it. Now it sounds like you are saying kinetic energy and potential energy are the same because one can be converted to the other?

Yes one can be converted to the other, and both are types of energy, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Words have meanings and we mean one thing when we say "kinetic energy" and we mean something else when we say "potential energy". Again I ask you, where's the source for your definition of kinetic energy, or did you just make up an incorrect definition?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Lol kinetic energy converted to potential energy is energy just the same. some zitter bewegung or movement because of temp is not knetic energy of any consequence
so now where exactly is the kinetic energy in a stationary atoms nucleus

If we can't agree on a definition of kinetic energy there's not much point in discussing what does or doesn't have it. Now it sounds like you are saying kinetic energy and potential energy are the same because one can be converted to the other?

Yes one can be converted to the other, and both are types of energy, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Words have meanings and we mean one thing when we say "kinetic energy" and we mean something else when we say "potential energy". Again I ask you, where's the source for your definition of kinetic energy, or did you just make up an incorrect definition?

Im an engineer and im the source.
You specifically mentioned kinetic energy in protons etc, make up 90 % of their mass. My intrigue was how can it be called kinetic energy since there are no fluctuating forces inside the atom or molecules of u 238, and this kinetic energy shows up on a weighing scale which still intrigues me.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Hey, take Einsteins name out of that, hes on my team. Define the term "Physical" , in your use: Underlying physical reality.

And then tell me on what grounds would a person say: I think, or I know, there is no underlying physical reality.

What is meant by that? Simply that "everything is always moving".

Is water physical? Is ice more physical than water? Is steam less physical than water and ice?


I am ignorant of the fundamental true nature of actual fundamental particular reality.....therefore, I feel confident (why, on what grounds? ignorance?), in saying actual true fundamental reality does not exist.

There is no reason to bring up "does reality exist?", "does anything besides pure nothing exist?"...that is a given.

There is that which exists besides pure nothing.

It is that (along with its interactions across expanses of nothing) which is called: Reality, that which exists, universe.


When EM radiation 'leaves' the body of the sun and travels to Earth:

We are not viewing it, observing it, seeing it, on its travel.

(That must mean it does not exist!)

After its travel.

After its travel, of which we are not seeing it, it hits a detector:

It (whatever this it is) hits the detector and leaves signs, and clues.

Then they (whoever they are) say:

We know...we think... we think we can know... we think we can guess... we guess we think we can know... we are confident we can be close to confidence in thinking we can guess we can close to know that we can close to guess we can be confident in knowing we can close to guess with close to confidence we can close to think we can know....

That when we dont see...when we arent looking... when the EM radiation is not being detected... IT... That which hits the detector...

Exists like: quality a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, a1, a2, b5, subsection c...

Because......

We think the butler did the murder in the foyer with a candlestick.... because.........

We think with our absolute ignorance of, absolutely blind to how that which we call, EM radiation, travels from the suns body to earth precisely, exactly like: ______________________

While it is (we assume, we know with close certainty) traveling from the suns body to the earths body:

We cannot see it..... we do not see how it is traveling.... we do not see how it exists and moves.....

But we think we know how it exists and moves... and we think we are 50%, 60%, 70%,80%,99% sure we are spot on?

because.......because.......

Lots of context clues.

And those context clues tell us: This _______________ is what is traveling from the sun to the earth.

And This _____________________ what we call EM radiation, looks and moves like this _____________________

And we are this ____% certain we know how it looks and moves when we cant and have never seen what This is.


Hume was a skeptic, but not (and this is why I say Einstein is on my side) when I close my eyes the moon ceases to exist in reality.

Not: Just because I cant see reality means reality does not exist.

Reality exists in some way. The exact way it exists.

Minds can more and less approach constructing in them (and on lots of computers and papers) maps, keys, approximations as to how reality actually exists.

Thats what physics was, is and should be. Or ok, stickler, thats a main aspect of what physics was, is and should be, the other main aspect being practicality: can ya make da big stick hit da enemy on da head harder? oki doke dats da truth then. Thats reality.

a reply to: delbertlarson

My entire, crux, has to do with the suggested belief that: EM Field is actually something that exists, and what it means is that "there exists things: EM Things" all through out space:

Started from the (at least I believe I have heard this declared with authoritative confidence) declaration that: EM radiation is generated when an electron is accelerated.

That simple concept forced me down a path of questioning. Perhaps that statement (EM radiation is generated when an electron is accelerated) was not appropriately stated, perhaps it was shorthanded, and purposefully or not limited.

Perhaps it was only directed to the condition of: After an atom absorbs EM radiation: Eventually, the electron which is kicked to a higher energy level; Drops back: This dropping back, being acceleration, and it is after that which the atom/electron propagates EM radiation:

And it is only focusing on that mechanism, by which the statement that tortured me, was made:

So when else is EM radiation made? So when else is EM radiation propagated? By what other causes?


Because if I take the statement, as being the crown, and whole, of the defining capstone of EM Radiation production and existence: The only thing we know about the generation of EM radiation is that it coincides with electron acceleration (pardon me, is it charged particle acceleration in general? An accelerated proton produces EM radiation? If a single quark could be accelerated would it produce EM radiation? You see the essence of my crux is: Where does EM radiation come from? Where and how is it produced? Does the same quantity and quality of EM radiation always exist?)

Then this leads me to ask something like: If you could theoretically hold a single electron between your fingers, and you existed in a vacuum in between the milky way and the nearest galaxy: And you accelerated the electron up and down up and down 1000000 times: Would you be creating EM radiation?



When stars were first made, did they happen to be made in ores of EM radiation: and the stars like pinata's (making the distinction between baryonic matter, and EM RAdiation: When I say the star, or star, I do not mean EM radiation: I refer to only the atoms which make up the star, nucleus, electrons (we can ignore gluons for now, I hope): so imagine all these atoms, like a cage, like a net, like lattices of lattices: did this giant thick 3/4d cage of atoms, happen to big bally coelesce surrounding a huge field of ""EM Radiation"" "stuff" "substance":

And then as the electrons and nucleus' left one another and connected with one another: this jostled all the EM Radiation Stuff, outwards away from the net/cage/atoms? In all directions outwards?

Or, like the 'holding an electron in your finger' example: like what I thought was meant by the concept of 'field', and 'EM radiation is generated by the acceleration of an electron', and why the concept of aether was thought of, and why I make analogies to water:

EM Radiation Stuff: Is like the medium of water: if the medium of water existed everywhere.

Imagine a fish. It is entirely surrounded by water.

Imagine only the ocean existed. Imagine the entire universe was just a single ocean of water.

But in the water there are still rocks and sand and corral and fish.

Is the EM Radiation Substance Field: Like that? (well, I believe your aether answer is: yes, thats the meaning of aether).

So in that case, stars: atoms: would coalesce into giant balls: and the atoms would lose and gain parts of their neighbors: and this movement of charged particles would always disturb the aether/em radiation field that exists all around and in the star ball:

The electrons of the atoms in the stars movements would be like your finger holding the electron moving it up and down up and down, would be like taking your finger and leaning over your filled bathtub and dipping it in and out and in and out and in and out: would be like being fully submerged in the ocean and taking your hand and moving it up and down and up and down: all of these forcing the propagation of the surrounding "Stuff Medium" away from the point of your mass fingers acceleration.

It is either: Something like that is the case: or not.

And the or not, would entail, that Em radiation would then be: not part of some all encompassing medium: but more similar to how atoms, an electron, nucleus, exists separate from everything else, as its own singular entity:

A local area of EM radiation in either potential, would be "separate" in that it is "different than its immediate surroundings",

On the beaches shore, watching the waves: It is a single medium, but there are definitive 'separate' waves... though they are not separate from the medium, they are separate from each other, and identifiable.

Different to how multiple baseballs exist. Baseballs are not attached to the same "baseball substance medium".

How do we as scientists and physicists approach determination, of whether Em Radiation exists like separate baseballs exist (or self propagating waving snakes: who are also made of particles!!): Or like the all encompassing ocean medium exists?

a reply to: DanielKoenig

Response to the first post above:

Define the term "Physical" , in your use: Underlying physical reality.

My view is that nature consists of physical entities that have actual existence and defining attributes (like size, amplitudes, wavelengths, mass and charge) and that those entities interact through the laws of physics. The job of the physicist is to uncover those physical laws, entities, and attribute definitions. We should be able to describe such entities in words, quantify the words into math that represents measurements of the attributes, and reach logical conclusions about the entities that in turn result in the emirical observations of our experiments. These entities should be more than just terms within equations, and that is where the underlying physical reality comes into play. The entities and their attributes should really exist. Our equations should approximate the entities and their attributes in our description of nature. We should be able to envision a picture in our minds about what these objects are. Importantly, each object will have its own existence, and at the elementary level each instance of an object will have only a single existence. (No multiple universe hypothesis to describe the problem between quantum mechanics and relativity.)

And then tell me on what grounds would a person say: I think, or I know, there is no underlying physical reality.

I don't believe anyone is really saying that exactly. The positivist view is not that there is no underlying physical reality, but instead that the whole question is irrelevant since all we can really put our trust in is empirical observations. In the positivist approach, all that is really important are the equations and the results those equations predict. The equations must predict the experimental results, but the additional concepts mentioned in my paragraph above are not needed. With a positivist viewpoint, we can accept a multiple universe theory, since it is just as viable as any other underlying theory, and it is consistent with both relativity and quantum mechanics. We can accept wave/particle duality because the equations sometimes exhibit one aspect and sometimes the other, and we need not ask any deeper questions. The math and experiment are all that are needed. To ask for more than that is to take one back to the primitive pre-Einstein thinking of the 1800's. (Yet this is something I think we should still consider!)

When EM radiation 'leaves' the body of the sun and travels to Earth: We are not viewing it, observing it, seeing it, on its travel. (That must mean it does not exist!)

My view is the opposite - I believe it does exist. Although I admit that we can't be totally sure of that which we do not measure, I believe there is an existence separate of measurement, and that existence does not go away just because we fail to measure it. My view is that a tree falling in the woods makes a sound even if no one is there to hear it. This ties in with what I mean about an underlying physical reality. My view however contradicts the results of Bell's Theorem tests if we accept special relativity, and so special relativity is inconsistent with my viewpoint. But relativity is just a theory, and there are others that do just as good a job (one by me) in predicting the results of experiment as does the special theory.

Also importantly, in your photon leaving the sun, is the issue of its interactions along its way. In my philosophy of quantum mechanics it is not a human observer, nor even the experimental apparatus, that causes the collapse of the wave function. Rather, it is any interaction at all. As your photon leaves the sun it will encounter residual gas atoms all along its way, even though many of the interactions will divert it only slightly. Each of these interactions will collapse the dx of that photon to a value of dx = hbar/2dp, where dp is the momentum kick to the photon caused by one of those slight interactions, and these small kicks will affect its existence all along the way to us.

I still believe my answer some posts above - that the envelope surrounding the wave packet acts somewhat like a particle and that the internal wave is what is responsible for the wave-like behavior of the photon - is a sound answer to your initial query. And I also believe it is consistent with all known experimental observations.

Response to the second post above:

EM radiation results from the acceleration of charge, any charge, positive or negative. I was struck as an undrgrad that the frequency of light emitted in atomic decays matches the frequency of the oscillation as described by quantum mechanics as one state transitions to another. When considering RF cavities, I have viewed them as electrons sloshing back and forth in the surrounding metal to generate the fields. Yes, if you could shake an electron up and down it would produce EM radiation. Or you can absorb the radiation and shake the electrons - that is essentially what is done in radio antennae.

The aether isn't exactly like water, as the aether must be a solid to sustain transverse waves, but other than that, yes, the aether exists in all (at least all that we know nearby) space and is capable of sustaining waves in it and those waves are EM radiation and your descrption is, in the large, not too far off.

My aether model identifies EM radiation as waves upon this solid aether. You can have a wave packet that has significant oscillations only inside of an envelope of small volume, and that would be a photon. Charge is identified as small pieces of the aether that are no longer attached to the solid. (They get broken off when enough energy is supplied.) I have shown how such an aether results in a rigorous derviation of Maxwell's Equations and I am presently working on deriving the Lorentz force equation through slight tweaking of the original postulates. (But the tweaks don't quite work yet. This has not been an easy thing to solve!)

a reply to: DanielKoenig

One more thing - while you can't likely hold a single electron between your fingers and shake it, what you can do is run a comb through your dry hair, which will charge it up with static electricity, and then shake it up and down, creating aether waves (EM radiation) with your now newly-assembled magic-aether-wand.

originally posted by: DanielKoenig



So when else is EM radiation made? So when else is EM radiation propagated? By what other causes?


Because if I take the statement, as being the crown, and whole, of the defining capstone of EM Radiation production and existence: The only thing we know about the generation of EM radiation is that it coincides with electron acceleration (pardon me, is it charged particle acceleration in general? An accelerated proton produces EM radiation? If a single quark could be accelerated would it produce EM radiation? You see the essence of my crux is: Where does EM radiation come from? Where and how is it produced? Does the same quantity and quality of EM radiation always exist?)

If you take the Quantum Field Theory approach EM radiation = Excitations of the photon field or adding energy to the photon field.

If you accelerated a quark you would probably get an excitation of the gluon field. But a photon can cause a quark to vibrate or an excitation of the photon field can be transferred to the quark field.

be made in ores of EM radiation: and the stars like pinata's (making the distinction between baryonic matter, and EM RAdiation: When I say the star, or star, I do not mean EM radiation: I refer to only the atoms which make up the star, nucleus, electrons (we can ignore gluons for now, I hope): so imagine all these atoms, like a cage, like a net, like lattices of lattices: did this giant thick 3/4d cage of atoms, happen to big bally coelesce surrounding a huge field of ""EM Radiation"" "stuff" "substance":

And then as the electrons and nucleus' left one another and connected with one another: this jostled all the EM Radiation Stuff, outwards away from the net/cage/atoms? In all directions outwards?

Yes, why not?

Again it's all just energy. With all the matter being lumped together in a star you get strong gravitational forces and then fusion and some of the vast energy inside each atom is released. Much of the energy is released as photons.

The fields for all of the particles are already everywhere in space-time. You just need some energy transferred into a field and the associated particle is created.
In every atom there is a huge amount of bound energy/rest mass.

a reply to: joelr

define energy: "Again it's all just energy... and some of the vast energy inside each atom is released...Much of the energy is released as photons. "

How is the energy released in photons?:

Each Atom.

In what form does 'vast energy' exist in Atom?

In what way, in what form, does 'vast energy', as it exists in the answer to question above, 'release', 'become' photons?


"The fields for all of the particles are already everywhere in space-time. " psychotic video game child statement